Christian news site finds Chemist who doesn’t believe in Evolution.

whystilldustFor all the talk Christians engage in about faith and how believing despite a lack of evidence is part of what it means to be a Christian, there’s quite a few of them out there that will jump at any chance to quote a scientist — any scientist — who might provide some argument in their favor.

So it is that the folks at Christian News Network came to publish the following article: Renowned Chemist Says Evolutionists Do Not Understand the Origin of Life. In it they describe Rice University professor Dr. James Tour as follows:

Dr. James Tour is a well-known professor at Rice University, specializing in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Over the last 30 years, Tour has authored over 500 research publications, and he was recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org. Tour has also received awards and recognitions from the American Chemical Society, Thomson Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others.

Clearly he’s a Big Deal, though I’m not sure why anyone thinks getting an award from TheBestSchools.org is worth bragging about as it appears to be Yet Another College Ranking website that’s popular mostly among religious institutions.

Still, that’s not the point! Awards! He’s gotten several awards for knowing that of which he speaks! Clearly then we must take him seriously when he says things like:

“I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist,” Tour said, “if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules.”

Well, that depends. Has Dr. Tour actually studied evolution? This is an important question because the article then goes on to say:

Despite his experiences and expertise, Tour admits that he does not understand how evolution could account for life’s existence.

Here we run into the first problem: Evolution doesn’t try to account for life’s existence — that would fall under abiogenesis and is a separate field of study — Evolution just describes the processes that take place after it showed up.

But let’s get back to that question I asked a moment ago. Has Dr. Tour spent any time studying the Theory of Evolution? The article seems to indicate that he hasn’t:

“I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video. “Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.”

Right up front he’s admitting he doesn’t understand the theory. Though don’t lose faith in him just yet:

However, Tour says he is not the only one who does not understand how life could have arisen through natural, unguided processes.

“Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners,” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’”

The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: “no.”

“Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” Tour said. “And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”

Oh my goodness! Someone who doesn’t understand Evolution knows other people who aren’t studying it that also don’t understand it! That surely must prove it’s a lie, right?

Well, no. Not really. It just means Dr. Tour and some of the other scientists he hangs out with don’t understand the theory. The fact that he seems set on it explaining the origin of life, which the theory doesn’t do, would probably go a long way to explaining his lack of understanding.

The article is based roughly on an hour and a half lecture Dr. Tour gave in late 2012 on the subject of Nanotech and Jesus Christ at Georgia Tech which you can watch on YouTube by clicking here.

I don’t dispute that Dr. Tour knows his organic chemistry and is clearly an expert on nanotech, but that doesn’t mean he’s an expert on Evolution or should be expected to know much about it. The Christian News Network article also goes on to quote from one of his blog posts in which he pretty much says his understanding of Evolution is, at best, as a layman. Here’s the big the article quotes:

Fair says there is an important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution—the former is clearly observable and repeatable, but the latter has never been witnessed.

“From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution,” he wrote in a blog post. “The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.”

There’s an important bit from the very start of the entry, however, that they decided to leave out:

Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.

Dr. Tour considered this important enough that he placed it at the very start of his blog entry. He goes on to say that he’s often cited as a proponent of Intelligent Design and he’d really wish people would stop doing that.

I 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.

The rest of his blog post outlines a couple of the issues he has with macroevolution and why that makes him skeptical of it and, overall, it’s pretty reasonable. He does go on to claim that there is some persecution of scientists who express skepticism of macroevolution, but refuses to cite specific examples of such.

What’s interesting to me about the Christian News Network article is that it’s author, 

I’m not sure why Mr. Haley seems to think that finding a scientist who is a Christian and who has doubts about a scientific theory he doesn’t personally study should be newsworthy. There are lots of them out there. Hell, the field of Engineering is rife with creationists for some reason. The fact that these people are out there isn’t evidence that the theory is false. It just shows that people who haven’t studied it much may have trouble trying to understand it.

11 thoughts on “Christian news site finds Chemist who doesn’t believe in Evolution.

  1. On the one hand, sure there are parts of evolutionary history that are not in our possession, I figure that gap gets filled out paper by thesis by study. On the other hand, it’s not impossible that we were created, but stop and think, if so, the entity or entities went to great lengths to leave no smoking gun, serial numbers or any evidence that couldn’t be explained as random evolution. Not evidence of the work of a loving deity, more like a much regretted youthful indiscretion, and if we find him, he’ll request a restraining order.

  2. They’re just desperate to find any actual scientist that rejects evolution. And the only thing they could find is a scientist that simply doesn’t understand it – big news.

