Thanks ChatGPT 
3 Likes
Tour has several responses to these:
I watched the entire video you linked again and still see no place where Tour is quoted as appealing to the supernatural or a miracle or God. Farina says things like “Then there Jim’s God, one who created a universe with a vague plan…but then finding that not much was happening, had to step in a second time to figure out how to make inantomerically pure building blocks, physically nudge them together to polymerize, and then decide what magic power to sprinkle in there to make it alive”
Dr. Tour never claims God is necessary to explain the origin of life
1 Like
You are the one who asked about papers by Dave Farina. Why did you ask?
Tour is a creationist who regularly distorts information. Professor Dave has many free instructional videos on a variety of scientific topics.
Go to Academic Search Premier and type in “origin of life” as a search term. You’ll see plenty of articles referenced. Do you want some specific articles? Can’t you access your library from home?
Why do we need all the answers right now? The Origin of Life is a matter of ongoing scientific investigation. We shouldn’t pretend that no progress has been made.
He’s obviously a creationist and what believes about science is filtered through that belief. Dave also debunks other anti-science people, like the Discovery Institute guys and flat earthers.
I don’t understand how this is a relevant objection. One could argue Dave Farina is a naturalist and what he believes about science and truth (and James Tour) is filtered through this belief too.
Most of us here are “creationists” in that we believe God “created” everything. We may disagree about how this was done (and the relevance of an actual act of creation when it comes to life and/or humans). Yet many of us here have great research careers, not in spite of these beliefs, but arguably (in part) because of it.
Farina has not shown that Tour’s beliefs about OOL are informed by his religion any more than they are informed by his experience as a synthetic-organic chemist. Farina bears the burden of proof because he is the one making this claim. Furthemroe, such a claim is non-scientific, non-falsifiable, and frankly inappropriate for someone claiming to represent science education and communication. Farina’s lack of understand of philosophy of science and history of science are on display when he says things like (in the video you posted)
“Whatever it is that tethers them to their religious belief, this supersedes their capacity to use logic and reason…their mental faculties are no longer reliable”
2 Likes
It’s an area of active scientific research. Tour has called for a temporary stop of all OOL research. That is concerning.
Progress in determining the origin of life, of course.
I have access to Academic Search Premier from my library. I can access it from home. I typed in “origin of life” in the window and clicked the Search button. It brought up over 32,000 references. These are the first 10, and I didn’t alter anything.
-
Creating a foundation for origin of life outreach: How scientists relate to their field, the public, and religion.
Academic Journal
By: Wienand, Karl; Kampschulte, Lorenz; Heckl, Wolfgang M. PLoS ONE. 2/24/2023, Vol. 17 Issue 2, p1-14. 14p. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282243.
Origins of life research is particularly challenging to communicate because of the tension between its many disciplines and its nearness to traditionally philosophical or religious questions. To …
Subjects: ORIGIN of life; SCIENTIFIC communication; MUSEUM exhibits; RELIGIONS; RELIGIOUSNESS; Museums
Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
HTML Full TextPDF Full Text(1.2MB)
The hierarchical organization of autocatalytic reaction networks and its relevance to the origin of life.
Academic Journal
By: Peng, Zhen; Linderoth, Jeff; Baum, David A. PLoS Computational Biology. 9/9/2022, Vol. 18 Issue 9, p1-28. 28p. 7 Diagrams, 1 Chart. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010498.
Prior work on abiogenesis, the emergence of life from non-life, suggests that it requires chemical reaction networks that contain self-amplifying motifs, namely, autocatalytic cores. However, lit…
Subjects: AUTOCATALYSIS; ORIGIN of life; CHEMICAL systems; CHEMICAL reactions; BIOLOGICAL networks
- Show all 8 Images
- [
](javascript: [
](javascript: [
](javascript: [
](javascript:;)Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
HTML Full TextPDF Full Text(4MB)
Results from Video Providers (3 of 720)
3:16
Teaching of traditional arts is revived in Japan
1:37
More than 600 events are taking place worldwide Thursday to commemorate…
2:19
USA: NASA MARS RESEARCH REPORT
The Origin of Genetic Code and Translation in the Framework of Current Concepts on the Origin of Life.
