What’s any of that got to do with [E] is for Evolution?
Just based on a quick view of your linked video (and listening to Dr. Tour’s side of it, and through his eyes the criticisms of Dave Forina), it does appear that Dave probably spends at least some portion of his time dismissing him as a creationist, so … shame on Dave. Sounds like Mr. Tour (at least according to his own bio here, which I’m just taking at his word), is a quite accomplished and credentialed chemist.
Here’s what I know about abiogenesis: it isn’t evolution. I know that antievolution detractors love to lump it all together so that they can have a more legitimate and current pool of real controversy they can bring up - very useful fuel for merchants of doubt. And nobody disputes that much less is known about abiogenesis than there is known about evolution. How much is starting to be known … it sounds like Tour is more on the ‘they don’t know nuthin yet’ end of that appraisal, while I’ve heard scientists around here say there are actually some plausible theories gathering traction (but I think all would agree that there isn’t consensus on abiogenesis like there is on common descent.) So just based on this video, it’s sounding to me like Tour is one of those who likes to use the more frontier status of abiogenesis to launch into a doubting mode - which he then extends into unrelated areas like the more settled (but still live) field of biology. It also sounds like biology is a lot further removed from Dr. Tour’s area of expertise than abiogenesis is. He’s right that it is “pre-biotic”. By definition.
I am curious about one other comment he made in the video - he tried to take Dave and others to task about their explanations of the 2nd law: namely that there is no violation of the 2nd law because local systems can have entropy decreases - it just means that entropy increased even more outside the system, and that an energy transaction (giving up energy as freezing water does) leads to a decrease in entropy. That all makes sense to me, but Dr. Tour insists this is all wrong because it’s known that in some cellular or cellular formation processes, both an increase in energy and a decrease in entropy would need to be happening simultaneously.
Either I’m not understanding Dr. Tour’s objection - or he’s still missing something very basic here. And that is - of course energy is needed to fuel life. That’s kinda what sunlight (for plants) and food ingestion (for animals) is all about, right? - giving chemical and thermal energy, some of which can then be spent on entropy-decreasing, structure-building processes. Photosynthesis doesn’t happen without it, and because of it high-entropy, gaseous CO2 and liquid H2O can all join together into much lower entropy carbohydrates and plant material. And yes - it needed energy from somewhere for this whole process to even be possible. So I’m not sure how Dr. Tour’s objection holds any water on that. But if I missed something, I hope to learn more.
I deduce that this must on your terms disqualifiy him. I just looked at his credentials and assumed he must be a scientist.
Thanks very much for your input. I appreciate it.
Yes, he has credentials and is an organic chemist. But he’s part of the Discovery Institute, which is anti-science.
Why?
…
Ahh! anti-science! Got it.
They are anti-evolution.
The DI includes YEC in their “big tent.” Attacking one branch of science leads to attacking other branches as well.
1 Like
The disagreements in what the rules are tend to be pretty esoteric and only affect the frontiers of science. There is no disagreement whatsoever about the basics of mathematics or measurement – how differential and integral calculus works, what error bars are and what they signify, and so on and so forth. Nor is there any debate that findings have to be reproducible and the procedures have to be documented.
The whole point that I’m making is don’t exaggerate the extent or significance of discrepancies, disagreements and debates in science. Yes, science has rough edges. No, scientists don’t know everything. Yes, there are unanswered questions. Yes, confirmation bias and peer pressure are a factor that has to be taken into consideration. But that doesn’t give you a free pass to reject anything and everything about science that you don’t like. That is why I hammer home the point about what happens in industry, engineering and the workplace. These are the kinds of environments where the need to make sure that things work as intended roots out the rough edges, confirmation bias, peer pressure, flaky peer review and the like.
Could you perhaps be so kind as to post a summary of the video with timestamps to the key points that he makes please?
3 Likes
I would totally agree.
That would take some time as there are 13 videos in the series.
It’s what we would call in the UK as being ‘stitched up like a kipper’. If you don’t believe in evolution you can’t be kosher. Not only that- it’s a case of guilt by association. Sounds like the Stasi. Is this how it all works?
If you attack science in one fundamental foundational building block, you attack all. Yes. Have you stopped beating your wife by the way?
1 Like
An assault on evolution is an assault on biology, since evolution is the underlying principle of biology.
But there’s more: At the Intelligent Design debate I attended in NYC, it was revealed that the ID movement doesn’t have a position on the age of the earth, because some in ID leadership are YEC. But philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock explained that the sciences are integrated. You can’t simply snap off parts you don’t agree with!
1 Like
I think this is called begging the question. It’s merely a circular argument.
What question? What argument?
An assault on rationality is an assault on faith.
1 Like
The question (as per usual) is ‘Why?’
It is irrational to assert that asking a question or taking a different viewpoint necessitates an assault on faith. Who’s faith for example? Any particular faith? Or faith in general i.e. faith in the abstract?
People have faith in all kinds of things and the reasons are not always rational. Like reading someones palms or predicting the future by looking at tea leaves.
You are the one who made a personal (ad hominem) attack on me for my faith. Why? Purely because someone has a different faith to you and you don’t like the idea. You don’t like the idea so you have to make it personal. You can’t stand anyone who believes differently to you and so you have to either disrespectfully shut them up or shut them down.
I have to respond in this ‘personal’ way- because it was you who first made it personal. I prefer not to engage in these personal kinds of arguments. They are distasteful in the extreme and frankly quite pointless.
Furthermore it’s easy to lob your verbal hand grenades form your bunker of
anonymity and then disappear again. At least people can see who I am. I’ve put my real name up there. If you really have the courage of your convictions then do the same.
Why what?
Why question science?
Faith as in Hebrews 11:1
The substance, i.e. the demonstration of hope, is not in denying eternal self-sufficient nature, denying abiogenic and biogenic evolution, denying reality. The substance is measured by what goes in my name space.
Having a counterfactual belief about (material) reality, nature is not faith. Stating that is not ad hominem. As is nothing above that I have said whatsoever. The leap of faith does no harm to nature whatsoever. Faith is strengthened by steel manning nature.
If you choose to take you personally here, that is contrived. Is that ad hominem?
I will always give an answer according to faith and prefer Paul’s universalism to my full name, Martin Peter Clarke.
…
The initial question was related to Beaglelady’s initial assertion regarding evolution. And no I don’t think it is wrong to question science.
Hebrews 1.11 has nothing to do with evolution. The context is ‘faith according to Christ’.
No one is denying reality, or the ‘existence’ of reality, material or otherwise. The issue is that you believe that your perception of reality the only valid perception. You are then taking that perception (constructed outside of scripture) and imposing it on to scripture to make it say what you want it to say.
Biological evolution and its precursor abiogenesis are part of reality.
1 Like
That is only your ‘belief’ about reality.