  3. THERE WAS NEVER BEEN AN EVOLUTION.
    With all the life forms supposedly from 500 million years, transitional fossils should have been fairly easy to find. Between the 19th and the 21st century, millions of fossils were found. None were transitional fossils. If the theory was correct, we should have found millions of them. It is so bad that evolutionists do not use fossils as evidence for evolution anymore. And yet, in some dishonest sites, they used longtime left out proof because they don’t have anything else. The September 14, 2016 CNN News article title “Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend” explained how a new fossil discovery makes it even tougher for Darwinists to explain the origin of life. Darwin said that the only way to establish his theory was by the fossils record. We should ask ourselves about the honesty of many evolutionists from the past. Hundreds of books stated that they found transitional fossils, we know now there was all made up proof. True scientists would not fabricate evidence, true scientist would only look at the facts without preconceptions. If they used preconceptions, it is no longer in the scientific domain, it is pure doctrinal, closer to a form of religion. Fossils are not the only problem the evolutionists are struggling with. In fact it is so bad that the Nature magazine of the October 8, 2014, titles an article ” Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? ” Two evolution clans have different opinions. Other crashes inside the evolutionist community has happened many times before. It would not happen if evolution was a fact. Nothing really new under the sun. The reason there were so many disproval and frauds since the beginning of Darwin’s theory is because, it’s very hard to prove something that never happened.

  4. You are really trying to misdirect your readers from the obvious. That there are intelligent, and proven scientific professionals, who when they look at the “evidence” that is supposed to support evolution, they state flatly that they do not see what they are told they are supposed to be seeing.
    This my friend is especially damning for the theory of evolution and the evolutionists, because if you have to tell someone what to see, and tell them what they see, that means it is not as plain as the evolutionists and atheists are claiming it to be. The proof that they are stating is irrefutable, is irrefutable, simply because the evidence is not there to refute. And it gets worse these scientists are not simply stating they don’t “see the beef”, they are disarming what little physical evidence that the evolutionists do offer as proof, and showing how the theory that they are using to support how that evidence supports the theory of evolution, does not do so.
    Do you recognize this famous scientist? “http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html.
    “Last December 9 archeologist and paleo-anthropologist Mary Leakey died at age 83. Although Leakey was convinced that man had evolved from ape-like ancestors, she was equally convinced that scientists will never be able to prove a particular scenario of human evolution. Three months before her death, she said in an interview: “All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.” [Associated Press (AP) Dec. 10, 1996.]”
    And this is From Professor Tour. “I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

    If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

    But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

    The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.

    Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.

    I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)”
    (https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/)

  5. Gerald shows up to breathe new life into a 3 year-old blog post. Let’s see what he has for us:

    You are really trying to misdirect your readers from the obvious. That there are intelligent, and proven scientific professionals, who when they look at the “evidence” that is supposed to support evolution, they state flatly that they do not see what they are told they are supposed to be seeing.

    I’m not trying to misdirect anyone. I’m pointing out that a religious website managed to find a Chemist with no background in evolutionary study to state that he doesn’t understand how life could’ve started. The problems with that should be obvious to anyone.

    The man himself has stated that he doesn’t “have anything substantive to say about it” which should’ve been the point at which they moved on in their search for someone to criticize the theory of evolution. There’s also the fact that the Theory of Evolution says nothing about how life got started, something Dr. James Tour seems to not be aware of.

    The point being, if it’s clear the man doesn’t understand one of the most basic aspects of the Theory of Evolution — that it offers no explanation for the origin of life — then it brings into question any criticisims he may have about the theory. When the man himself clearly states that he has nothing substantive to say about it then there’s no point in listening when he tries to say anything about it. About the only thing he does say that was worth listening to was that he “doesn’t understand evolution.”

    This my friend is especially damning for the theory of evolution and the evolutionists, because if you have to tell someone what to see, and tell them what they see, that means it is not as plain as the evolutionists and atheists are claiming it to be.

    Whoever said it was plain to see? That’s kinda my point. It’s not particularly plain to see which is why you have to do some study on it. If you don’t understand the very basics of the theory with regards to what it does and doesn’t say then any argument you try to make is going to be flawed. There’s nothing damning about that fact.

    The proof that they are stating is irrefutable, is irrefutable, simply because the evidence is not there to refute.

    This tells me you’ve not studied the theory either. There is tons of evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution. For crying out loud, the theory of evolution is one of the bedrock foundations on which modern medicine is based. There are literally thousands upon thousands of books and scientific papers on the subject on both a broad and specialized scale that lay out the specifics and the evidence which supports it. If you don’t see any evidence for it it’s only because you’re not looking for it.