Academic Journal
By: Kondratyeva, Liya G.; Dyachkova, Marina S.; Galchenko, Alexey V. Biochemistry (00062979). Feb2022, Vol. 87 Issue 2, p150-169. 20p. DOI: 10.1134/S0006297922020079.
The origin of genetic code and translation system is probably the central and most difficult problem in the investigations on the origin of life and one of the most complex problems in the evolut…
Subjects: GENETIC translation; ORIGIN of life; NUCLEIC acids; BIOLOGICAL evolution; GENETIC code; MORPHOLOGY
Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
HTML Full TextPDF Full Text(1.2MB)
Plausible pathway for a host-parasite molecular replication network to increase its complexity through Darwinian evolution.
Academic Journal
By: Kamiura, Rikuto; Mizuuchi, Ryo; Ichihashi, Norikazu. PLoS Computational Biology. 12/1/2022, Vol. 18 Issue 12, p1-26. 26p. 7 Diagrams, 1 Chart, 2 Graphs. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010709.
How the complexity of primitive self-replication molecules develops through Darwinian evolution remains a mystery with regards to the origin of life. Theoretical studies have proposed that coevol…
Subjects: ORIGIN of life; PARASITES; SINGLE molecules; COMPUTER networks; AUTOPOIESIS; NETWORK computers; RNA analysis; Computer Systems Design Services; Computer systems design and related services (except video game design and development)
- Show all 10 Images
- [
](javascript: [
](javascript: [
](javascript: [
](javascript:;)Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
HTML Full TextPDF Full Text(4.5MB)
The automatic parameter-exploration with a machine-learning-like approach: Powering the evolutionary modeling on the origin of life.
Academic Journal
By: Liang, Yuzhen; Yu, Chunwu; Ma, Wentao. PLoS Computational Biology. 12/29/2021, Vol. 17 Issue 12, p1-18. 18p. 7 Graphs. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009761.
The origin of life involved complicated evolutionary processes. Computer modeling is a promising way to reveal relevant mechanisms. However, due to the limitation of our knowledge on prebiotic ch…
Subjects: ORIGIN of life; EVOLUTIONARY models; COMPUTER simulation
- Show all 7 Images
- [
](javascript: [
](javascript: [
](javascript: [
](javascript:;)Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
HTML Full TextPDF Full Text(3.4MB)
Primitive Oligomeric RNAs at the Origins of Life on Earth.
Academic Journal
By: Demongeot, Jacques; Thellier, Michel. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. Feb2023, Vol. 24 Issue 3, p2274. 9p. DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032274.
There are several theories on the origin of life, which differ by choosing the preponderant factor of emergence: main function (autocatalysis versus replication), initial location (black smokers …
Subjects: ORIGIN of life; NON-coding RNA; RNA; PEPTIDE synthesis; DNA replication; RIBOSOMES; AUTOCATALYSIS
Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
Origin of Life: Chiral Short RNA Chains Capable of Non‐Enzymatic Peptide Bond Formation.
Academic Journal
By: Bose, Tanaya; Fridkin, Gil; Bashan, Anat; Yonath, Ada. Israel Journal of Chemistry. Dec2021, Vol. 61 Issue 11/12, p863-872. 10p. DOI: 10.1002/ijch.202100054.
A semi‐symmetric vestige of an RNA apparatus with stereochemically controlled ribozyme capabilities is embedded and functions as the site of peptide bond formation within all contemporary ribosom…
Subjects: PEPTIDE bonds; ORIGIN of life; RNA; CHEMICAL reactions; RIBOSOMES; GENETIC translation
Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
HTML Full TextPDF Full Text(4.7MB)
A New Perspective on the Maillard Reaction and the Origin of Life.
