Some Comments from YouTube Watchers of the Tour-Farina Debate

First, I make no claim that I am qualified to teach Ancient Greek. You made that claim and you could not back it up. In order to answer my question, you would have had to talk about the lexical, grammatical and contextual factors. Regarding the lexis you would have to know that many times a verbs tense form is lexically determined. We both know you don’t know this and now everybody reading this knows it too. But I digress. Some aorist imperatives such as ιδε and ιδου which mean (since you can’t read Greek) “look” lost their verbal nature and eventually became particles. Imperatives for ειμι and οιδα (your favorite subject) only appear in the present tense. So, verbs of motion are almost exclusively found in the present tense form when used as imperatives. However -μι verbs (I’m sure you have no clue what they are) prefer the aorist. It would be misleading to emphasize that a particular imperative is present-tense if it is a verb of motion. Do you want to guess why that is? I bet you don’t.

I knew a lot of them when I was younger. However, I still run into people on the Internet who make the same claims as you about being a student or professor και πασιν τοις ψευδεσιν. I know enough to smoke them out with questions they can’t answer just like I have done with you. I know you’re bluffing and now everyone here knows it too. Although I’m pretty sure they all suspected that a long time ago.

5 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic

Yes. So if one was to accuse him of having a religious bias they would be justified. Just as Farina is when he accuses Tour of this.

Thanks for your reply. I want to be clear that I do agree that Dr Tour’s comments seem to promote another type of exremism, namely that nobody knows what they are doing and the state of this field is “nonsense.” However as I mentioned in the video, when I actually talked to him and sorted through the rhetoric, I largely agree with him, and part of this concerns how science is taught below a graduate level.

If I had to pick a side, it would be with Dr Tour, because there seems to be much more we do not know than we do, but I think the whole thing of “picking sides” is unhelpful for scholarship. We should be free to follow the evidence wherever it leads and revise our beliefs in light of new evidence.

Not exactly. If someone thinks the methodology or epistemology of a viewpoint is flawed, then this serves to undermine any subsequent criticisms based on this. In the same way that sone people here criticize Dr Tour’s views because of his religion, it is also fair to criticize anti-ID people for failing to listen or understand such viewpoints. Since I do not condemn Dr Tour for his religious views, I wouldn’t apply this logic for Anti-ID rhetoric either. But those who criticize creationists or ID people due to their religious views open themselves up to criticism for their metaphysical presuppositions. In my view, such criticism is self-defeating, because it also comes from a postitivist attitude which has come under serious fire in philosophical circles.

Perhaps Professor Dave has offered substantive critiques of Tour’s views on Chemistry. But many of the things he brought up in the debate were entirely uncharitable and seemed to misunderstand the claim Tour was making, at least for the things I did understand.

1 Like

My friend Jordan at Reason to Doubt did a fairly impartial review of the debate:

I personally don’t study chemistry not relevant to geology. I didn’t understand much of what little science the two of them discussed. So I think the real loser of this was the viewer. I want my time back.

5 Likes

@moderators
I have noticed that posts in this thread takes ages(approximately a day) to appear, and yet it doesn’t seem to be in slow mode? Is everyone on break or something?

Yeah, pretty much. I’ll wake people up.

1 Like

Pick a side on what question? If the statement is merely that we haven’t figured out the origin of life, nobody is against that proposition. There are no reasonable people on the other side of that. Everyone agrees that question is unsolved and that is why the field even exists and why it is an increasingly active area of research.

Consider that the whole idea that you have to pick a side (either you agree the problem is unsolved, or you believe scientists have created frogs from simple chemicals or such similar nonsense) because there’s this huge block of people who claim we’ve already got it figured out (and that this huge block of people is a huge societal problem) is a false picture in the first place.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems is people have reading comprehension issues. The popular press sure is full of a lot of hype, but as egregious as some university press releases can be, I have to say I haven’t ever come across one that genuinely claimed scientists have created frogs (or “slithering creatures”) from simple chemicals. Much less have I encountered an actual science textbook that said that.