    The fact that you would even try to make this argument is reason enough to stop here and not waste my time with the rest of whatever you had to say. It would be one thing to claim that the evidence in support of evolution is flawed in some way, supposing you could back that claim up with something substantive, but to flat out claim “the evidence is not there to refute” tells me you haven’t taken the time to even see what evidence there is.

    Why should I waste my time on the rest of what you have to say when you clearly won’t take the time to learn about the thing you’re claiming is wrong? Come back when you’ve done some research. I see no reason why I have to hand it to you on a silver platter.

  6. Knowingly or not, “I’m not trying to misdirect anyone. I’m pointing out that a religious website managed to find a Chemist with no background in evolutionary study to state that he doesn’t understand how life could’ve started. The problems with that should be obvious to anyone.” You are using silly and useless misdirection to try and prevent your readers from seeing the truth. Now maybe because you are just not willing to see the truth or because you are just to proud to admit the truth, but evolution is not rocket science. The macro and micro evolution, is as easy to get the gist of, as much as gravity. Only gravity, has proof behind it. We can actually see gravity in play. No one has to attempt to hold our hand and tell us what we should be saying. Evolution is not “Waldo, where are you?”
    You can eventually find Waldo. But no one can ever find the evidence for evolution because it is built upon pure speculation. And there are paleontologists and chemists and physicists, and mathematicians, and biologists, and Nobel Prize winners, and business men and women, and astronomers, and, and Christians, who believe that evolution is bunk.
    The atheist, such as yourself I gather, would like everyone to believe that some where in some super secret vault, under armed guard, there are complete fossils that have been dug up that clearly shows a fossilized mother dinosaur organism, with a fossilized baby just being born when it died, and, and when you compare the mother with the baby, they look absolutely different from one another. At least that would be the ideal scenario, that the atheist, such as yourself, would love to be able to just plaster all over the net to, stick it to those Creationists and Intelligent Designers. But sadly, you don’t have this, and you have even far, far less. You have zilch for the evidence of the macro evolution. From Charles Darwin down through history, there have been scientists who value their name and character, more than the praise and accolade, of people. And these people have stated unequivocally that if Charles Darwin had a reason to worry about no transition fossils, proving his theory, more so does the evolutionists 150 years later, because in the time of Charles Darwin, they could get away with the excuse that there just hadn’t been a lot of fossils unearthed at that time. But 150 years later there have been tons of fossils uncovered, and still the evolutionists do not have fossils that can actually be shown to be part of one extinct organism and then later shown to be part of a completely different organism.
    The evolutionists are saying that there are transitional fossils,as if they have filmed the actual morphing of one organism, developing into a completely different organism. All that is actually offered is, “we think or we believe it all happened in such and such a way”. And yet defying the scientific method, they expect that it should all be accepted as truth, just because they who call themselves “scientists” say so. And I ask happily for the pictures of those transitions, that I have read on many a supposedly scientific website, but then they provide nothing.
    Now I said you are trying to distract. These scientists are qualified enough to look at the evidence. To go through the research papers. And you want to make lite of their capabilities to sift through hear say as evidence, and say they don’t “get” it because they didn’t take any studies in evolution. First of all, I’m sure they took some classes. Thanks to those supporting evolution in order for a student not to get the trash called evolution, you need to go to a completely private school. Now today, you need to watch out. Churches and private schools and now some public schools are not teaching evolution without also showing how the evidence that is claimed to support evolution, is coming up as a big no. They are showing how smoke and mirrors are being used to distract students from the “but’s” that are waiting to be asked but go unanswered by those, some of whom are being forced to teach evolution.
    So you are wanting to see what I can bring to the fray. Well I ask you to put your best foot forward and don’t come half stepping. First show us the mountain of fossils that are said to prove unequivocally that evolution is as sound as the theory of gravity, or the speed of light. Or that the earth is not flat. Give me actual proof like heliocentrism. I await your best.

  7. This, “For crying out loud, the theory of evolution is one of the bedrock foundations on which modern medicine is based.” this is downright a lie.
    Evolution is not supported by medicine. As a matter of fact Medicine is it’s own scientific specialization. Medicine is one reason that evolution is shown to be wrong. And medicine, has had ways to show the medicine should be accepted. Your statement is just as invalid today as it was when doctors first followed Darwin, only to have to excise it from the science of medicine for all time. “http://www.icr.org/article/darwinian-medicine-prescription-for-failure/)
    “The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory. As Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book “The Way of the Cell” published by Oxford University Press, “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Evolutionists often say “it evolved”, but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.”
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
    Please read this article completely and then tell me the flaws or lies embedded within. Or become to apologize to your readers and confess you were wrong to support evolution and that all should search the Bible for the truth within its pages.

