First let me say that I am a retired minister. I ministered in many churches for 30 years. I want heard from a colleague of mine say that he was prepared to believe in evolution only if evolution happened because God made it happen. I have held that belief now for most of that 30 years that Evolution only happens if God is behind it.
@@eddiekickett2170given that you post incoherent tripe that would embarrass a child I highly doubt you are a scientist of any kind. Done EVER tell a musician what to stick to.
@@mcmanustony what I’m gathering is you don’t believe in god, an your saying a scientist can’t believe in god but through specific research on dna, which you wouldn’t know anything about why have a opinion on something so out of your reach
***there is nothing to reconcile, we just have to learn on things are, GOD creates and Science explains how it happens, as acurate as they can or know. If you do not accept it you will never reconcile; the only way is to get answers for your questions, learn, learn, study ,study, observe, observe, think , think. It works for me.***
It never says in the Bible that God made everything from animals since he made everything of their own kind (family) because He created man in his own image which makes us completely separate from how he made the animals because we have a soul plus show love towards others. Animals don't have a soul, but they have a spirit. God put us in command over animals so humans were never animals in the beginning.
@@LeonSemiPro Well I don't know how can't see that the Earth is very young anyways, must because they have been brainwashed with millions and billions of years without any evidence for it
@@Crimsonlupus So if animals had souls would they judged as well on judgement day like humans? No, they wouldn't since they aren't created in the image of God. Only humans have a soul and animals have a spirit since animals don't know between right and wrong. If animals knew between right and wrong then they would have also been created in the image of God as well but they were not created in the image of God so there's no way that animals could have evolved into other forms of life and developed soul. So no, they don't have a soul because animals have a spirit.
T. H. Huxley, Darwin's great defender, was wiser than those who followed him when he said: “It is the secret of the superiority of the best theological teachers to the majority of their opponents that they substantially recognize these realities. . . . The doctrines of original sin, of the innate depravity of man . . . appear to me to be vastly nearer the truth than the literal, popular illusions that babies are all born good, and that the example of a corrupt society is responsible for their failure to remain so, that it is given to everybody to reach the ethic ideal if he will only try . . . and other optimistic figments.”
Biologos is an organization founded by a Christian Nobel laureate geneticist specifically to help Christians understand and cope with the fact evolution. Francis collins was the first person in history to map the human genome.
@@mcmanustony As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that. Francis Collins
I've often thought that if people would spend less time arguing about precisely "when where & how" God made us and instead spent more time working on simply becoming better humans and how we treat one another we would be SO much better off as a species...
He had a pretty clear answer. Evolution explains how life varies over time, while God explains the existence of life in the first place. Hence he sees no conflict between belief in evolution and faith in a creator.
@@Dhruvbala I understood that too but i couldn't understand the end part. That was too complicated for me to understand. If you could, don't have to. Spare some time and explain 4:10-4:30. Mind of the gaps? and his position of the origin of information? what does that mean, even though I looked it up I still couldn't understand it.
Yeah these are literally buzzwords. They use them to create an illusion of understanding when in reality they're black boxes. We have no idea what makes the universe expand and what makes objects attract each other. Modern physics is a jenga tower.
I believe that there is a creator but to see him as the God of the bible becomes questionable. One thing - miracles recorded in the bible does not happen now at least in our life time. The bible is said to be written by men inspired by the spirit of God but yet men are sinful even believers of Jesus are stained w/ sin and still commit sin...And so many versions of the bible. I'm not hating, I'm searching for answers.
@@mcmanustony Still not observed daily. Provide an example of what you consider is evolving daily then. Might as well define it in this context so you don't throw up whatever you want Evolution meaning biological change/modification/variation in living organisms that occur, over a long period of time, because of mutations or a response to external influence.
God didn't make Adam a baby and grow him into a grown man, God form Adam established with age...why couldn't He have done that with the earth too...formed and established
So God basically created the earth to seem older than it is and then you wonder why scientists come to conclusions that contradict scripture. People who believe Genesis are idiots.