Sure, I don’t disagree with that. The ability to attack people’s underlying motives cuts both ways, and people on either side can be motivated by their biases and preconceptions in ways that make them prone to poor reasoning and uncharitable interpretations of their opponents. Agreed.

But I’m not sure how that fits as a response to what I wrote.

You literally stated in your video what I was responding to. Perhaps you meant to say something else like what you just did here, but what you stated in the video is a non-sequitur. It really doesn’t, actually, follow that because there are people making presumptive bad-faith attacks on ID, that there must therefore be something to ID. ID must stand on it’s own merits regardless of how some people attack it (or not.)

Are there bad faith arguments against ID? Sure. Does that mean there’s something to ID? Well, no. If there’s something to ID it is not because it is attacked by some people with badly motivated arguments.
And if you think there’s something to ID, I’d be happy to discuss those things with you. You also stated in your video you haven’t been able to find any substantive criticisms of ID and I must again repeat my question: Where did you look? I highly recommend you look where I suggested in my previous post.

I agree Dave did not seem very open to considering Tour’s criticisms in much depth in their debate, and generally seems to have a hard time steelmanning Tour at all, despite their disagreement. And this probably also had the effect of both men talking past each other at times. But that doesn’t mean Dave did not have any substantive criticisms of Tour’s points.

4 Likes

Nice review. Completely agree with the reviewer: The topic is “are we clueless?”. Dave gave none and wasted most of his time accusing Tour of being a crackpot and a liar. Even though he had substantive points of rebuttal to some of Tour’s claims about the actual research, those weren’t technically clues.

A stupid circus instead of a debate.

On another note, I’m amazed how many people fell for Tour’s genuinely stupid rhetorical trick with the blackboard.

3 Likes

One significant aspect which is not equivalent is that Tour’s presuppositions lead him to consider OoL research to be a waste of resources, and he would not be distressed to see it shut down. To make progress in any difficult investigation realistically requires some degree of positive assessment. The search for neutrino oscillation, the Higgs, and gravitational waves returned nothing but frustration for years and decades before success. Belief in the goal is a heuristic necessity, and belief that there is no natural explanation a barrier.

Quite right. You shouldn’t trust either of them. Instead, compare what they say to the evidence available.

1 Like

Unsupported assertion rejected.

1 Like

Hi @Mercer

Poor Eddie can’t even name one of this “good number.” Can you?

How about instead of endorsing Eddie’s relentless, vapid authoritarianism and pathological avoidance of evidence, you focus on the evidence itself, Vincent?

You want evidence? Be my guest. You can find the names of more than a dozen scientists in the Intelligent Design movement, simply by looking at the list of contributors to the Intelligent Design blog, Evolution News. You’ve cast doubt on Eddie’s claim that he knows dozens of these scientists. I can certainly top a dozen. Here they are. I’ve copied their bios, in alphabetical order of their family names.

(1) Douglas Axe is the Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology at Biola University, the founding Director of Biologic Institute, the founding Editor of BIO-Complexity , and the author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed . After completing his PhD at Caltech, he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge and the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre. His research, which examines the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems, has been featured in many scientific journals, including the Journal of Molecular Biology , the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , BIO-Complexity , and Nature , and in such books as Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer and Life’s Solution by Simon Conway Morris.

(2) Günter Bechly is a German paleo-entomologist who specializes in the fossil history and systematics of insects (esp. dragonflies), the most diverse group of animals. He served as curator for amber and fossil insects in the department of paleontology at the State Museum of Natural History (SMNS) in Stuttgart, Germany. He is also a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Bechly earned his Ph.D. in geosciences from Eberhard-Karls-University in Tübingen, Germany.

(3) Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe’s current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures. In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and three books, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution , Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution , and The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism , which argue that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design.