Academic Journal
By: Bernhardt, Harold S.; Tate, Warren P. Journal of Molecular Evolution. Dec2021, Vol. 89 Issue 9/10, p594-597. 4p. DOI: 10.1007/s00239-021-10030-4.
The Maillard reaction, a spontaneous ‘one pot’ reaction between amino acids and reducing sugars that occurs at low reactant concentrations and low temperatures, is a good candidate for having pla…
Subjects: MAILLARD reaction; ORIGIN of life; URACIL derivatives; NITROGEN compounds; HETEROCYCLIC compounds; BASE pairs; MONOMERS
Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
PDF Full Text(600KB)
Cofactors are Remnants of Life’s Origin and Early Evolution.
Academic Journal
By: Goldman, Aaron D.; Kacar, Betul. Journal of Molecular Evolution. Apr2021, Vol. 89 Issue 3, p127-133. 7p. DOI: 10.1007/s00239-020-09988-4.
The RNA World is one of the most widely accepted hypotheses explaining the origin of the genetic system used by all organisms today. It proposes that the tripartite system of DNA, RNA, and protei…
Subjects: ORIGIN of life; COENZYME A; DEOXYRIBOZYMES; CATALYTIC RNA; COENZYMES; MOIETIES (Chemistry)
Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
HTML Full TextPDF Full Text(2.1MB)
The evolutionary path of chemosensory and flagellar macromolecular machines in Campylobacterota.
Academic Journal
By: Mo, Ran; Zhu, Siqi; Chen, Yuanyuan; Li, Yuqian; Liu, Yugeng; Gao, Beile. PLoS Genetics. 7/14/2022, Vol. 18 Issue 7, p1-24. 24p. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010316.
The evolution of macromolecular complex is a fundamental biological question, which is related to the origin of life and also guides our practice in synthetic biology. The chemosensory system is …
Subjects: ORIGIN of life; SYNTHETIC biology; CAMPYLOBACTER jejuni; BACTERIAL diversity; HELICOBACTER pylori; PROPELLERS; CELLULAR signal transduction; COEVOLUTION
Full Text AvailableAdd to folder
HTML Full TextPDF Full Text(17.6MB)
He doesn’t accept evolution or common descent. He has ties to the Discovery Institute. He signed their “Dissent from Darwinism” list. Most disturbing is the fact that he called for a temporary halt to Origin of Life research.
Indeed. It smacks of human arrogance that eventually humans will understand everything about everything through scientific investigation.
When all avenues have been exhausted, what is left must be true. I wonder, at what point science will/would admit that it has nowhere to go?
Richard
Are you wishing or looking for such a point? Science will never be complete. Scientific investigations are ongoing because if scientists don’t look for natural explanations, they will never find them.
Fortunately, God doesn’t have to worry about a scientist shining a bright light where he is hiding and forcing him to find another smaller dark hole. What kind of God would that be?
2 Likes
You know how they say “God is outside the universe” and not scientifically testable? Well so is the infinite and eternal multiverse which is the only real counter explanation to God, in trying to figure out why all the constants of nature seem incredibly and astronomically fine-tuned to support carbon-based life. Now other universes do seem to be a corollary of inflation but they don’t seem to show what some people want them to.
There are observational and theoretical limits in science. The Big Bang and the underlying laws of physics governing reality might very well present us with specific cases. How can science ever explain why there is something rather than nothing or where those underlying fundamental laws come from? It cannot and it cannot offer us a theory of “everything.” Physicists have to just deem the laws brute facts of existence. Another brute fact is that all the constants are exactly what they need to be for carbon based life and if some of them were even just a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction different, we get a starless and lifeless universe. The current state of some theoretical physics with wild, untestable speculations and amorphous mathematical models that are ultimately unfalsifiable is telling. We shouldn’t confused these models with reality itself.
Christianity is fine with a multiverse. Atheism seems to be in a pickle without it.