@@WarriorOfWriters Nah. This comment shows you how you disregard the Bible based on what you think it's a contraddiction while having under your eyes an example inside the same Bible, the Adam's one, that shows you that something is brought up to creation whenever God wants. Showing whatever age God's want. And it was a clear concept also for the writers of the Bible since they perfectly knew an adult should be an infant before becoming one, but they said Adam was created as an adult regardless
@DaViDePlayer18 Genesis isn't evidence, it's a story. If people take it seriously then Genesis is a claim. And even by its own standard, it is "Inspired word" written by fallible human hands. People who believe Genesis as history are idiots.
Let's assume that a "day" in Genesis represents 2 billion years. Therefore 7 days represents 7 x 2 = 14 billion years. That is very close to the truth, so no problem !
First, he is right to emphasize the difference between evolution and biogenesis. As to the Urey and Miller, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Lennox was putting other people's words into their mouths
@@WarriorOfWriters "Dawkins is stepping a fair bit out of his lane"- speaking of which, has anyone ever seen Lennox IN his lane? I've heard him talk utter nonsense about cosmology, biology, genetics, biochemistry, OoL......not one syllable about ALGEBRA.
The belief that fish grew legs to walk on land after generations of death is the same as human growing wings after generations of people falling off a cliff.
This is wrong, a fish wouldn't die if it spent a few seconds out of water. Fish spent more and more time in shallower and shallower waters. Evolution does not work by huge sudden changes like the cliff example you propose. In the same way fish came to land cetaceans went into the water.
@@joxar9285 I see the humor in your response, lol. Populations evolve (change) over time, not individuals. The genes you're born with are the ones you have for life (minus the mutations that occur from UV light and other oxidative damages).
@@IIrandhandleII cool story, now why is there no milions of scelet remains of transitional species for each particular transition. not for one but for each! there should be milions of sceletons each with very very small change compared to previous one! Yet there are very few and some even turned out not to be transitional specie. If i see elephant there should be milions of sceletons of his transition each with very small change yet there is only very few which are not that similar to the one we see today but rather require a lot more of transitional species in between those too. and that is for each specie in the world. Transitional remains should be everywhere right?
evolution requires additional information, in the dna.....which is not going to happen, and adaption says that variations, within a limited area, has been programed into the dna....and that is what Darwin found...nothing more, nothing less.
John just said evolution cannot explain the existence of life. natural selection and mutation can explain what we see now . But what he essentially said is that natural selection and mutation are separate from evolution. So by inference the only thing that can explain life is creation. Creation does not contradict natural selection and mutation. I am not sure why he didnt just say write a conclusion to his thoughts like any good mathematician but instead he just left the equations there and is making the listener get to the conclusion
@D-Bunker-zv1bj How is he talking nonsense when he's a man of mathematics where math is the most logical thing to go by since it always stays consistent with truth. Math makes you think with logical thoughts of mind rather than having irrational thoughts like science does with their theories.
@@MrTheclevercat They still have to follow a sort of dogma when it comes with government, rights, and freedom there were set through the law of an Almighty power no matter what 🤦
I got a different view for evolution - theory trying to tell us how the system upgrades the game of life inside the matrix - it's impossible for the players questioning who created the game - this is a theory, evolution telling us to document and analyze the level of upgrades while participating inside the matrix
A very awkward question for religious types. It seems to me that to explain evolution, religion has got to believe that every now and again God decides to introduce a new species in the planet. For example. science tells us that branch of animals known has apes ( where humans come from) was not around in the age of the dinosaur, and so where did it come from? Well, science tells us that particular animal branch, via evolution, evolved from creatures that were around in the age of the dinosaur . Now, the only other possible explanation is that God simply decided to create a new species ( after the age - a long, long, long time after -of the dinosaurs ). Of course, religion has only accepted evolution - in a limited way -because to deny it would be ridiculous.