(4) A member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Marcos Eberlin received his PhD in chemistry from the University of Campinas (UNICAMP) and served as a postdoc at Purdue University. Back at UNICAMP, he founded and coordinated for 25 years the ThoMSon Mass Spectrometry (MS) Laboratory, making it an internationally recognized research center, one of the best-equipped and innovative MS laboratories worldwide. Eberlin has published nearly 1,000 scientific articles and is a recipient of many awards and honors, including the title of Commander of the National Order of Scientific Merit (2005) from Brazil’s President, the Zeferino Vaz Award (2002) for excellence in teaching and research.

(5) Michael R. Egnor, MD, is a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook, has served as the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, and award-winning brain surgeon. He was named one of New York’s best doctors by the New York Magazine in 2005. He received his medical education at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his residency at Jackson Memorial Hospital. His research on hydrocephalus has been published in journals including Journal of Neurosurgery , Pediatrics , and Cerebrospinal Fluid Research . He is on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Hydrocephalus Association in the United States and has lectured extensively throughout the United States and Europe.

(6) Dr. Ann Gauger is Director of Science Communication and a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, and Senior Research Scientist at the Biologic Institute in Seattle, Washington. She received her Bachelor’s degree from MIT and her Ph.D. from the University of Washington Department of Zoology. She held a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard University, where her work was on the molecular motor kinesin.

(7) Guillermo Gonzalez is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy in 1993 from the University of Washington. He has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and at the University of Washington and has received fellowships, grants and awards from such institutions as NASA, the University of Washington, the Templeton Foundation, Sigma Xi (scientific research society) and the National Science Foundation.

(8) Eric R. Hedin earned his doctorate in experimental plasma physics from the University of Washington, and conducted post-doctoral research at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. He has taught physics and astronomy at Taylor University and Ball State University in Indiana, and at Biola University in Southern California. At Ball State, his research interests focused on computational nano-electronics and higher-dimensional physics. His BSU course, The Boundaries of Science, attracted national media attention. Dr. Hedin’s recent book, Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See , highlights scientific evidence pointing to design

(9) Stephen J. Iacoboni, MD, is an award-winning cancer researcher and has been a practitioner of medical oncology for forty years. In his personal memoir, The Undying Soul , he chronicled his spiritual journey and return to faith. In his latest book, Telos: The Scientific Basis for a Life of Purpose , he offers a unique reconciliation between faith and science. Please feel free to visit him at stepheniacoboni.com.

(10) Carl Linnaeus (a pseudonym) earned his PhD in biochemistry and led an academic laboratory researching the structure/function relationships of drug receptors.

(11) Casey Luskin is a geologist and an attorney with graduate degrees in science and law, giving him expertise in both the scientific and legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. He earned his PhD in Geology from the University of Johannesburg, and BS and MS degrees in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, where he studied evolution extensively at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. His law degree is from the University of San Diego, where he focused his studies on First Amendment law, education law, and environmental law.

(12) Dr. Brian Miller is Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. He holds a B.S. in physics with a minor in engineering from MIT and a Ph.D. in physics from Duke University. He speaks internationally on the topics of intelligent design and the impact of worldviews on society. He also has consulted on organizational development and strategic planning, and he is a technical consultant for Ideashares, a virtual incubator dedicated to bringing innovation to the marketplace.

(13) Emily Sandico is a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, where she also serves as Special Projects Coordinator. She holds bachelor’s degrees in philosophy and education from Whitworth University and a doctorate in veterinary medicine from Washington State University. She spent 14 years at a major Silicon Valley tech firm, where she worked as a technical editor and product manager, and as a liaison for Fortune 500 clients and the firm’s software development organization, sales force, and technical consultants around the world. Dr. Sandico is a licensed veterinarian with a special interest in how the study of medicine informs our understanding of design in biology. As a citizen and a scientist, she is most interested in helping people to seek truth by building a culture that fosters personal liberty, intellectual honesty, academic freedom, and scientific rigor.

