How is James Tour Associated with ID?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Continuing the discussion from Is Abiogenesis an hypothesis in distress?:

Is Abiogenesis an hypothesis in distress?

Joshua, I would like to clarify a couple of points. In one of your comments you said that James Tour was associated with ID. But on the blog you linked, you quote Tour:

“I (Dr. James Tour) 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. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.”

I think it is very clear that saying Tour is associated with ID is very unfair to him. He admits that he doesn’t know how to use science to prove intelligent design but “some others might.” He doesn’t claim it is impossible for science to prove that God exists. And I think Tour would be pleased if OOL researchers took their responsibility to test abiogenesis in an attempt to falsify it as welcome progress. Why don’t you invite him to participate in this thread and we can ask him?

You make a good point in that it is difficult to characterize Tour’s relationship with ID. Same is probably true with me. I did after all go public defending @aguager and Richard Buggs this last year. I certainly do not dismiss ID arguments on the genetic fallacy, but because of real scientific errors I see.

Jim, by the way, is a good friend of mine, and I certainly do not want to mischaracterize him. Most people I know in the ID movement consider him ID “associated.” This is likely because he is very connected to their community, and often makes argument about OOL that they like (though you seem to be misrepresenting his position). Probably the reason he is most known to be ID associated (not a proponent) is because he signed the Dissent From Darwinism, and has declined to this day to remove his name from this. He has paid some real costs to keep his name there, so it does seem to be something he is committed too.

I still find his work really helpful, and enjoy his friendship. He is “associated” somehow with ID, though I’m not sure the right way to describe it. Any help here @pnelson? Or @bjmiller? Or @CaseyLuskin? What is the right way to describe Tour’s relationship with you guys?

[Ronald_Cram]

This is a more reasonable position. When I hear someone is associated with a group, I tend to think that they either work there or are on the board or advise them or write material for them or support them financially. I don’t think James Tour does any of those things for Discovery Institute.

Perhaps it would be better to just say that James has signed the Dissent From Darwinism document produced by Discovery Institute and let it go at that.

[Guy_Coe]

Reminds me of Ron Swanson’s association with being head of the Parks and Rec Department.
Ron-swanson-parties.jpg
Okay; maybe James Tour is a little less hostile to ID than that… : )

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Thinking About Falsifiability and Abiogenesis

And yes, Jim Tour is a class act. You shouldn’t have treated him the way you did.

Swamidass and Cram: Common Ground?

You want to paint me as someone who is outside of science. You claim I’m an ID adherent, a common charge when people want to use a broad brush, marginalize their opponents and not really interact with the facts. You even claimed that James Tour’s articles published in Inference were published in an ID journal. That kind of behavior shows you don’t have any respect for your opponents.

What changed? We resolved this.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Thinking About Falsifiability and Abiogenesis

Yes, I was. Please forgive me.

I do forgive you.

Please understand we are not your enemy. We have much more common than you know. We are up for a real conversation, but there has to be a give and take. You have to take the understand us before you disagree.

Peace.