Intelligent Design

Top Chemist: “They Just Stare at Me”

Spread the love

Yesterday James Tour, who in 2009 was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world, explained that evolutionists do not understand how evolution could have created life. What’s worse, Tour explains that there is a lack of clarity about this scientific fact. In public, evolutionists insist evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. But in private, they admit there is no such scientific knowledge:  Read more

53 Replies to “Top Chemist: “They Just Stare at Me”

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Thank God for honest chemists.

  2. 2
    ringo says:

    A old friend of mine named Dr. Terrance Christian (archaeologist) once admitted this very same thing. He was asked to teach a class on evolution while working on his masters in Oregon (where he currently lives). He said that he asked his professor (who publicly and dogmatically said that evolution was true) how evolution worked. His professor told him that he had no idea how it all worked. Confusion (or admitting the truth) is always the first step to understanding. The lack of humility when it comes to what we really know will only lead to flawed science.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    OT: Looks like I can finally go back to using Firefox when visiting UD!

  4. 4
    beau says:

    I read about this some months ago. I know Nick Matzke had offered to sit down with Mr Tour and have a discussion concerning evolution. I’m not sure it ever happened, seems the evolution champions disappear when well credentialed scientists question their beliefs.

  5. 5
    Querius says:

    So true, Mung @ 1.

    Ringo wrote:

    Confusion (or admitting the truth) is always the first step to understanding. The lack of humility when it comes to what we really know will only lead to flawed science.

    Nicely stated!

    -Q

  6. 6
    Dionisio says:

    What’s the fuzz about this evolution thing?
    Everyone and their cousins should understand it. It’s very simple, since Charles D. described it so well to the rest of us: in the dry season, the Galapagos finch with short beaks go away on vacation. On the rainy season, the long beaked finch goes away on vacation. Can’t get more clear than that. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand it. So what’s all this discussion about?
    Perhaps it has to do with the gross extrapolation Charlie made from the finch seasonal beaks? Dunno.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    It is interesting to note that Behe’s ‘simple’ falsification of ID is for a Darwinist to empirically demonstrate that Darwinian processes can build a molecular machine,,,

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”
    – Dr Behe in 1997

    ,,,and even though Nick Matzke offered his usual bluff and bluster that building a molecular machine was no problem for Darwinian evolution, no falsification of Dr. Behe’s challenge has been forth coming,,,

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

    Yet, despite this dramatic failure of Darwinian processes to be able to produce even one molecular machine, (of which the cell has thousands), Dr. Tour, through extreme effort, has demonstrated that Intelligence can build sophisticated molecular machines.

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw

    Thus ID has direct empirical confirmation for its claim and Darwinism has nothing but hot air,,,

    Of related note:

    “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
    James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world – Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s

    Though not as sophisticated as Dr. Tour’s machine highlighted in the first video, here are some other examples of intelligence building molecular machines,,,

    (Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video
    https://vimeo.com/36880067

    Virus-inspired DNA nanodevices – video
    https://vimeo.com/91950046

    Making Structures with DNA “Building Blocks” – Wyss institute – video
    https://vimeo.com/68254051

    Examples of molecular machines (molecular switches (or shuttles) and molecular motors) – Synthetic (Made By Chemists)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....r_machines

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Darwinian Blithering – (John C. Wright dismantles David P Barash’s ‘the talk’ piece by piece) – Oct. 14, 2014
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....lithering/

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Conversations with William Dembski–Information All the Way Down – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnVss3QseCw

  10. 10
    chris haynes says:

    In February 2013, Dr. Tour issued a challenge.

    He asked that a credentialed Scientist explain to him how evolution worked chemically.

    There was some chatter that Evolutionary Biologist Nick Matzke would answer the challenge, but I cant find out if that ever happened, or if the challenge was otherwise answered.

    Does anyone here know?

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    chris Haynes, the meeting, as far as I know, never came off. Dr. Matzke let it be known that he was going to send Dr. Tour some literature to compensate for the failed meeting. ,,, In response, I sent a short history, from the Dover trail to the Behe challenge, of Dr. Matzke’s history of ‘literature bluffing’.,,, Dr. Tour expressed shock that someone could be so dishonorable in science.

