More evidence that the origin of life was by design

A number materialist Darwinist skeptics, only some of them ignorant of the science, have scoffed at Intelligent Design and have long been claiming that OOL research is rapidly closing in on a viable theory of the undirected abiogenic origin of the first living cells from nonliving chemicals at the beginning of Earth history.

Accordingly, recently a bold challenge was issued by Dr. James Tour to several leading OOL researchers, to successfully answer any of a list of the 5 most fundamental problems in coming up with a plausible model of how undirected chemical interactions on the early Earth could have somehow originated the first primitive living cells from naturally occurring chemicals.  Even one positive response to the challenge would show that they are maybe at least a bit closer to achieving their goal. If any of these researchers was successful in answering any of these queries Tour promised to shut up about OOL being due to intelligent design, and withdraw his various video and text Internet sites.

Well, the time limit has passed with no takers. Zilch. Showing that OOL research is no closer now than 70 years ago to answering any of these key mysteries of how chemicals on the early Earth could have spontaneously organized into primitive living cells. And there is no prospect at all of any light ever appearing at the end of that tunnel. Too bad this failure won't cause the materialist skeptics to shut up. Predictably, there just will be more in an interminably long series of promissory notes.    

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/on-ori...ers-bluff/

It’s a fallacy to conclude that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false by opponents (argumentum ad ignorantiam, also known as an appeal to ignorance or the argument from ignorance). This fallacy relies on the assumption that a statement must be true because it has not been proven to be false (or vice versa).

It’s a fallacy to conclude that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false by opponents (argumentum ad ignorantiam, also known as an appeal to ignorance or the argument from ignorance). This fallacy relies on the assumption that a statement must be true because it has not been proven to be false (or vice versa).

I agree with this in a basic sense, but I do think that Tour has simply presented the [admittedly inverted] equivalent of the Randi $1M challenge.

If it's good for the goose and all that...

I can see what motivated Tour to issue this challenge but I tend to agree with Sciborg.

Tour and other ID proponents must be frustrated that the public are fed the impression that the mainstream players have a full-house - that the OOL story is settled beyond doubt. If you read the arguments from Tour, Meyer et al, it seems clear to me that they at least ask some challenging questions, if not questions that still fail to be answered by the mainstream. So he is trying to highlight this to a public that is constantly fed a diet of arrogant but unwarranted assertions.

Kam,

That's the whole point and why I personally rail against this as 'intellectual dishonesty'.  I deplore it in any and all forms; even when I'm guilty of it myself.

Scientists have refused to stay in their lane and would, either purposefully or unintentionally, take up a priestly mantle by declaring (either directly or through obfuscation) that "God is dead" so to speak.

I understand the motivation as so much evil has been prosecuted under the banner of religion, but cheating never really works.  Criticize religion properly (i.e., jihad) but don't pretend to have answers through science when no such answers exist.  It serves no one to be careless in this regard.

It’s a fallacy to conclude that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false by opponents (argumentum ad ignorantiam, also known as an appeal to ignorance or the argument from ignorance). This fallacy relies on the assumption that a statement must be true because it has not been proven to be false (or vice versa).

Read my words. I didn't at all say that the failure of the OOL researchers to successfully respond to this challenge was proof that the OOL was by intelligent design, just that it was a certain amount of evidence that cumulatively indicates that this was probably the case. And I pointed out that the response to this from the materialist skeptics would probably not be to give up, but to just write another "promissory note" - "just wait a little longer for further research". Sure, another 70 years? Of course even such a large piece of negative evidence doesn't amount to actual proof, and I didn't claim that.

I agree with this in a basic sense, but I do think that Tour has simply presented the [admittedly inverted] equivalent of the Randi $1M challenge.

If it's good for the goose and all that...

My response to sbu.

Read my words. I didn't at all say that the failure of the OOL researchers to successfully respond to this challenge was proof that the OOL was by intelligent design, just that it was a certain amount of evidence that cumulatively indicates that this was probably the case. And I pointed out that the response to this from the materialist skeptics would probably not be to give up, but to just write another "promissory note" - "just wait a little longer for further research". Sure, another 70 years? Of course even such a large piece of negative evidence doesn't amount to actual proof, and I didn't claim that.

I get your point, evidence != proof