my problem with evolution is lack of transitional species. As by definition, evolution is gradual change over long time, so, in order to explain one species of animals you should find milions of transition forms (each very very similar to previous one) from the one that change began. and they should be everywhere. How come from one specie to another we rarely find transition species and in some cases it turned out its not even transitional at all. 2nd problem i have is that if i am not mistaken, mutations are largery degenerative in nature, meaning that if mutations are mostly harming specie, wouldnt it mean that over time species would die out (there would be fewer and fewer of them) and not more by a lot (like Kambrian explosion). Third problem with evolution that i have is philosophical nature and you cannot refute it. If we are all products of deterministic and random forces and proceses that means our brain is as well, so, how can you make any claim to be smart and inteligent when by definition by evolution and atheism there is no such thing as inteligence. Atheists claiming they are smart is ridiculus because claim is self defeating.
It's important to remember that truth is history, and history doesn't care what you decide to believe or reject. For example, if it was a hot sunny day today, then that is the truth. That would be the history of today's weather. If a thousand years from now half the people are arguing that it was cold and snowing because that's the information someone at some point in time relayed to them, it still doesn't change the truth. Perhaps they were 'taught' that it was cold and snowing on this date because they only have what was written down by someone. After it had been told from person to person for generations and then translated & revised a handful of times. Perhaps it might be better to just understand that there was weather of some sort that day and focus more on how to better deal with today's weather. (I know, probably not the best analogy but hopefully it at least made a slight bit of sense). My point being that people would spend a lot of time arguing over what the weather was that day, which ends up causing themselves and others a lot of dispair. How about instead perhaps focusing on being kind to one another. For those who believe, being kind is one of the key things God wants people to be doing. And if one is trying to convince others of God's existence, I would argue that doing so in a negative manner probably wouldn't be as effective as say for instance a little more compassion for your fellow man. :-)
Abiogenesis plays on evolution, from simple inorganic molecules to more complex molecules that became “life” as we know it. In 1953 Miller and Urey used a highly reducing atmosphere with a mixture of hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor. A mix of precursor molecules mimicking the primordial soup was subjected to substantial amounts of electricity for extended periods, with the samples analyzed after the experiments. Observations of the resulting mixture revealed that simple molecules had started to form the complex molecules required for life.
And then stopped. Tell me how the massive polymerization for true life molecules came about in an environment in which they degraded, tell me how the interactive cycles of interdependency within organic systems came about, tell me how 'natural' processes produced chiral life molecules, tell me how the biological language/signalling system just happened. Tell me how evolution could work in the minuscule period of 4 billion years. Until then, all you have is word salad.
@@dagwould The challenges posed to abiogenesis and evolution require critical consideration. The Miller-Urey experiment sheds light on initial conditions, understanding the massive polymerization for life molecules in a degrading environment and the origin of chiral molecules remains elusive. Additionally, the complexities of evolution over 4 billion years demand further exploration. It's essential to note that questioning these processes does not necessarily provide answers or support for alternative explanations such as creationism. The gaps in understanding should motivate further scientific inquiry rather than dismissing the well-established principles of evolution. Additionally, these inquiries extend beyond the confines of word "salad", prompting a deeper investigation into the scientific underpinnings that underlie the remarkable journey from simple molecules to the complexity of life as we know it.
the miller urey experiments didn't produce life and now they believe that different chemicals existed than the ones used in the miller urey experiment, and they don't produce life either. Life cannot come from non-life though atheist continue to try and prove otherwise to support your worldview.@@ExplorationEverything
"The origin of life must involve a mind." To me that means the natural world is not natural, it's supernatural. "Mind of the gaps." A nice phrase. 'Wherever in life you can't find a natural explanation, just dream up a `mind of the gaps` explanation. You'll never have to say `I don't know` again.'