    As far as I know the meeting still has not taken place.

  12. 12
    franklin says:

    There was some chatter that Evolutionary Biologist Nick Matzke would answer the challenge, but I cant find out if that ever happened, or if the challenge was otherwise answered.

    Yes, the meeting never happened because Dr. Tour refused to allow the meeting to be recorded for use as a teaching aid. One can only wonder why he was so adamant that no recordings be made of the meeting.

  13. 13
    tintinnid says:

    ” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, …”

    Isn’t it convenient that there are no witnesses to Tour’s claim. I could just as easily claim that when I to to an IDist, in private, they admit that ID is just religiously based creationism.

    I challenge anyone to prove my claim wrong.

  14. 14
    Mapou says:

    franklin:

    Yes, the meeting never happened because Dr. Tour refused to allow the meeting to be recorded for use as a teaching aid. One can only wonder why he was so adamant that no recordings be made of the meeting.

    Any references? Or should we just take your word or Matzke’s word for it? After all, Darwinists are paragons of virtue and morality, right?

  15. 15
    franklin says:

    Any references? Or should we just take your word or Matzke’s word for it? After all, Darwinists are paragons of virtue and morality, right?

    sure there are references which were posted here at UD. go look it up!

  16. 16
    tintinnid says:

    Louis: “Any references? Or should we just take your word or Matzke’s word for it”.

    Yet you are perfectly willing to accept Tour’s claim about what chemists say to him in private.

  17. 17
    Mapou says:

    You look it up.

  18. 18
    franklin says:

    You look it up.

    I did! It took about 20 seconds to find both Tour’s insistence that the meeting be private as well as Dr. Matzke’s condition that a recording be made to document the meeting addressing Dr. Tour’s public ‘challenge’.

    Now you give it a try!

  19. 19
    Dr JDD says:

    As per usual whenever Prof Tour is brought up you get someone breaking out the old chesnut:

    “Just because he is an expert in chemistry does not mean he knows what he is talking about outside his field.”

    We see it in the comments on Dr Hunter’s website for this article. We’ve seen it before. But it is an ignorant argument and quite contradictory.

    For any explanation of an observation in science to be true, it must satisfy other laws established in other scientific disciplines. Even more so in the case when an explanation calls to another discipline for its support.

    This as we commonly here from evolutionists “it’s all just chemistry” yet a world class chemist says it doesn’t make sense from a chemistry perspective, I would say he has a right to be heard.

    If I said, “I have found a novel mechanism in the cell that creates energy from nothing” regardless of my compelling evidence you would reject that as we know that energy cannot be created from “nothing” – it defies known observable laws.

    likewise, if an expert in chemistry says that chemicals forming life through naturalistic means goes against everything as a chemist he has learnt and observed, we should listen.

  20. 20
    tintinnid says:

    “If I said, “I have found a novel mechanism in the cell that creates energy from nothing” regardless of my compelling evidence you would reject that as we know that energy cannot be created from “nothing” – it defies known observable laws.”

    Didn’t somebody say that there was no free lunch?

    Nobody would reject this. But they would be right to be very skeptical. As scientists were with cold fusion, and the NASA claim that they found bacteria in Mars meteorites. But in both those cases, the skeptics were proven correct.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    I find it interesting that Darwinists are trying to impugn Dr. Tour’s character who, in honor, wanted the meetings, which were being arranged and paid for by UD readers in the first place, to be private instead of being, as he termed it, ‘for show’, yet these same Darwinists have no qualms whatsoever with the character of the man who has willingly ‘literature bluffed’ on numerous occasions to defend Neo-Darwinism.