Vinnie
4 Likes
Yep… I figured the problem wasn’t current scientific limitations when I had a PhD physicist arguing with me why M-theory may potentially explain events happening without cause… if an event just happens, then it’s unexplainable 
History is full of people who said that science couldn’t figure out X or Y, and they were often proven wrong.
I don’t know if science can ever figure out how universes come about or a grand unifying theory of physics, but I wouldn’t ever claim that it is necessarily out of the reach of science.
We absolutely shouldn’t confuse poorly constructed models with reality.
My atheism isn’t something that I need to protect. If evidence for a supernatural origin of the universe is found then I will convert.
As of now, we don’t know how many universes exist. We have no way of knowing if our universe is the only one or one of many.
1 Like
Is this a category error? It appears to be fuzzy reasoning from my perspective. Science has a stellar track record but not when it comes to the origin and underlying laws governing absolutely everything. There is no track record on that front. Finding the proximate reason or cause on why a ball stops rolling is not in the same league as why there is something rather than nothing, where everything comes from or why the underlying laws are what they are. So when it comes to “before” the Big Bang or fine tuning and “brute physical laws” we should probably not appeal to science’s past track record because there is not one here.
What would that look like to you? Do you not consider everything we know of expanding out of a tiny point 13.8 byo and all the underlying laws and mathematics of our cosmos being ridiculously tuned for our existence that tiny changes lead to no stars let alone life, at least a candidate for this? To me it is and very consistent with Christian theology.
Because it seems like many in here rule out the possibility of ever even finding that. Somehow, defining science as seeking non supernatural answers is meant to rule out the possibility of good scientific method actually just one day saying nope, the buck stops here. We can’t go any further. This can’t be explained.
Vinnie
These still both apply (maybe especially the latter?):
and
1 Like
It’s rather difficult to describe evidence you haven’t seen.
No. That argument depends on the conclusion that those conditions could have been different or that our universe is the only one. It isn’t at all surprising that we find ourselves in a universe that could produce us, so there is a strong selection bias as well.
As stated earlier, this is sort of a semantic Gordian knot. One of the possible definitions of the supernatural is the things we can’t observe or test. So by this definition, we can never know (in a formal, evidence based sense) anything about the supernatural. However, if God interacted with our universe in a testable and observable way then science could certainly incorporate this evidence. So it’s a mixed bag. Personally, I don’t rule anything out. I try to stay as opened minded as I can, also knowing that I am a poor judge of my own open-mindedness.
I think you’re both right here. If we keep looking for God’s place in gaps in our understanding of the natural order, these “gaps” can have natural explanations and thus seem to shrink the importance of God. On the other hand, there is plenty of room for God’s providence in the natural order, even if such occurrences don’t form scientific explanations.
1 Like
God cannot be “found” scientifically. He is a God of faith and must remain so until or unless He reveals Himself fully. If God was visible to all then He would either have to stamp His authority or be seen as impotent and therefore ignored. He is identifiable to those who believe and a mystery to those who do not. So, no matter how far science advances it will never solve the God mystery.
It is not a case of wishing science to fail, it is a case of knowing that science is simply a tool to understand God’s creation, not God Himself.
I do not see science as a threat to God. It would be ludicrous to think that God did not plan or expect science, just as it is ludicrous to think that God might deny humans cognisance and reason. God has no reason to fear cognisance, for without it He cannot be found at all. Neither could we understand what He requires of us.
Richard
1 Like
I also don’t think we have to worry about scientist forcing God out. Science can only work with the natural realm. It can’t do anything to disprove the supernatural. It can just use science to detect fakes.
But being worried about God being pushed out by scientists would be like someone pushing God out of a prayer being answered. Let’s say someone prays to God to please help them find a job and then the next day a friend calls out of the blue mentioning a job opportunity and they both get hired. You can’t say that just because the friend called that God was not involved somewhere in someway. Likewise, you can’t prove it was God behind the scenes that brought it to fruition.
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” --Galileo Galilei
1 Like