(14) Granville Sewell is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso. He has written four books on numerical analysis, most recently Solving Partial Differential Equation Applications with PDE2D, John Wiley, 2018. In addition to his years at UTEP, has been employed by Universidad Simon Bolivar (Caracas), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Purdue University, IMSL Inc., The University of Texas Center for High Performance Computing and Texas A&M University, and spent a semester (1999) at Universidad Nacional de Tucuman on a Fulbright scholarship, and another semester (2019) at the UNAM Centro de Geociencas in Queretaro, Mexico.

(15) Robert Sheldon is a physicist (BS Wheaton, MAR Westminster WTS, PhD UMCP) who presently works for the government, but has had a long career in academia studying satellite instrumentation, space plasma physics, comets, cosmology, nuclear propulsion, and science/faith conflicts. He has published over 60 papers and 3 books: Laser Satellite Communication ; The Long Ascent, vol 1.; and The Long Ascent, vol 2. (with vol. 3 to come). The trilogy examines the scientific, mythic, and Hebraic support for a recent Adam, Eden, Flood, and the Tower of Babel as in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

(16) Rob Stadler received a PhD from the Harvard/MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology. As a scientist in the medical device industry, he has obtained 150 US patents and has contributed to devices that are implanted in millions of patients with heart disease. Rob is author of The Scientific Approach to Evolution: What They Didn’t Teach You in Biology and co-author of The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check.

(17) James Tour is the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and Nano-Engineering at Rice University. A synthetic organic chemist, he received his BS in Chemistry from Syracuse University, his PhD in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. He has served on the faculty of the University of South Carolina and as a visiting scholar at Harvard University. Tour has over 700 research publications and over 130 patent families.

(18) Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. A Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, he has previously worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. He also taught biology at California State University in Hayward and continues to lecture on the subject.

That’s one-and-a-half dozen scientists. These are just scientists who have contributed to the Intelligent Design blog, Evolution News. And there are others. I used to be on a mailing list for members of the Intelligent Design community. There were scientists on the list who did not want their names revealed, as it would jeopardize their jobs.

Please note that I do not agree with these scientists’ opinions on Intelligent Design. I left the Intelligent Design movement seven years ago, and I believe its scientific and mathematical arguments for a Designer are flawed. Nevertheless, I recognize that the questions it raises are legitimate ones, and I can certainly understand why it attracts bona fide scientists. Pretending that these scientists aren’t real certainly won’t help matters, if you’re debating members of the ID movement.

Hi @John_Harshman

Many of those seem to be bending over backwards not to endorse Eberlin’s opinions, just saying that they’re “interesting” or “regardless of whether one share’s Eberlin’s approach”. I wouldn’t take from those comments that the majority are IDers, though they certainly all want to say nice things about Eberlin.

I’m not saying that the three Nobel Prize winners I cited are ID proponents. The point is that they took Eberlin’s book seriously enough to review it, and they did not pooh-pooh it, but treated it with respect. One of them (Sir John Gurdon) even wrote: “I am happy to recommend this to those interested in the chemistry of life.” And some of the other Editorial Reviewers do seem to be at least open to the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Foresight provides refreshing new evidence, primarily from biology, that science needs to open its perspective on the origin of living things to account for the possibility that purely natural, materialistic evolution cannot account for these facts."—Michael T. Bowers, PhD, Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California Santa Barbara

“In his newest book, Foresight, award-winning and prominent researcher Prof. Marcos Eberlin cogently responds to crucial questions about life’s origin, using an arsenal of current scientific data. Eberlin illustrates his points with varied examples that reveal incredible foresight in planning for biochemical systems. From cellular membranes, the genetic code, and human reproduction, to the chemistry of the atmosphere, birds, sensory organs, and carnivorous plants, the book is a light of scientific good sense amid the darkness of naturalistic ideology.”—Kelson Mota, PhD, Professor of Chemistry, Amazon Federal University, Manaus, Brazil

“Eberlin brilliantly makes use of his expertise, achieved in more than twenty-five years applying mass spectrometry in assorted areas such as biochemistry, biology, and fundamental chemistry to outline a convincing case that will captivate even the more skeptical readers.”—Rodinei Augusti, PhD, Full Professor of Chemistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Those sound like endorsements to me. Wouldn’t you agree?