    Notes to that effect:

    Nicholas J. Matzke is the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and served an instrumental role in NCSE’s preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
    per Wikipedia

    “A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception”: Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial – audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_03-08_00

    The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010
    http://www.discovery.org/a/14251

    Of related note, the primary piece of evidence, at the Dover trial, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP (Single Nuecleotide Polymorphism) evidence was overturned:

    Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the “Junk DNA” Argument Bites the Dust – Casey Luskin – April 23, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....71421.html

    as noted before, Matzke was instrumental in the same type of ‘literature bluff’ in response to Dr. Behe’s challenge for Darwinists to demonstrate that Darwinian processes can build a molecular machine

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

    Moreover, Matzke issued a several thousand word response, i.e. a literature bluff, to Darwin’s Doubt less than 24 hours after the book had been released to the public. More than a few people found his herculean effort unbelievable,,,

    Regardless of that, Berlinski, as only Berlinski can, served Matzke’s butt back to him on a platter,,,

    A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74221.html
    A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74601.html
    Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75631.html

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Meyer, in a far more ‘nice’ manner, graciously responded to Matzke here,,

    Cladistics Made Easy: Why an Arcane Field of Study Fails to Upset Steve Meyer’s Argument for Intelligent Design
    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2B76JbMQ4
    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZWw18b3nHo
    Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1k

    Thus, since Dr. Tour has actually constructed molecular machines, and Dr. Matzke has demonstrated his willingness to be deceptive in order to defend Darwinian claims, why are the Darwinists on UD so willing to turn a blind eye on Matzke’s past history, and so willing to questions Dr. Tour’s motives for privacy???

    This all reminds me of this verse:

    Matthew 23: 23-24
    ,,,”you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

  23. 23
    ringo says:

    I love this comment from James Tour in his confession about not understanding macroevolution: “If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have”. So, not only is Tour one of the best scientist in the world, but he is humble. That is a combination for a trustworthy source in my opinion. I do not see this kind of humility in Darwinist. The search for knowledge in any field must be seen through the eyes of humility. My experience has shown this too be true. What you see in many colleges across the nation in origin science is “intellectual snobery”. They are predators! If you do not believe me check out some of the reviews on the book, “Darwins Doubt”. You have professors from schools like Brown University who prey upon 5 star reviews for Meyers book. These guys look through a completely different lense when it comes to their research. It is a breath of fresh air to hear a chemist or a biologist with a little bit of humility.

  24. 24
    franklin says:

    why are the Darwinists on UD so willing to turn a blind eye on Matzke’s past history, and so willing to questions Dr. Tour’s motives for privacy???

    When someone makes public challenges they should not be surprised that a respondent to their ‘challenge’ would want to have the meeting recorded for posterity. After all what is there to lose by having the meeting recorded.

    So, yes, everyone should question the motives of a person who makes public challenges and then balks when someone steps up to the plate and wishes a recording of their response to the ‘challenge’. If Dr. Matzke is considered such a putz in the ID camp what is there to fear of any recording of the response?

    Perhaps Dr. tour realizes that he isn’t on such a solid footing and doesn’t want that to get out to the public in light of all of his grandstanding with his ‘challenge’ and his alleged confrontations with the ‘evilutionists’.

  25. 25
    Mapou says:

    Matzke is a freaking weasel and nobody should trust him. We have the internet and the web. If he has evidence to support his stance, lay it out for everybody to see. Why the need for a face to face meeting so that he can use part of what was said for his propaganda? And, as we all know, propaganda is all that the Darwinist weasels have to play with.

  26. 26
    Joe says:

    Does Matzke have some super-secret information that he has been withholding? Why does he have to wait for a meeting with Dr Tour?

    If Matzke had something he would just present it and go from there. However given his history this was just another bluff and all he really has are stories, not science.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Perhaps Dr. tour realizes that he isn’t on such a solid footing and doesn’t want that to get out to the public in light of all of his grandstanding with his ‘challenge’ and his alleged confrontations with the ‘evilutionists’”

    As to a ‘solid footing’ for Darwinism, and you being so confident that Darwinism is on it, perhaps you would like to point all the following mathematicians to the ‘solid mathematical footing’ that Darwinism rests upon so as to demarcate it as a true science instead of a pseudo-science?

    Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science:
    Excerpt:
    1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis
    2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis
    3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’
    4. Information is not reducible to a material basis ,,,
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

    The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....the-day-8/

    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012
    Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56771.html

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity – October 9, 2014
    Excerpt: “it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.”,,,
    More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90231.html

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    Darwin and the Mathematicians – David Berlinski
    “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”
    Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician/logician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Christian Theist!
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....cians.html

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8

    quote from preceding video:

    “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!”
    Dr. David Berlinski

    Supplemental Quotes:

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/9826382

    1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
    2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
    3. Therefore, God exists.

