Responses to James Tour

[Gwaithmir]

I'm interested in finding responses to articles published by creationist James Tour in which he criticizes the latest research into abiogenesis, claiming for one reason or another why it is impossible and never happened. I've done several Google searches for such articles with no luck.

James Tour - Wikipedia
Two Experiments in Abiogenesis | Articles | Inference: International Review of Science (inference-review.com)
Animadversions of a Synthetic Chemist | Articles | Inference: International Review of Science (inference-review.com)

[HappySkeptic]

I'm interested in finding responses to articles published by creationist James Tour in which he criticizes the latest research into abiogenesis, claiming for one reason or another why it is impossible and never happened. I've done several Google searches for such articles with no luck.

James Tour - Wikipedia
Two Experiments in Abiogenesis | Articles | Inference: International Review of Science (inference-review.com)
Animadversions of a Synthetic Chemist | Articles | Inference: International Review of Science (inference-review.com)

I am not a chemist, but he seems to be saying that some scientific research into abiogenesis is not realistic to actual Earth conditions (whatever they may be).  Basically, the Earth doesn't have nice laboratory purified gases and such.

Scientific work into possible pathways for abiogenesis is absolutely necessary.  Only then can a pathway that might occur in nature be determined.

To many believers, the creation of life and the big-bang (both of which could be singular events) are the last bastion of where a god might have diddled with nature.  Take that away, and they have either no god, or one that simply doesn't do anything.

This is just FUD for benefit of the fundies.