Evolutionary theory, as understood by most people, deals with animal life. Aerobic animal life requires oxygen, which on earth was provided by plants. Lennox seems unaware of this. In all his talks his starting point is his claim that an entity created animal life. Organic matter from inorganic matter was demonstrated by Wohler a long time ago. The counter-intuitive decreasing entropy of the earth is the product of energy from the sun. Perhaps the ancients were right.
drfred1937 ***firstly EVOLUTION is not only a theory, secondly it is not only aplyed to animals, if you observe you will find Evolution in everything, in EVERYTHING, as nothig in this UNIVERSE and for that matter any other possible UNIVERSE stays the same , a 16 th Century poet sayd "...all the world is composed of change taking always a new quality..." and thirdly even in religion like christianity, if you read the bible you will find evolution, as an exemple -- Abraham in obediente to GOD´ s consept of his time was ready to sacrifice his own Son , but he evolve in his consept of God, as God would not accept this sacrifice, must later on in religion another step in evolution, Jesus was born and another step of evolution in religion CHRISTIANITY, even more steps of evolution we experience our days with evolution in this field of religion; you can find the same in any other field ... Observe that in the Universe nothing, but NOTHING is equal, and nothig is standstill, it means always, but ALWAYS, in movement, it is a reality that we persive only clearly by OBSERVING and THINKING. ***
"Evolutionary theory, as understood by most people, deals with animal life." nope. It also deals with plant life, fungal life, bacterial life, archaea etc.
The existence of the fact that some representatives of science invent different "theories" that reject the word of God, clearly indicates only that for 2000 years there has been no Church of Christ and, accordingly, mankind does not see those miracles that should accompany the Church of Christ, as it is stated in the books of the New Testament. If in the name of Christ the dead were raised from the dead, the blind were given back their sight, the armless and legless were restored to their limbs, the terminally ill were freed from disease, I do not think that scientists would dare to persist in promoting various hypotheses denying the existence of God. The reason for the unbelief of most people is that they do not see the miracles that should accompany the Church of Christ as the books of the New Testament state, but they see in abundance the Churches that claim to be the Church of Christ but have no power to perform miracles, and this confuses many people. These 2000 years was a period of unbelief and despite the efforts of the defenders of the Christian faith they failed because they tried to prove the truth of Christ's teachings by human efforts. God will not prove the truth of Christ's teachings through philosophical speculation, the discovery of ancient manuscripts, or archaeological findings. Not at all. That is not God's handwriting. We know from the Bible how God works, God is a living God, and He will live testify to the truth of Christ's teachings. In the first century this is exactly what was happening. Miracles were the chief weapon of Christ's preachers to convince the skeptic of the truth of Christianity. The following fragment is a good example of this: *"And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.* *But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord."* (Acts 13:6-12). In our time we don't see this anymore, because the so-called Christians don't have such power, they are all fake. In the end I want to say that God will be revealed to mankind as He was revealed in the first century, through the Church of Christ. So that there will be no shadow of doubt about the truth of Christ's Teachings. And then all religions and false Christian churches will be disgraced before the risen Church of Christ, through which the same miracles will be performed that we read about in the books of the New Testament. Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on RU-vid. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
@@edvardzv5660 Lennox would like you believe, and promote the belief that his religious faith is backed by science (it’s a pack of lies of course). Your post is just religious noise, nothing more
@@mcmanustony You write: *"Your post is just religious noise, nothing more"* - General phrases are of no use to readers, if you disagree with something about my comment write specifically and I am ready to discuss the issue with you.
I'm not sure he answered the question. He seemed to say, well evolution can't explain the origin of life so I don't have to worry about it. God of the gaps.
Evolution is still a theory and it hasn’t been proven at all. He’s being generous to even consider it. Over a 100 years since the idea was purported and still no transitional fossils that didn’t turn out to be hoaxes. What we observe is life suddenly appearing and then variants losing genetic information they won’t ever get back and any mutation they do get is useless or harmful. There’s your evolution, it’s all bs.
There's not the God of the gaps here, evolution is only a man made theory since it has never been proven nor observed either. Which evolution is the "Time of the Gaps" since there wouldn't be much an ecosystem if one species of animal evolved every millions of years then a lot of animals would be extinct today or there be no life at all on this planet if evolution were true.