    Verse and Music:

    Colossians 1:16
    for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

    What Tau (2pi) Sounds Like – music
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3174T-3-59Q

  29. 29
    HeKS says:

    @tintinnid #13

    ” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, …”

    Isn’t it convenient that there are no witnesses to Tour’s claim. I could just as easily claim that when I to to an IDist, in private, they admit that ID is just religiously based creationism.

    I challenge anyone to prove my claim wrong.

    The problem is that Dr. Tour’s experience is not unique. Plenty of people have reported similar experiences, and even some Neo-Darinists / Evolutionists have publicly admitted that this happens. Furthermore, other committed atheist materialist evolutionists have made comments fully consistent with what Dr. Tour reports.

    For example, consider what Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini said in their book, What Darwin Got Wrong:

    We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute.

    In a wider context, Dr. Tour’s reports are inherently believable.

  30. 30
    rhampton7 says:

    It needs to be said that James Tour is also unmoved by the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design:

    I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion . . . I can not prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroom; the same tools to which I commensurately bind my evolutionist colleagues.

    And, James Tour is critical of the science behind Creationism:

    Likewise, I do not well-understand the stance of many of my creationist friends regarding their scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design, but they seem to be quite comfortable in most respects with the natural and historical suggestions for its claims. I am happy for them, but I hope that their position does not cause them to trump brotherly love or charity in thought or words. When they write on these topics, they are too quick to cite each other or to refer to 40-year-old studies, and slow to consider the newer findings in the mainstream scientific literature. The scientist is not the creationist’s enemy, and most scientists are quite sincere in producing research that is accurate to the best of today’s measurement abilities. For example, the gross dismissing of radiometric dating experiments that use even multiple corroborating nuclei, not by a mere 20% or even 100%, but by 4-5 orders of magnitude, based on antiquated “scientific” arguments, is unscientific and unfair.

    His is truly an open and questioning mind:

    I hope that’s satisfactory; I mean for me, a scientist and a Christian, to be unsure of a few things in both science and Christianity.

  31. 31
    HeKS says:

    @franklin #24

    When someone makes public challenges they should not be surprised that a respondent to their ‘challenge’ would want to have the meeting recorded for posterity. After all what is there to lose by having the meeting recorded.

    Matzke has developed a reputation for dishonestly misusing and misrepresenting his sources, even when those sources are in writing in publicly accessible locations controlled by a third party. Now, consider how he could potentially misuse and misrepresent portions of a privately recorded conversation given his already established pattern of misrepresentation. Then factor in the fact that Tour requested this meeting so that he could personally understand why these people think macroevolution works when it is supposed to happen at the biochemical level and when he, as a world-class chemist, does not even understand how it could possibly work.

    The potential issues and headaches that could arise out of recording that private discussion for public consumption, especially by someone like Matzke, would seem to outweigh any potential benefits.

  32. 32
    franklin says:

    The potential issues and headaches that could arise out of recording that private discussion for public consumption, especially by someone like Matzke, would seem to outweigh any potential benefits.

    HekS, I suppose any excuse is better than none at all. lol!

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    franklin this request at 27

    “perhaps you would like to point all of the following mathematicians to the ‘solid mathematical footing’ that Darwinism rests upon so as to demarcate it as a true science instead of a pseudo-science?”

    was directed towards you,,,

  34. 34
    HeKS says:

    @franklin #32

    The problem is that you seem to think Tour needs to provide any excuse at all for why he doesn’t want a private discussion recorded for public consumption. The obvious fact is that would make it a non-private discussion. There is no difference between that and inviting an audience to join them while they have the discussion on a stage. The whole process would make the setting of the conversation far less casual and far more formal, which is far more likely to lead to posturing on the part of one or both due to being aware that the public will eventually hear the discussion.

    Now, I’ve suggested a perfectly valid additional consideration that might make him wary of allowing Matzke to record the discussion (and we know he’s aware of Matzke’s reputation as per BA77), but my suggestion is ultimately unnecessary. There’s simply no reason that Tour shouldn’t be allowed to have a private conversation about this issue.

  35. 35
    franklin says:

    HekS, if Dr. Tour wishes to have someone explain something to him privately then I think he should have make the request privately not by grandstanding and making public challenges.