1 Like

IF. I asked you twice to name an aspect of ID not tied to creationism, and you failed to do so.

I totally agree here. However, I’d argue these bad faith attacks give legitimacy to ID in two ways:

  1. If the objections to ID appear based more on a on other reasons besides the research itself, then this gives bystanders like myself a pragmatic reason for ignoring them. In other words, objections to the motivations of “debunkers” ends up undercutting the debunker’s own objections to ID and can demonstrate that such attacks are self-defeating (Such a case can be made based on the behavior of the “skeptical community” and the writings of people like Marcello Truzzi).

  2. People in the ID community allege they are unfairly targeted and excluded from scientific journals. Attacks from people like Farina support this claim. It makes bystanders who know nothing about ID say “hey, maybe ID researchers have a point about being targeted, I wonder if they have a point about anything else.” At the very least, it shows we can’t just take someone’s word for it that ID has no merit, and perhaps have to look at the primary literature to make a decision.

1 Like

To be clear, I did not and do not deny the existence of scientists, albeit a small minority, who take ID seriously. Similarly, I would not deny that there are many scientists who take seriously other forms of quackery and crackpottery like homeopathy, energy healing, climate denial, anti-vaccination etc.

What I doubted was @Eddie’s specific claim that he personally knows scores of “ID insider scientists”, in large part because there do not exist scores of ID insider scientists.

And, when pressed to substantiate his claim, it was confirmed that he was bluffing, because his definition of the term “ID insider scientist” would include some IT executive with whom he was acquainted and who had read Darwin’s Doubt and liked it.

Have you any evidence that OOL is commonly misrepresented, and its successes exaggerated, in undergraduate science education? I doubt the subject is even routinely covered at all to any major extent. Can you provide references to standard undergrad textbooks or course syllabuses that do what you claim?

I doubt Farina, and certainly no established OOL researcher, would disagree with this. So this seems to be a straw man argument.

You continue to misunderstand. No one is criticizing Tour for his religious views. Those views are essentially the same as those of, say, Francis Collins and @swamidass. Yet the same people who criticize Tour’s views on evolution and OOL have not problem with those two individuals, nor with any of other Evangelical and Born Again Christians who understand and accept evolution.

Tour and other ID proponents are criticized, not for their religious views, but because they allow their religious views to prevent them from properly understanding and representing the evidence regarding evolution and OOL.

3 Likes

As I mentioned in my video, the fact that the public thinks we are farther along than we are is reason to think either some claims are exaggerated or that the public thinks OOL is easier to solve than it actually is. My issue with science education is students taught to believe science as a set of orthodoxy rather than how to ask questions and test hypothesis. They end up not understanding what science is and what kinds of questions science can (and cannot) answer.

As long as textbooks keep it clear there are multiple pathways/hypothesis for how it could have happened, I don’t have a problem with how OOL is taught in principle.

From this thread:

1 Like

Exactly. Introductory science college courses take a bunch of high school know nothings and stuff an insane breadth of information in the course of 20-30 lectures. It is all they can do to absorb the Krebs cycle; nobody gives a hoot as to how it came about.

2 Likes

There is no ID research.

Not a valid point. They started their own journal and still don’t manage to produce any tests of ID hypotheses.

1 Like

The context of my question to you was not Eddie’s claim about “scientists in the Intelligent Design movement.” Moreover, the fact that you had to phrase it in that way shows just how silly it is. There aren’t any ID scientists, theoretical, empirical, or any combination thereof. If ID had any scientific basis, there would simply be ID scientists and no ID movement.

The context of my question was,

Why did you excise the context and pretend I was asking about something else? I sincerely hope that you did so in error.

2 Likes