  8. And this is just plainly short sighted and of design to be as such. “The point being, if it’s clear the man doesn’t understand one of the most basic aspects of the Theory of Evolution — that it offers no explanation for the origin of life — then it brings into question any criticisims he may have about the theory.” The evolutionists would have us think that evolution was not meant to explain life. They are like Hawkins admission that he was willing to entertain the possibility that life could have come from another planet, or from some not godlike beings, that brought life here. But short sightedly fail to realize that they still have not dealt with the question. How did life began.
    And this is what evolution is trying to keep from becoming understood. So they say that evolution was not intended to explain life, but with their open intentions to prove that all “could have” appeared with out an Intelligence, they are actually implying that life could have come about without an intelligence. They would stand behind ignorance saying we don’t know, but telling all that “but it wasn’t God” , all the while refusing to accept the possibility that all did come about by God. They have even resurrected an old tossed theory almost as old as the flat earth theory to make their theory of evolution viable. And this theory is “spontaneous generation”. Which is supposed to be life coming all of a sudden from nothing. They have repackaged this old theory to make it seem to be able to shore up the theory of evolution, because it doesn’t explain how life could have evolved from nothing to everything, and realizing that if life could not have evolved from nothing, then their theory of evolution, is in danger of being dismissed also. And since spontaneous generation has already been untheorized by earlier real scientists, now the push is on to theorize that it was possible for chemicals to have somehow become isolated, (they haven’t been able to prove that the chemicals necessary for life, if indeed chemicals could have done what they are not saying).Then they have to show how these chemicals could have become unmixed from all the other chemicals that had to have been present, if the other chemicals were present, and among all these chemicals, there had to have been chemicals that would destroy life, like the cellular oxidizing effects of Oxygen. Which you do know is part of what H2O is made of. And yet they are suggesting that life could have started in the depth, of water around heated pools. And still all of these other theories have yet to have any “umph” under them to be able to catch some wind inorder to send into orbit the deflated theory of evolution.

  9. “The fact that you would even try to make this argument is reason enough to stop here and not waste my time with the rest of whatever you had to say. It would be one thing to claim that the evidence in support of evolution is flawed in some way, supposing you could back that claim up with something substantive, but to flat out claim “the evidence is not there to refute” tells me you haven’t taken the time to even see what evidence there is.

    Why should I waste my time on the rest of what you have to say when you clearly won’t take the time to learn about the thing you’re claiming is wrong? Come back when you’ve done some research. I see no reason why I have to hand it to you on a silver platter.”
    And so goes around and around. There you have it folks. Another person with faith in evolution, who says there is evidence for their god evolution, but when someone actually calls them out on the carpet to list all the proof, they run off scurrying for the darkness, yelling all the while “they just haven’t studied, or they just don’t understand”. This is because they don’t have the evidence. They have supposition only. With out any kind of demonstrable proof that clearly shows how the macro type of evolution was at all possible.

  10. And I noticed that you made a big deal about Professor Tour saying that he “didn’t understand” evolution. As if trying to say “of course he does’t understand it. He needs some or edumacation” to understand it. What you mean is that he needs to be brainwashed and told what to think. But you don’t realize that there are some people, especially successful ones who have made their living thinking on their own. And you failed for some reason to talk about when Professor Tour made this statement.

    “And this. “… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.”
    Now, talk to me. Telling me I don’t know, you may be able to get away with. Although I think I know a bit more about evolution than you do right now. Buy you can’t even begin to say that Professor Tour isn’t able to go through this evidence and say yes or no.

  11. Gerald is apparently incapable of replying to a comment all at once. Let’s see if we should bother reading any of it:

    You are using silly and useless misdirection to try and prevent your readers from seeing the truth. Now maybe because you are just not willing to see the truth or because you are just to proud to admit the truth, but evolution is not rocket science.

    Of course evolution isn’t rocket science. That’s an entirely different and unrelated field of study. I wouldn’t expect a rocket scientist to know much about evolution.

    The macro and micro evolution, is as easy to get the gist of, as much as gravity. Only gravity, has proof behind it.

    Again, there is tons of evidence supporting evolution that has been published over the years. If you’re going to insist that no such evidence exists then we have no need to read any further into your multiple replies.

    If you feel that you can dismiss the countless hours of work by scientists that back up the theory of evolution with a wave of your hand then I can dismiss anything you have to say with the same disdain. You’re clearly not here to have an honest conversation and I have better ways I could spend my time than arguing with a closed minded fool.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.