Debate on the Origins of Life Part One

KEVIN HARRIS: If anyone has a problem with high blood pressure, they may want to skip watching the debate^[1] that we are going to be talking about because it was filled with aggressive personal attacks, name-calling, and even some unexpected profanity from one of the debaters. It occurred recently at Rice University between Dr. James Tour, professor of chemistry, professor of material science and nano-engineering, and professor of computer science there at Rice University. Followers of Reasonable Faith will be familiar with his name. The other debater was a science communicator popular on YouTube, Dave Farina (also known as Professor Dave). The topic was “Are we clueless about life's origins?” Dr. Wayne Guida was the moderator. He's professor of chemistry, University of South Florida. Dr. Tour and Professor Dave have been responding to each other's YouTube videos for a couple of years, so that's what led to this live debate. What was your overall impression, Bill?

DR. CRAIG: Having participated in eight years of high school and intercollegiate debate competition, I have a pretty good idea what makes for a good debate, and this was not a good debate. This was more like a cockfight than a debate. It was pretty ugly.

KEVIN HARRIS: The format of the debate, I think, was flawed going in because it was almost set up to be a grudge match. These two had really been going after each other, responding to one another's YouTube videos. And so the cork was about to blow off the bottle already before they even got together. But then, of course, the debate wasn't very controlled. The format wasn't very controlled, and so it left room for a free-for-all to begin with the debaters talking over one another, and for the audience to begin talking, and then you've got chaos. So I found it defective from the get-go.

DR. CRAIG: Yeah, I couldn't agree more with you. I think there's such value in having a debate with a formal structure involving timed constructive speeches and rebuttal speeches and closing statements. If you want to have a cross-examination period, you can schedule that in between those constructive speeches. But to have both people up at the front at two podiums talking at the same time, as you say, just invites chaos. There are a couple of other things that were flawed about that way of setting things up. By having both speakers at the podium at the same time, the one speaker is a distraction from the other so that while one is speaking the audience is looking at the facial expressions and reactions of the other debater, and that can be very distracting and undermine what the speaker is trying to say. In fact, late in the debate you'll notice Dave Farina actually mocking the gestures of James Tour – doing the same gestures at the same time as though he were miming him. This was just, I think, a fatal setup. And the other thing I have to say, too, is that when you have both debaters up front at the same time it's pretty prejudicial against the guy who is not as good-looking. Dave Farina was young, handsome, tall, relaxed. He looked good. Whereas James Tour is older, he's gray, he's shorter. And just the visual impression, I think, is not good to have that sort of contrast. Now, I'd be interested in hearing what you think about this because I may be sensitive because I'm older now myself. Maybe having the older gray professor gave him a certain gravitas that Dave didn't have. But I felt that for a student debate, the students would identify more with Dave Farina than with James Tour. I think, too, that Tour was not dressed appropriately for a debate. He wore a kind of washed out gray suit that didn't look that great on him. What he needed to do was have something like a navy blue blazer with a white shirt to provide sharp contrast, and then a pair of gray trousers, say. That would give him both a degree of formality but also more of an attractive contrast. It would look better. These first impressions, of course, fade as the debate proceeds, but still first impressions are important. I think the way the debate was set up, the way the stage was set up, was prejudicial.

KEVIN HARRIS: Sure. I'm trying to figure this out, too, because in this new world of social media, YouTube influencers who are very good at communicating and often very good-looking are effective in that area. But think about how shallow that ultimately is if the content isn't there. You're influencing, but that doesn't mean that you've got good content. That is why it could be very shallow. Dr. Tour was there to really try to get down to the nuts and bolts, and yet the influencing of Farina was also obvious. I'm torn about this one. We'll talk about it some more. Overall, how would you analyze an event like this?

DR. CRAIG: I think it's very helpful to use Aristotle's rhetoric in analyzing this debate. Aristotle distinguished three aspects of any speaking situation: what he called “the logos” (which would be the intellectual content of the speech), “the ethos” (which is the character of the speaker), and then “the pathos” (which is the speaker's connection or relationship with the audience). I think it's very helpful to look at this Farina-Tour debate from each of those angles: the logos, the ethos, and the pathos.

KEVIN HARRIS: Very good. Then let's first talk about the logos. Here are some highlights from Dr. Tour's opening speech. Let's go to that clip.

