Top Chemist: “They Just Stare at Me”

_{Cornelius Hunter

October 14, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

Comments

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.ringo_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

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."
bornagain77_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

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.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_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/2013/04/an_icon_of_the_071421.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. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-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/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html
bornagain77_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

"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.tintinnid_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

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.Dr JDD_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

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!franklin_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

You look it up.Mapou_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

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.tintinnid_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

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!franklin_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

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?Mapou_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

" 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.tintinnid_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

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.franklin_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

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.bornagain77_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

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?chris haynes_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

OT: Conversations with William Dembski–Information All the Way Down - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnVss3QseCwbornagain77_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

OT: Darwinian Blithering - (John C. Wright dismantles David P Barash's 'the talk' piece by piece) - Oct. 14, 2014 http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/darwinian-blithering/bornagain77_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

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. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-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/Molecular_machine#Examples_of_molecular_machines
bornagain77_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

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.Dionisio_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

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! -QQuerius_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

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.beau_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

OT: Looks like I can finally go back to using Firefox when visiting UD!Mung_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

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.ringo_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Thank God for honest chemists.Mung_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply