Evolutionary Debate Dying a Slow Death

[Musicmaster]

I have noticed how the introduction of more and more counters to the evolutionary dogma is slowly eroding away the foundations of evolutionary theory as a plausible explanation for both origins of life and how we got to where we are now.

Dr. James Tours has done considerable damage to the evolutionary origins of life studied, issuing challenges with monetary backing that no evolutionist out there has yet been able to address with any measure of credible explanation for the origins of life. He has utterly destroyed the idea that complexity arose from non-complexity.

Dr. John Lennox, a mathematician from Cambridge University, has also contributed to the death throes of the evolutionary biases that, unfortunately, continue to dominate our public schools and institutions as the accepted religion of secularism and naturalism, but that crowd is facing continued erosions of the grounding under their feet that has them fighting back with greater and greater degrees of nonsense.

Within the realm of faith in the Bible is a constellation of satellite states of thought continue to try and mesh the Bible with evolutionary thought, otherwise known as theistic evolution. This is what hits a little more closely to home, so to speak, and I like how this discussion in the short video guides that question:

Some healthy discussion can indeed be had on this topic without degenerating into the gutters of senseless argument.

Thoughts?

MM

 

[bobinfaith]

Good morning, Musicmaster;

You stated your objective but what are your thoughts or resolve regarding evolutionary dogma and theory?

I don't know Dr. John Lennox and I'm sure he does well in schooling the curious. His answer to the young man in this video is fundamental.

I'll follow up more later but wanted to receive your thoughts.

God bless you, brother.

 

[Musicmaster]

Additional thoughts, harvested from "the other side."

"In 2014, eight scientists took up this challenge, publishing an article in the leading journal Nature that asked 'Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Their answer was: “Yes, urgently.'" (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution)

The quote above comes from an article that bemoans the necessity for them to "rethink" evolutionary constructs, which, dare we translate that into what they're really saying, "We need to come up with some new, more credible sounding theories that can withstand scrutiny better than the old bastions and buttresses that are now crumbling at their foundational roots and collapsing around our ears!"

In reality, it's them trying to come up with some new series of thoughts that can stand stronger than all the letters attached to their names from the various universities. Given that the old array of theories are now crashing down around their ears, and with them not yet being prepared to mitigate the debris field they now find themselves, we need to pay close attention to the new round of theories they try to foist upon the world. This is going to prove a much harder task now that more people are attuned to this debate with higher levels of critical thinking.

Bob, I hope you don't mind my methodology of thoughts being meted out in morsels rather than spewed out all at once. I like to give others the opportunity to throw in their thoughts. Everyone here has something to contribute.

I look forward to input from others.

MM

 

[BibleLover]

Additional thoughts, harvested from "the other side."

"In 2014, eight scientists took up this challenge, publishing an article in the leading journal Nature that asked 'Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Their answer was: “Yes, urgently.'" (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution)

The quote above comes from an article that bemoans the necessity for them to "rethink" evolutionary constructs, which, dare we translate that into what they're really saying, "We need to come up with some new, more credible sounding theories that can withstand scrutiny better than the old bastions and buttresses that are now crumbling at their foundational roots and collapsing around our ears!"

In reality, it's them trying to come up with some new series of thoughts that can stand stronger than all the letters attached to their names from the various universities. Given that the old array of theories are now crashing down around their ears, and with them not yet being prepared to mitigate the debris field they now find themselves, we need to pay close attention to the new round of theories they try to foist upon the world. This is going to prove a much harder task now that more people are attuned to this debate with higher levels of critical thinking.

Bob, I hope you don't mind my methodology of thoughts being meted out in morsels rather than spewed out all at once. I like to give others the opportunity to throw in their thoughts. Everyone here has something to contribute.

I look forward to input from others.

MM

Evolutionary theory is not science; it is naturalistic philosophy wearing a lab coat.

 

[Musicmaster]

Evolutionary theory is not science; it is naturalistic philosophy wearing a lab coat.

Very true indeed. Only Satan could have accomplished getting so many otherwise intelligent people to give themselves over to what is little more than pseudo science.

MM