    I also don’t think that Dr. Tour needs to make any excuses but would point out that it does give the appearance that he lacks the courage of his convictions by refusing a very reasonable request for a recording…..a recording that protects both parties from a he-said…he-said scenario after the meeting is over. Sorta of the same reason I think it is a good idea for law enforcement to wear cameras and have recordings of their interactions with the public….it protects all parties equally.

    I am quite content with Dr. tour’s response to a most reasonable request to his challenge. My response in this thread was to provide information to a UD memberr who was unaware of the situation and how that situation developed.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    franklin as to ‘refusing a very reasonable request’, why are you refusing to answer my very reasonable request to you? Is the UD blog too private a setting for you to divulge the answer? Or do you, like all other Darwinists, not have an answer that you can give to the question of Darwinism’s lack of a rigid mathematical basis? and Since you don’t have an answer, indeed since you can’t have an answer due to the primary ‘random’ postulate of materialism which prevents a rigid mathematical basis from being formulated, why are you not honest towards this fact? If you were truly sincere in your seeking of the truth in this matter you would readily admit that this is gaping hole in your theory, an absolutely devastating problem for Darwinism in regards to it being considered a rigorous science instead of a pseudo-science.

    Why do you refuse to be honest?

  37. 37
    franklin says:

    franklin as to ‘refusing a very reasonable request’, why are you refusing to answer my very reasonable request to you?

    it is pretty simple, BA77, your request is completely off topic of what is being discussed. If you have something pertinent to the topic at hand feel free to post it.

  38. 38
    groovamos says:

    Still waiting for Spedding’s answer.

    OK below is one answer among several tries by Zachriel. Now lets review my challenge, Darwinism explains how every beneficial “random mutation” gets selected by fitness. So in some creature, in the air passage, a cilium appeared. How did that one cilium provide selective advantage? Lets say 100 appeared initially or even 1,000,000. How did those first million just happen to be connected to work in concert, what were their size and density? You telling me 1,000,000 micro-microscopic cilia conferred selective advantage, moving that mucus out? If so how? Then does 1,000,050 provide even more selective advantage?

    In short Zachriel kept changing the subject but did explain how the cilia work “probably” (one of those words constantly popping up in modern biology, as is the phrase “might be”). Zachriel also explained the billions of cilia appearing: Oh complete understanding is just that they were expressed. Poof, Darwinism verified, saved from the ignorant asking questions. And all you have to know about the interconnectedness is watch a football game for a stadium wave, hee hee. I got the stadium wave explanation on another blog too. Now aren’t you all so much more informed as to this system with trillions of parts working together was built by Darwinian theoretical means?

    Zachriel: We answered both questions. The former is a matter of whether or not cilia are expressed. The latter is basically a stadium wave. The cilia don’t have to know the global pattern, they just have to go along with it.

    See Zachriel’s other non-answers to the central question of how Darwinian processes guided the advent of billions of interconnected cilia, up from much smaller numbers and how each stage provided selective advantage, and became part of an interconnected system. Link: http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....-even.html

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    franklin you claimed that

    “Perhaps Dr. tour realizes that he isn’t on such a solid footing”

    and I noted that there is, in fact, no ‘solid footing’ to Darwinism in the first place so as to demarcate it as a proper science instead of a pseudo-science!

    Thus, regardless of what you may think, establishing that Darwinism is even a proper science in the first place is directly relevant to your claim that Dr. Tour ‘isn’t on such a solid footing’,,,

    Moreover, ID has no such problem elucidating its rigid mathematical basis.

