A Discoveroid Podcast about James Tour

The Discovery Institute’s creationist blog is once again featuring James Tour. His Wikipedia write-up mentions that he’s a signer of the Discoveroids’ Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. In addition to that credential, four years ago we wrote James Tour at the Jack Chick Website.

With credentials like that, you know that Tour is someone to whom you should pay attention. The Discoveroid blog post is titled More on James Tour’s Abiogenesis YouTube Series, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

On a new episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], physicist Brian Miller continues his review of James Tour’s origin-of-life YouTube series [link omitted].

Are you following this, dear reader? Tour has a YouTube series. That’s impressive! Then the Discoveroid post says:

As Miller explains, Tour, a world-renowned synthetic organic chemist and professor at Rice University, was inspired to create the series when YouTuber and evolutionist [Evolutionist? Egad!] Dave Farina critiqued Tour’s critique of contemporary origin-of-life claims.

Only a Darwinist fool! would critique someone like Jame Tour! The Discoveroids tell us:

In reviewing Tour’s video series, Miller and host Eric Anderson praise the Tour series and discuss the Levinthal paradox of the interactome, the ridiculously long odds of blind processes assembling the first living cell, and the challenge of cell death (think Humpty Dumpty and what all the king’s men couldn’t do).

Wikipedia has an article on Levinthal’s paradox. It’s about the allegedly impossible odds against proper protein folding. It seems that life is impossible without a miracle — or so the creationists claim.

The Discoveroids’ final paragraph is a biggie:

Also discussed: entropy, molecular machines, the challenges that Brownian motion and homochirality pose, the presence of intelligent design in attempts by origin-of-life researchers to assemble cellular building blocks, and a poll showing that the public has been misled [Gasp!] into believing that researchers have created simple life, and even frogs, in the lab. [That’s outrageous!] Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

You don’t want to miss that one, dear reader. After you’ve experienced the podcast, get back here and tell us all about it.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

7 responses to “A Discoveroid Podcast about James Tour

  1. How does Intelligent Design propose to solve Levinthal’s Paradox?
    It is more difficult to make a solution for a prooblem, that is, to design, than to verify that something is a solution.

  2. When he says “blind processes assembling the first living cell” I’ll assume he means it in the hyper-literal sense of Ray Charles since an honest person wouldn’t want to mislead readers into thinking there are no natural forces or that a living cell was suddenly “assembled” in one day.

  3. Dave Luckett

    I would suggest that Levinthal’s Paradox operates on the same principle and has the same solution as other paradoxes that compare theory with nature: the theory is not exhaustive. We don’t know enough about the possible actors on protein folding. Levinthal apparently proposed that solution himself.

    But creationists will – in fact, must – take refuge in ignorance to suggest that God did it. See how God has shrunk! From the Being who ordered all reality into existence with a word, He has become the director of protein folding. The God of the gaps in our knowledge, indeed.

  4. I’m not a scientist, but I don’t understand how Levinthal’s Paradox presents a difficulty to standard evolutionary theory – that there is no direction. It isn’t as if evolution, even if we extend it to the origin of life, is aiming at life as we know it. So, if it is so difficult for evolution to hit the target of life as we know it, there was no such target to evolution.
    Rather, it seems to me. Levinthal’s Padadox applies to any theory which says that there is a goal to the ways of the world, such as a design. How can one design the ways of change to end up at life as we know it as a target?

  5. Eddie Janssen

    @Dave Luckett
    God must know how to operate AlphaFold 2. If not he is limited to the lesser jobs in Google’s Deep Mind team.

  6. docbill1351

    You only have to know one thing about Tour: he’s a pathological liar.

    So, you can discount any discussion about Tour’s “views.” It’s a fool’s errand.

    Check out this video in which Gary Hurd dismantles Tour’s lies one by one. Historical point, Tour had to apologize to the scientists he slandered in this video. However, in subsequent videos on the same topic, Tour spewed the same lies.

    Tour’s Gish Gallop

  7. @Eddie Johansson
    A designer of life must solve a more difficult problem than “what protein results from this DNA?” In order to design life, one must solve “what DNA will produce this protein?”
    And just think of the difficulty in designing a universe. “What parameters and what laws, will turn out to be fine-tuned for life?”