James Tour demolishes secular origin of life talk

I have been doing some avid watching of IDist (intelligent design theorist) Stephen Meyer lately and came across someone else, James Tour, who is even more explicit and blunt in his assessment that the problem of the origin of life has never been solved. He’s a synthetic organic chemist so he has credibility. The first video I came upon is very short but succinct at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y&t=1s

However, thereafter, I came across yet another longer speech by him which would be rare because he says he doesn’t normally do speeches. He concentrates more on journal articles. He doesn’t talk about God or religion or anything in this talk and sticks strictly to the scientific aspect of this issue, and people can draw their own metaphysical conclusions from what he says.  It’s at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg&t=2363s

What I found most notable – and reasonable to believe – is how scientists (and scientists speaking toward reporters who cover them) is how they misrepresent the origin of life controversy. It occurs in the second link I provided above. Essentially what they do is mix a bunch of chemicals together, find some kind of reaction that they claim is close to providing the kind of reaction necessary to start life, and then proclaim they have solved the origin-of-life problem. But they haven’t even came close to doing it.

That brings me to Richard Dawkins who I have covered in some detail in much of my writing. I recently, in one of my writings, argued that reality is difficult for evolutionists to face particularly regarding the origin of life. It’s at https://thesecularleftcritique.wordpress.com/reality-is-tough-on-evolution-or-when-the-data-doesnt-fit-your-theory-the-data-must-be-wrong/ Here’s part of what I said on him:

Evolutionists don’t admit defeat, and to cope with a perilous situation they rely on continued agnosticism. This can continue for years without the realization that at one point they should admit they are wrong. Dawkins’ writing on the origin of life is a case in point. In 1986, Dawkins noted that “chemists have failed in their attempts to duplicate the spontaneous origin of life in the laboratory.” He has also noted that “We still don’t know exactly how natural selection began on Earth.”[xii] In 2006, not much changed. Dawkins says “The origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative, subject for research . . . I shall not be surprised if, within the next few years, chemists report that they have successfully midwifed a new origin of life in the laboratory.” It hasn’t happened yet, he says, and he maintains that the probability of it happening is extremely low although we can, he says, have confidence it happened at least once.[xiii] Perhaps the reason that life is so improbable and that researchers can’t create life is that there is something missing in these attempts that make it impossible to do so. Maybe intelligence is needed; perhaps even divine intelligence.