While micro-evolution (variations and adaptations) can be reproduced and scientifically proven, macro-evolution (the creation of new species) has not been and cannot be. And the origin of life itself is indeed separate from evolution.
GOD THE CREATOR God is the effecient cause of the universe. The effecient cause is that which makes the effect be or become, while the formal cause makes the effect to be what it is. The katter points to the essence, while the former points to the esse. The formal cause is on the predicamental level, while the effecient cause is more on the transcrendental level of being. God is the cause of the being or esse of everything. Why? Because whatever esse is partucipated must be caused by the Esse which is by essence, as we saw in the Third Way. To create is proper and exclusive of God, since "to create" means to give the esse. Everything acts according to its nature; but the nature of God is to be. Therefore, in this case no inetrumental cause is possible: God does not create through instruments, because nothing else can give esse, apart from God. In other words, if His activity goes out of Himself (we are no talking of the intr--divine activities, like the "trinitarian procession"), this activity consists in making things be: only He is being, and so only He can give being. Other things are not being: they only have being. Therefore, whatever exists, is thete because God makes it be. Does the carpenter make the table "be"? No. What he does is to make it "come to be" or "become". Only God is "First cause" or author of the "to be": all other causes are "second causes", since they only cause the "becoming" of things. In the things below man, the substancial form is always extracted form the potentialty of the matter and likewise the accidental forms, sch as the shape of a table. But in the case of man, his substantial form (what makes him to be man) is his spiritual soul, which, as we shall see in the metaphysics of man, implies a manner of being completely above material conditions. It is not, therefore, in the potentiality of matter. Consequently, every time a man comes into being, God create his soul and infuses into his body (Gen 2:7; Jn. 6:63), which means that as far as his soul is concerned, man has not evolved from animals. Please read to reflect true knowledge. Apology from my little knowledge. God bless us all!!♥♥♥ all!!
@@glenliesegang233 God never created evolution to happen, it never says in the Bible that he uses animals to make everything else which He even said He created every living creature by their own "Kind" but He created man in his own image so we are completely separate from animals. Plus after his creation God said everything was GOOD so there was no need for any new life forms to develop through evolution because God said everything was perfectly fine after his creation once He said everything was "Good."
@@alexdrake8079 I know where you are coming from, but I as a scientist see that if the fossil record is to be discussed with nonbelievers, there is excellent evidence (as in everything miraculous) that whole new sections of DNA were grafted into existing life forms because there is no way a caterpillar can become a moth and a moth develop iridescent patterned colors built from nanoscale molecular structures. I will not limit God by my biefs about how He does things. But you are up against strong evidence for molecular evolution in the lab. Easier to say the God of the quark and atom also created the DNA code such that evolution is possible, as not all code can evolve.
There are severe errors in the bible (and the quran) and the biblical and quran narrative: >> There is huge animal suffering and struggle for survive every single day. Created or not, we know, that animals existed (millions of years) before humans came up, and they suffered and died all that time.
4:15 _It's not a mind of the gaps. It's the only explanation that makes sense of what you're looking at._ I have great respect for Lennox, and I agreed with his critique up to this point. However, this is LITERALLY the God of the Gaps argument. I don't see how a man of such intellect and apparent intellectual honesty can claim otherwise.
Nope he did not do that at all. He talks about good gaps and bad gaps. He also talks about the rational intelligibility of the universe and how it makes more sense with the given evidence that science can be done rationally therefore there is a mind behind the cosmos vs evolution created life which is a non sequitor
I think you made a thoughtful comment worthy of a response. Have you ever wondered just how evil or how disordered reality can be? I once tried to imagine how bad things could possibly get. Its not a thing I'd recommend as I went through a period of intense depression. I'm sure others have done this and I expect of those that emerged unscathed quite a few would have acquired either a religious conviction or a spiritual outlook. I became a dogmatic atheist but only because I couldn't convince myself a finite being could know anything about an infinite being. I have the hope that "things" may be better than I can know or understand simply because I can't bear the thought of the alternative. In a sense an atheist like me can have a common cause - I behave like I believe in "a better good than I know" - with a theist or "spiritual" type despite being mindful of horrors lurking in reality. When you talk about a rational, scientific (so mathematical) reality you assume that's a good, harmonious thing created or at least caused by a greater good, harmonious thing and their both stable and immune to harm. It's easy to create a universe model which is described by the standard model equations yet it's elements are not the same, consequently if they meet their interaction is destructive of all large structures. After the elements of the combined new system can evolve to a super system which can create parts which isolate the two original systems but in new configurations. The analogy offered here is that each "reality" and its "creator" is just like life evolving in the early earth. No need to ascribe an infinite mind as direct creative agent and no excuse to pretend it doesn't involve suffering. Maths can describe all manner of horror. Take an intricate beautiful thing and see how a few simple errors bring about horror. Like James T Kirk and Mr Spock it's in our best interests to be mindful of possibilities - rather than just committed to wishful thinking.
I believe a gap an AU width requires a God. Your body's DNAstretched out reaches to the Sun and back 300 times. Now, for me, that's not a gap, but a gulf. So, a God of the Gulfs?
The argument is that as we can look at writing and conclude that it was written by a mind, you can look at DNA and conclude that it was created by a mind. It is not God of the Gaps to say that we can know that writing comes from a mind, so if DNA can be proven to be similar, there is no fallacy. Atheists really don't seem to understand what the God of the Gaps fallacy is. The God of the Gaps fallacy is a fallacy because you are arguing from something that you don't know. "We don't know why lightning strikes, therefore God does it" is based entirely on what we didn't know. The intelligent design argument argues from what we do know about DNA and the unlikelyhood of it forming with a sequence able to support life.
Evolution as an engine of atheism LOL yes, just like gravity is also an engine of atheism... science doesn't care i if there is a god or not..... it doesn't deal with supernatural or metaphysical questions.
God like air to support people, any lifes on earth to live but does not teach us to be good and not to be bad. But actually our suffering or happiness depends on our deeds. That why the great enlightened lord will not teach and say about the creator but decided to teach how to live to not get suffering both living life and life after death. And teach what make us not decide to do good deeds and how to overcome it. It might be true to say both that God exists or not exists. Because human being bodies was created by the greatest powerful angel who has abilities as God-like. He is not God because he can die from the angel even his lifespan is so long to see earth recreated many times. In this time, if there is question who can turn water to wine? I can say there are 2 types of person (1) Scientists (2) Supernatural abilities person. But supernatural abilities person are not God because they can die.
I think the following is the quote that Lennox is referring to from Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" ... "Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life". I think Lennox is ungenerously making too much of this. Of course Dawkins doesn't think evolution explains life itself, he wouldn't make such a basic schoolboy error of the sort Lennox is eagerly making in thinking Dawkins would. Dawkins is referring to the existence of the form of all life, and Lennox is taking the ungenerous interpretation of a less that perfectly clear sentence. It would be interesting to see the form and context of Dawkins "admission", as I suspect Lennox is putting some spin on the situation.
Dawkins and Lennox have one thing in common, both have had wet farts at sometime in their lives, Dawkins argues that evolution gave rise to wet farts, Lennox argues that an intelligent designer designed him to be able to have wet farts.
We once believed that God was the cause of both origin and variety of life. Now we admit that evolution accounts for variation of life because we now see it happening. The door is now open. What's to say that we will never see a mechanism for origin?