. . . for the sake of getting through, I am conceding tonight to my opponent all those small molecules in 100% enantiomeric purity. They are yours. I concede them to you for the sake of time. So, let's address other issues tonight since my concession has been granted, and there's still much more ground to cover. I am here defining "clueless" in the context of my typical usage. We cannot solve any of the five criteria needed to make a living cell. None of these can be solved. Mr. Farina has complained that I am a religious man. I am not just religious, I'm deeply religious. Or, as he puts it, I'm a "super super Jesus guy". Well, that's a label that I gladly embrace, and I believe that the Bible is God's Word. I never appeal to that book of authority in my academic lectures or scientific discussions. Never. Unless specifically asked about my religious convictions like in a church or a religious podcast, I never couple those to my scientific criticisms of origin of life research. I will not appeal to the Bible, to God, to miracles, to Jesus, the "god of the gaps", tonight.

. . . As for me, I will stick to the data. The topic tonight is not about me - it's whether there is a valid hypothesis to make a living cell on a mindless early Earth.

. . . these are the five criteria that have to be experimentally addressed in a prebiotically relevant manner in order to have a valid hypothesis for life's origin. We only have time for five tonight: polypeptides, polynucleotides, polysaccharides, the origin of specified information, and the assembly of the above components into an integrated, functional, living system, namely a cell— not merely a random mixture of these. If my opponent is unable to supply all five criteria for life, then we're currently clueless on the origin of life. But since I don't think he'll be able to supply even one of the five, it will show that we're not merely clueless, but utterly clueless.

KEVIN HARRIS: I get the impression that from the opening speech Dr. Tour knew what was coming. He said that he would stick to the data and avoid the personal stuff. He also defined “clueless.” He offered the five criteria, and mentioned “god of the gaps.” So break it down for us.

DR. CRAIG: I think that Tour's opening constructive speech was masterful when analyzed from the standpoint of its logos or intellectual content. His definition of what clueless means was absolutely key to this debate. One of the most important things in a debate is to define the critical terms, and here the critical term was clearly what it means to be clueless. The way Tour defined this was very explicit. He said to be clueless is to be unable to explain all five of those aspects of the origin of life. In order to explain the origin of life from a lifeless condition on early Earth you need to be able to explain those five steps. And if you cannot then that's what he means when he says we're clueless about the origin of life. Now, he went a step further and said not only can we not explain all of them, we can't explain any of them and so we're utterly clueless. But the debate topic was whether or not we're clueless, and he clearly defined that which was excellent, I thought. As for his five criteria. Let's put those up on the screen so that we can talk about them with our audience. Let me explain what these criteria are because otherwise I think much of the debate will just go right over people's heads. In order to have life originate from lifeless chemicals on the early Earth you have to have certain macromolecules or large heavyweight molecules form. The first of these are called polypeptides, and as it indicates on the slide, that means basically our proteins and our enzymes. You've got to be able to figure out a way that lifeless chemicals could produce proteins and enzymes before you can explain how life was formed. Second is the polynucleotides, and basically what this is is your DNA and your RNA. The DNA and RNA carry the genetic information that determines what an organism will be like. You've got to get these polynucleotides somehow formed on the prebiotic Earth. The third macromolecule is the polysaccharides, that is to say the carbohydrates or the sugars. And Tour argues that we don't know how any of these could have been spontaneously formed on early Earth. The fourth – the origin of specified information in the above polymers (that is, those building blocks) – refers to the functional information that is embodied in them. For example, DNA stores genetic information. It is structured according to the genetic code that will then code for producing various amino acids and proteins. So Tour is asking: where do you get that functional information that will be encoded in these macromolecules? And finally, number five, the assembly of all of the above components into an integrated, functional, living system; namely, a cell. It's not enough just to have all of these macromolecules. You've got to have a cell. It's not enough to have a merely randomly mixed mixture. So those are the five criteria, and he's arguing that no one can explain all of these, and therefore we're clueless about the origin of life. What's interesting about this that our audience needs to understand is that James Tour's agnosticism about the origin of life is not the position of some radical reactionary conservative. His agnosticism about the origin of life is actually the mainstream position among origin of life researchers. Let me just give a couple of examples to illustrate this. This is Pier Luisi’s book called The Emergence of Life. He is a Swiss origin of life researcher. His book is an important study of the origin of life. This is what he says on page 69. He says,

You can have all the [low] molecular weight prebiotic compounds . . ., but you will not start life [unless you have] ordered macromolecules. . . . it is one of the unanswered questions (how to make them), and . . . it is a question that is not taken seriously enough in the literature. . . . the fact remains that . . . there has been no . . . way to obtain ordered sequences by prebiotic means.

