I’ve been following Dave Farina’s many attacks on intelligent design, particularly his personal attacks on Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Gunter Bechly, James Tour and Casey Luskin. So I was pleased when Tour challenged Farina to debate on the origin of life research, and, to my surprise, Farina accepted.
Farina and Tour had been sparring for some time, and their interactions culminated in a debate on Friday, May 19, 2023. James Tour, Professor of Chemistry at Rice University is an expert in his field, and a true college professor. Dave Farina has a YouTube channel where he’s known as Professor Dave (not a real professor). He’s a militant atheist and evolutionist who disdains anyone who isn’t. He mocks those who are religious, as well as those who disagree with his insistence on an entirely naturalistic worldview (no exceptions). So here’s my take on the debate:
Tour admitted from the beginning he’s not a skilled debater and had never participated in one before. I’m glad he said this because there are a number of valid criticisms to be applied to his performance, most notably the way he got loud, animated, excited, and talked over his opponent. I didn’t care for that and thought it made it difficult to watch. I kept wishing the moderator would step in, but that never happened. The only other criticism I’d level at Tour was his insistence not to appeal to God or the Bible… not only in class and his research, but in this debate. I understand his rationale for not doing so, but those are topics we should be free to discuss within the arena of science. The issue is it caters to hostility, and the false perception that there should be a separation between science and faith.
Otherwise, the substance of Tour’s debate was spot on. He provided 5 criteria needed to make a living cell and claimed that no one can solve those criteria. He claims the origin of life research field is devoid of any precise chemistry, and he asked his opponent to stick strictly to the scientific data. To that end, he said the debate was about whether there’s a valid hypothesis to make a living cell on a mindless, early earth, and he defined a valid hypothesis as “one in which there’s experimental evidence substantiating the proposed science.” On the other hand, he says, “An invalid hypothesis is one in which there is no way to substantiate the proposed science.” What he’s seeking is “an experimentally valid, verifiable hypothesis as to how life might have originated on an early earth. We must see the origin of life research data.”
Finally he appealed to Mr. Farina, “Please show us their data.”
On the other hand, while Farina remained mostly calm, he came across as a real jerk. Really. Instead of providing any data, he stuck to unsubstantiated claims and constantly insulted Tour and the audience all night long with personal attack after personal attack. I’d love to see a transcript and count how many times he called Tour a liar. But that’s his game, and he thought his schtick would work in his favor.
However, all Farina could do was point to peer reviewed studies and claim that they explain everything. While Tour diagrammed the chemistry on the chalkboard and challenged Farina to explain it, not once did Farina accept the challenge and write the chemistry, equations, or a workable formula on the board for a testable hypothesis. Farina was incapable.
The title of the debate was, “Are we clueless about the origin of life?” And Tour was able to demonstrate that that is the case. Not only was Farina clueless (which he denied), but so are the leading experts in the field, many of whom have admitted failure. Some experts admit we have no credible scientific answers to the origin of the first living cell (James Shapiro), and that we know little more than Darwin did (Dawkins). Professor Lee Cronin even calls origin of life research a “scam,” and says there are lots of layers to the “scam.”
Others who watched the debate concur. One scientist wrote, “It became clear to an outsider like myself that (1) the pathways and equations weren’t actually known, and (2) if they were known and actually in the papers, Dave couldn’t understand them. Or else he would have simply written down the relevant reaction equations.”
Even some of supporters of Farina were embarrassed by his antics, although, predictably, many didn’t think he was nasty enough. Many bought into his, “Look- a peer review says the origin of life issue has been solved,” routine.
While, in my opinion, Tour won the debate, he could have done much better by being self-controlled and interrupting less. Farina, well… he is what he is, and he didn’t know what he was talking about and was incapable of meting Tour’s challenge.