    Conservation of Information Made Simple – William A. Dembski – August, 2012
    Excerpt: Biological configuration spaces of possible genes and proteins, for instance, are immense, and finding a functional gene or protein in such spaces via blind search can be vastly more improbable than finding an arbitrary electron in the known physical universe. ,,,
    ,,,Given this background discussion and motivation, we are now in a position to give a reasonably precise formulation of conservation of information, namely: raising the probability of success of a search does nothing to make attaining the target easier, and may in fact make it more difficult, once the informational costs involved in raising the probability of success are taken into account. Search is costly, and the cost must be paid in terms of information. Searches achieve success not by creating information but by taking advantage of existing information. The information that leads to successful search admits no bargains, only apparent bargains that must be paid in full elsewhere.,,,,,

    ,,,,Instead of elaborating the underlying theoretical apparatus for conservation of information, which is solid and has appeared now in a number of peer-reviewed articles in the engineering and mathematics literature (see the publications page at http://www.evoinfo.org — it’s worth noting that none of the critiques of this work has appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific/engineering literature, although a few have appeared in the philosophy of science literature, such as Philosophy and Biology; most of the critiques are Internet diatribes),
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63671.html

    In fact, unlike Darwinism which has no basis that can be experimentally falsified, there is rigid null hypothesis in place for ID that would falsify ID if it were ever experimentally trespassed:

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: “To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2662469/

    The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    http://www-qa.scitopics.com/Th.....iency.html

    Thus once again franklin, why your refusal to be honest to the question at hand?

  40. 40
    franklin says:

    Thus, regardless of what you may think, establishing that Darwinism is even a proper science in the first place is directly relevant to your claim that Dr. Tour ‘isn’t on such a solid footing’,,,

    Actually that isn’t true, BA77. I could believe in everything or nothing, be an ID proponent or opponent and the facts of the situation remain the same. Dr. Tour has issued a ‘challenge’ (not a request for information for his own edification) and when it was accepted declined to have whatever response might have been forthcoming made available to anyone.

    One can only speculate as to why he decided to refuse a recording of the event ( a recording that would protect all parties from misrepresentation)….as I and others have done.

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    Funny, so in Darwinian thinking, the fact that Dr. Tour actually is on ‘solid footing’ has no relevance to your claim that Dr. Tour ‘realizes that he isn’t on such a solid footing’,,, and is thus refusing to record the talks because, according to your imaginary story, he thinks he will be exposed as not being on solid footing???,,, Okie Dokie 🙂

    Reality to franklin, Dr. Tour is on solid footing and he is, unlike Matzke, an extremely honorable, truthful, man who is regarded as one of the top scientists in his field.

    A man who highly values honest scientific inquiry. A man who, unlike Matzke, or internet Darwinists in general, will readily admit if he is wrong!

    That his honor extends to the point of wanting his talk to not be a spectacle is to be commended for it shows the premium he places heart to heart talks that seek to get to the truth instead of public spectacles that are, in his words ‘for show’!

    That you would try to belittle Dr. Tour’s honorable intentions, whilst ignoring the fact that Darwinism is, in reality, a pseudo-science with no rigid mathematical basis,, only further illustrates the depths that neo-Darwinists will sink to defend their pathetic atheistic worldview.

    Sad!

  42. 42
    franklin says:

    That his honor extends to the point of wanting his talk to not be a spectacle is to be commended for it shows the premium he places heart to heart talks that seek to get to the truth instead of public spectacles that are, in his words ‘for show’!

    Which is, of course, why Dr. Tour issued his public challenge on the issue!

  43. 43
    franklin says:

    screwed up blockquote:

    That his honor extends to the point of wanting his talk to not be a spectacle is to be commended for it shows the premium he places heart to heart talks that seek to get to the truth instead of public spectacles that are, in his words ‘for show’!

    Which is, of course, why Dr. Tour issued his public challenge on the issue!

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever franklin,,,, everybody’s motives are questioned save for Darwinian motives whenever it suits Darwinists to question motives ehh???,,

    Evidence does not matter at all ehh???

    Not to mention the fact that you have to borrow morals from Theists in order to make this outlandish moral argument against Dr. Tour!

    Anyways,,, as to privacy, and the premium Dr. Tour places on it, Dr. Tour comments here,,,

    “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
    Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    and since you refuse to address the fact that Darwinism is not even a science in the first place, but insist on making a illegitimate moral argument against Dr. Tour to deflect attention away from the fact that Darwinism is a pseudo-science, I’ll leave the last comment to you, and let the readers decide for themselves who was being forthright and who was being disingenuous in this exchange.

  46. 46
    Querius says:

    bornagain77,

    Enjoying all the gnat straining and camel swallowing?

