From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

James Tour explained to Tucker Carlson how evolutionary theory collapses, noting that complex life suddenly ‘just appeared, as if God spoke it into existence.’

One of the world’s leading organic chemists explained to Tucker Carlson in a recent interview why the theory of evolution is unsupported, in contradiction to the supposed consensus of the scientific establishment.

James Tour, who was born into a secular Jewish family and converted to Christianity, has had a stellar career as a chemistry and nanotechnology researcher and has been repeatedly recognized as one of the world’s most influential scientists. He pointed out that most public critics of evolution do not have his knowledge of biochemistry, which allows him to critique evolutionary theory from its foundation.

Tour explained that while scientists have observed what can be called “micro-evolution” changes, such as changes to bacteria that make them more resistant to antibiotics, body plan changes in organisms have never been observed.

An example of a body plan change would be an “invertebrate, something that does not have a spine,” changing into an organism with a spine, said Tour. “That never happens.” In order for body plans to change, there must be changes in genetic networks, he noted.

One of the biggest holes in evolutionary theory he highlighted is the fact that, while people will “point to fossils of one creature as a precursor to another creature,” fossils of the intermediate “transformative” organisms are never seen.

Instead of intermediate fossil records, we see the Cambrian explosion, which scientists describe as the sudden emergence of a massive array of complex life.

“They just appeared, as if God spoke it into existence. As if God said, ‘let these kind form.’ There is an explosion,” Tour said.

“But doesn’t that kind of blow up the theory right there? Because if evolution was real, you would see a gradual ramp-up from a single cell,” said Carlson.

Tour affirmed that there has been no such observed gradual evolution. He also earlier pointed out that no satisfactory biochemical explanation of evolution has been presented. In fact, human beings have not even been able to create any of the four polymer components of life, which include lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids, using a prebiotic root. In other words, no one has been able to assemble any of these molecules using the “chemicals and techniques that would have been available on earth before life.”

“We don’t even know how to make the basic building blocks of the building blocks that make us,” said Tour. That includes a living cell.

Carlson then questioned why those who deny evolution are treated as if they’ve “committed a moral crime.”

The theory is already very deeply ingrained into published literature, including the educational system, noted Tour. “Textbooks are built around this. This is all people know,” he said, adding that it frightens people to question evolution.

Tour shared that, remarkably, he has had people from two different federal agencies stop by his office – ”because they did not even want to put this in an email to me” – to tell him that he can “stop writing proposals” because they are never going to get funded.

“I even had a proposal that got a very high score. And I called the program director and said ‘What happened?’” According to Tour, even the director was surprised. Apparently, someone above him had axed the proposal.

“Because you had questioned the orthodoxy on evolution?” asked Carlson.

“Correct,” said Tour. He went on to explain exactly what it was that marked him as an evolutionary “heretic.”

Around the year 2000, he received via email a request to sign a statement that said, “We view random mutation and natural selection as being inadequate to explain the diversity of life. Therefore, further research is warranted.” It was carefully worded, he pointed out.

Later in 2005, he began to ask about why he had not yet been admitted into the National Academy of Science, given his exceptional scientific work.

“And they told me, ‘Jim, you’re not going to get into the National Academy of Science because you signed that statement.’”

“I said, what are you talking about? That statement? I got this in an email,” recounted Tour. “I said, “I’ve done as much as anybody getting into the Academy.’”

He said a Nobel Prize winner replied to him, “No Jim, you’ve done twice as much. And you’re still not getting in.”

Tour said the fellow scientists he spoke to “didn’t even know what it said.” When he showed them the statement, they admitted it was “carefully crafted,” but countered that the statement has “been used to try to get Creationism into schools.”

“There’s a big story here,” remarked Carlson. “Because we can judge the importance of something by the reaction to it.”

“It may be that if macroevolution is not the explanation for what we’re seeing, then there must be a Creator. It points to God. Maybe that’s the problem,” he observed.

Tour affirmed, “I think that may be the big problem.” To support Carlson’ conclusion, he pointed to the considerable number of people who have written to him sharing that they abandoned their faith because of the evolutionary theory they had learned in high school and college, and after seeing Tour’s content, realize that “these guys don’t have it figured out.”

“I’ve had a lot of people say they’ve seen what I have to say and they’re coming back to the faith,” said Tour.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

I’ve written frequently here in recent years about the financial fiasco that has hit Ford Motor Company and other big U.S. carmakers who made the fateful decision to go in whole hog in 2021 to feed at the federal subsidy trough wrought on the U.S. economy by the Joe Biden autopen presidency. It was crony capitalism writ large, federal rent seeking on the grandest scale in U.S. history, and only now are the chickens coming home to roost.

Ford announced on Monday that it will be forced to take $19.5 billion in special charges as its management team embarks on a corporate reorganization in a desperate attempt to unwind the financial carnage caused by its failed strategies and investments in the electric vehicles space since 2022.

Cancelled is the Ford F-150 Lightning, the full-size electric pickup that few could afford and fewer wanted to buy, along with planned introductions of a second pricey pickup and fully electric vans and commercial vehicles. Ford will apparently keep making its costly Mustang Mach-E EV while adjusting the car’s features and price to try to make it more competitive. There will be a shift to making more hybrid models and introducing new lines of cheaper EVs and what the company calls “extended range electric vehicles,” or EREVs, which attach a gas-fueled generator to recharge the EV batteries while the car is being driven.

“The $50k, $60k, $70k EVs just weren’t selling; We’re following customers to where the market is,” Farley said. “We’re going to build up our whole lineup of hybrids. It’s gonna be better for the company’s profitability, shareholders and a lot of new American jobs. These really expensive $70k electric trucks, as much as I love the product, they didn’t make sense. But an EREV that goes 700 miles on a tank of gas, for 90% of the time is all-electric, that EREV is a better solution for a Lightning than the current all-electric Lightning.”

It all makes sense to Mr. Farley, but one wonders how much longer the company’s investors will tolerate his presence atop the corporate management pyramid if the company’s financial fortunes don’t turn around fast.

To Ford’s and Farley’s credit, the company has, unlike some of its competitors (GM, for example), been quite transparent in publicly revealing the massive losses it has accumulated in its EV projects since 2022. The company has reported its EV enterprise as a separate business unit called Model-E on its financial filings, enabling everyone to witness its somewhat amazing escalating EV-related losses since 2022:

• 2022 – Net loss of $2.2 billion

• 2023 – Net loss of $4.7 billion

• 2024 – Net loss of $5.1 billion

Add in the company’s $3.6 billion in losses recorded across the first three quarters of 2025, and you arrive at a total of $15.6 billion net losses on EV-related projects and processes in less than four calendar years. Add to that the financial carnage detailed in Monday’s announcement and the damage from the company’s financial electric boogaloo escalates to well above $30 billion with Q4 2025’s damage still to be added to the total.

Ford and Farley have benefited from the fact that the company’s lineup of gas-and-diesel powered cars have remained strongly profitable, resulting in overall corporate profits each year despite the huge EV-related losses. It is also fair to point out that all car companies were under heavy pressure from the Biden government to either produce battery electric vehicles or be penalized by onerous federal regulations.

Now, with the Trump administration rescinding Biden’s harsh mandates and canceling the absurdly unattainable fleet mileage requirements, Ford and other companies will be free to make cars Americans actually want to buy. Better late than never, as they say, but the financial fallout from it all is likely just beginning to be made public.

• David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.