The entire debate is about 2 hours long, and I’ll provide a link if you care to check it out and see who you think won the debate.
sixdaysblog 
While I don’t think Dave was great in the debate, he did answer the question of the debate’s main question, that answer being “are we clueless to the origins of life”. He presented really all he needed at present to answer the question, that answer being clearly “No, we aren’t clueless, 50 years of research says we aren’t. Here’s the research”.
If Tour won the debate , it was on performance alone, but with no actual evidence. He did Gish gallop and goalpost shift a lot. The blackboard antics were kinda meaningless since the research answered his concerns though he didn’t engage with the research presented.
On the blackboard writing, it’s inaccurate to say Dave was incapable of doing the same, since he is a chemist and later actually corrects a common mistake of Tour’s in how he names an enzyme. The blackboard was a theatrical prop that Tour used to great effect against mountains of evidence to his face.
Last bit, Lee Cronin has said on record that he was joking about it being a scam, and he explains it, on twitter and on YouTube what he meant.
Thanks, I appreciate your response.
If you think Farina answered the question, fine. I don’t think he was successful in doing so, and I explained why. Pointing to peer reviewed studies instead of showing the science was a fundamental flaw By Farina. Anyone can point to a stack of papers and act as if they’re vindicated, especially when one doesn’t understand the limitations of the peer review process. I find it kind of meaningless. So I agree with Tour… show me the science!
I found the blackboard helpful. Had Farina been able to engage, I might have to agree with you. But he either couldn’t or wouldn’t. Call it a ‘theatrical prop’ if you will, but it worked, and Farina wasn’t up to the challenge.
You state there were ‘mountains of evidence’ used against Tour, but be specific. What is one specific piece of evidence demonstrating that scientists aren’t clueless about the origin of life that Farina provided? And how does it work in real life? Can you show the science?
You say Cronin said he was joking? Not so. He said there were lots of layers to the scam. So do you think there were lots of layers to the joke too?
Seriously, I’ve seen Cronin’s response and just rewatched it. He wasn’t joking. He actually said he meant it “Tongue-in-cheek.” So he meant it, but said he wanted to “nudge them.”
Let me quote Cronin: “Maybe they’re making assumptions about saying ‘If only I could make this particular type of molecule, say this RNA molecule, or this phosphate diester, or this other molecule, it’s gonna somehow unlock the origin of life’ …and while I think it’s brilliant how you can get to those molecules, I think the chemists and the chemistry of doing the origin of life could be nudged into doing something even more profound.”
“Biologists are giving us a false sense of security of what we’re looking for. And I think the origin of life chemistry is in danger of not making the progress that it deserves.”
“The scam is, ‘If we just make this RNA, we have this fluke event. We know how that’s simple. Let’s make this phosphate diester, or make this ADP or ATP, we’ve got that part nailed. Let’s now make this other molecule and this other molecule… and how many molecules are going to be enough? And then the reason I say this, is when you go back to Craig Venter, when he invented his lifeform, Cynthia, this minimal plasma… he made this wonderful cell and said, ‘I invented life.’ Not quite. He facsimiled the genome from this entity and made it in the lab, all the DNA, but he didn’t make the cell. He had to take an existing cell that has a causal chain going all the way back to LUCA, and he showed, when he took out the genes and put in his genes, synthesized, the cell could blow up, but he could not make a cell from scratch. And even now today, synthetic biologists cannot make a cell from scratch. Because there’s some contingent information embodied outside the genome in the cell, and that is just incredible. So there’s lots of layers to the scam.”
So, not only was Cronin not joking, but he doubled down on it being a scam and explained exactly what the scam is.
This article is so delusional 😂
How so? Can you articulate.
The article shows a well written and argumented point of view, I fully support it.
I watched the video and I fail to understand Farrina’s show men approach that tries to hide his ignorance and deep level understanding. Just a man with a shady mission,and all his follow up responses are proves of this.
Thanks, much appreciated! That debate was more than 2 years ago, but Tour keeps coming out with more information to support his position, and it’s fun to keep up with him and his work.