    They are completely secure in the knowledge that their opinions constitute irrefutable evidence requiring no further support. Thus, they cannot be reasoned out of what they never reasoned into, but instead simply accepted on someone else’s arrogant authority with innocent, dewy-eyed Faith.

    There was certainly not any evidence of evolution millions and billions of years out of reach, nor was it any evidence of evolution presumably in progress in the millions of organisms on earth because that’s imperceptibly slow . . . like an old grandfather clock that someone claims is moving ever so slowly, but others say is simply stopped.

    They won’t hold still and listen because they have no intention of conversation—the exchange of ideas, evidences, issues, and logic.

    Instead, like some hapless mollusc, they’ve secreted a seemingly impenetrable shell around themselves that has left them, relative to presentations of evidence and logic, both invulnerable and blind.

    -Q

  47. 47
    HeKS says:

    @Franklin #35

    Can you direct me to the text of this public challenge? From what I recall (and what I can find), Tour said this:

    Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

    And he said this:

    [A]bout seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

    Now, both of these are quite different from saying something like: “I’m certain that nobody out there understands macroevolution and I challenge anybody to prove that they really understand it.”

    It seems to me that what you’re saying might have some validity if he said the latter bit, which would actually be issuing a public challenge, or if he was actually issuing a real challenge to a particular individual, but that doesn’t seem to be what happened. If it is what happened, I haven’t seen it. From what I can see, he seemed to issue an open public invitation to see if there was anyone out there willing to have a private discussion with him over lunch to explain this to him and help him understand. He didn’t even frame it as a debate of any kind but simply said he would listen and wouldn’t interrupt unless he didn’t understand something. You call that public invitation grandstanding, I call it a common sense approach (over, say, trying to figure out on his own, in a vacuum, who might be willing and able to sit and explain this stuff to him and then sending a multitude of private emails).

    As it turned out, Matzke offered to accept his invitation to a private discussion, but only on the condition that he could record the private discussion for later public consumption, making it a non-private discussion, meaning Matzke was not actually accepting the invitation that was made in the first place.

    So, if you can show me that he was issuing the kind of grandstanding challenge you’ve been suggesting, then I’d be interested to take a look at it.

  48. 48
    franklin says:

    HekS, could you parse out the part where Dr. Tour stated he wanted a ‘private’ discussion or is this your own projection onto what he actually said? If not why are you going down this rabbit hole?

  49. 49
    Joe says:

    franklin- Why does it matter if it is private or public? No one can explain evolution to anyone using scientific evidence.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Perhaps Matzke can explain evolution to Talbott?

    Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – Sept. 2014
    Excerpt: a common line of thought (among molecular biologists) runs this way: “Yes, there is an appearance of mindfulness in all organisms, but this is a mere appearance, or an illusion. And the explanation for the illusion is natural selection”. The idea is that variation plus selection results in adaptation, and adapted behavior possesses a functional effectiveness that looks as if it were mindfully guided.
    Not all those who say such things would be willing to describe their own minds and intentions as illusions. But, in any case, we are left to wonder how an organism’s apparently purposeful activity is explained by similar activity in previous generations. Selection, after all, requires organisms that grow, develop, compete, prepare an inheritance, produce offspring, and otherwise pursue their seemingly intentional and well-directed lives, judiciously improvising all the way. These are the very activities that raise the question of mindfulness. So how does weaving the lives of many such organisms into the infinitely complex narratives of natural selection explain this mindfulness?
    Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”.
    Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1.
    One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself.,,,
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ell_23.htm

  51. 51
    logically_speaking says:

    Wow Franklin,

    “I would like to sit with that person”

    “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me”

    And,

    “I won’t argue with you…. I will ask you to clarify….. You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me”.

    If you can’t get private discussion from that, then I can’t help you.

  52. 52
    HeKS says:

    @franklin #48

    See logically_speaking at #51

    It’s obvious from Tour’s wording that he’s looking for a one-on-one private discussion where he can hear what the other person has to say rather than a match of wits and arguments intended for public consumption.

    And where exactly are you getting this idea that he made some big, grandstanding public challenge to suggest he was looking for an ultimately public discussion on the topic?

  53. 53
    Mung says:

    Dr. Tour, have you ever considered that they were staring at your hairpiece and just didn’t want to be impolite?

Leave a Reply