Now, you’ll notice Jim Tour was very clever in his opening speech. He conceded to Dave Farina the existence of all of the low molecular weight prebiotic compounds. He says, “I'm not going to argue about those.” But what he does claim is that, “You cannot synthesize or explain to me how these macromolecules that I just talked about came about”, and that is the consensus in origin of life studies. Similarly, James Shapiro in his book Evolution: A View From the 21st Century says, “certain questions like the origins of the first living cells currently have no credible scientific answers.” Everybody agrees that we are clueless when it comes to understanding how these chemicals could spontaneously assemble into a living cell. So Tour is right at the center of his discipline here and represents really the mainstream position. I also want to comment on his methodological naturalism because this will emerge as important later on. James Tour is a Christian, as he admits, but did you notice he's what is called a methodological naturalist. He's not a metaphysical naturalist – he believes in God – but he adopts naturalism as a methodological constraint in his work as an organic chemist. That is to say, he will never appeal to non-natural causes. As a scientist he believes that he is limited methodologically to explaining natural effects only by natural causes. Therefore he is committed to methodological naturalism and will not allow his religious beliefs to influence his work as a chemist.

KEVIN HARRIS: That levels the playing field, doesn't it? He’s saying let's look at the data together and use the same methodological naturalism to come to some conclusions.

DR. CRAIG: It does. It means they're arguing on a level playing field. It is not theism versus atheism in any stretch of the imagination.

KEVIN HARRIS: Let's continue the logos aspect then. Here's a compilation of statements from Dave Farina’s opening speech.

Thanks to Rice University for having us here tonight. We are here because of James Tour. James is a chemist, and also an apologist who lies about origin of life research on the Internet.

. . . That's why he regularly lies and pretends that he is published in this area, and his papers are ignored – because of conspiracy.

. . . And that's why we're here - to highlight Jim's fraudulence.

. . . First it is important to establish that James is a brazen liar and charlatan, in ways that everyone can understand without knowing anything about science.

. . . So, he's just lying. He's trying to make science he doesn't like seem infantile and stupid. That’s a lie.

. . .  He needs to lie about this because it's much more difficult to claim that thousands of scientists are all either corrupt or stupid, while only James knows the truth. So he lies.

. . . Or unleashes a barrage of insults about how Dave doesn't know chemistry, even though most of his students use my organic chemistry tutorials to get through his unbearable course.

. . . So, that's a brief summary of James Tour. He's a toxic individual and pathological liar who actively promotes science denial and slanders diligent researchers.

. . . He publicly calls for the halting of an entire field of science he doesn't understand, just to shelter his fragile archaic faith.

. . . And he will be made accountable for his lies for everyone to see. I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I will.

KEVIN HARRIS: Wow. Well, let me first mention that Professor Dave just put out a video claiming that he did not engage in ad hominem attacks against Dr. Tour. You and I have both seen that video. Did he or not?

DR. CRAIG: Well, I'll reserve my comments about Farina's deplorable behavior until we discuss the ethos of each speaker. Here we want to focus on the logos, and I think we want to make it clear that what happened is that Dave Farina went off topic. It's extremely important in a debate that both debaters debate the same question, and Dave Farina made it very clear that he came that night to debate a different topic. He says we're here to expose James Tour as fraudulent. He wanted to debate the topic “Is James Tour a pathological liar and a religious apologist?” and so he simply wasn't debating the topic that was on the table that evening. Now, Farina admittedly looks as though he's simply committing the fallacies of argument ad hominem and the genetic fallacy, but I don't think that he is technically as I think about it. He does not say that Tour’s views are false because he's a pathological liar. Rather, he claims that the evidence refutes Tour's view and therefore he is a liar. And similarly he doesn't say that Tour's views are false because he reached them for religious reasons. Rather he claims that Tour's religious beliefs warp his scientific views. So I don't think that he's committing these logical fallacies despite appearances. The question then becomes, all right then, if that's what he's come to debate, what evidence does Farina present for these very serious allegations?

KEVIN HARRIS: OK. Let’s stop right there. But believe me, it’s going to get even better. We will conclude the analysis of this debate on the next podcast. You don’t want to miss a minute of it. In the meantime, thank you so much for your prayerful and financial support of the work and ministry of Reasonable Faith. Go to ReasonableFaith.org, and you can donate anytime. We appreciate it. We’ll see you on the next podcast.^[2]