You sure about that? Evolution is still scientifically nonsense. It's 2023 and Darwinian evolution is still not a functional nor worked out theory. No primary evidence(no speciation in the fossil record, no transitional dna), no primary mechanism(no way to produce new communicative information, only mutate aka degrade pre-existing information), it's not even falsifiable(all results explainable and not reproducible) so really shouldn't even be called a scientific theory. It fits the criteria for being defined as mythology. It failed Darwins own predictions. It defies entropy and information theory, creating information in a higher state than it previously was rather than degrading. It doesn't work and never has. The whole thing is almost entirely speculation and conjecture across the board. Evolution says mindless matter does the impossible, producing the product of a mind. Science has advanced to a point we know all life is based on an immaterial concept, information, stored in DNA. There is no physical process or natural phenomenon that can create such communicative information. Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does the naturalist. Naturalism and by extension evolutionary theory is based on a mechanism that does not exist. And such a deus ex machina mechanism will never exist because if you can get rationality from irrationality at that point personhood ceases to exist, the universe did everything, all achievements of all mankind mean nothing. That's why the multiverse theory is so patently ridiculous. There isn't even any evolutionary theory as to how new phyla could happen which should be a massive red flag to any biologist seriously holding onto the theory as predictive. Natural selection is real but it's not a mechanism despite evolution being predicated on labeling it as such. I always have to remind people natural selection is not evolution, if it was it would be called evolution.
There are some interesting comments below that make me wonder if we all just observed the same presentation. Lennox rightly points out that evolution is not responsible for the origin of life. This is true. The scope of evolution deals with how and why things evolve after 'they' exist. What led to existence/life is dealt with in abiogenesis. The assumption being, that circumstances existed in which inanimate material underwent some change in which it formed into the components which led to the earliest form of what we might call 'life'. Once you have 'life' within an environment, that life becomes subject to forces which can influence it to change over time - thus the how and why of evolution. Where I did not follow nor agree was the statement that, 'The theory of information must involve a mind...it's the only explanation that makes sense of what you're looking at" to me, this fails the logic test in that it logically cannot follow that information can only emerge and then be organised assuming an external intelligent agent existed to initiate the emergence and the organisation. The obvious logical problem being, if so, then what initiated the information in the agents mind, which is the age old argument of 'who made God' which is commonly met with, 'God didn't need making' in which case, we break the rule that information cannot emerge or exist without a mind and organiser. In 3000 plus years the same arguments appear to hold at the root of this. Where did everything come from, how did we get to where we are today, able to ask these questions, being 'beings' that believe we exist, think, and have 'freewill'. The two core concepts out of which a myriad of others emerge as sub-constructs are; 1. An Intelligent Agent did it. 2. It happened as a result of random processes. What we do have is evidence that points to the latter part of the story that has shifted the interpretation of things like biblical/religious creationist claims. Where as, at one time, Man was created from the clay by the Greek Pantheon, or from the dust by Elohim (depending on which texts you reference) we now feel confident in demonstrating from the evidence we find in DNA, in geological layers, in fossils (and how these all converge) that human kind did not appear one morning as a whole man out of (near) nothing, but instead, gradually transformed from much earlier states through the process of birth, reproduction, death, and the impact of forces in the environment, to what we are today. This, this idea of the evolution of mankind, like the evolution of many other species IS documented in the evidence, it has no competing evidence, only competing claims (like the more extremist/literalist view of some religionists that their creationist texts cannot be read as figurative but must be read as literal). Thus, in Christianity, and other religions, we have the more fundamental views that Genesis is a literal text and its blasphemous to describe or consider it otherwise, vs views that it's merely figurative and could well embrace the idea of a comprehended evolution with a 'random' design concept that will result in the expected 'end state' (ie mankind). The reality remains, that it is the evidence that converges to point to evolution that has shaped the interpretation of Genesis as figurative rather than literal. In the same vein, a common complaint against 'science' is that it argues that the universe came out of nothing. But that isn't what 'science' claims. Individuals like Frank Turek address points like this with amorphous claims about how God is outside of time, space, matter but created the universe. But these strike me as sophistic claims, that when considered are basically meaningless word salads. The problem evident here are; A. If God existed and nothing else existed, then what did God make the universe out of? By extension, it implies that God created the universe out of nothing - thus the 'out of nothing' problem exists for both God and Man when considering whether the universe came from and if something could come out of nothing. B. However, If God existed AND matter co-existed, then God simply organised the matter (possibly out of chaos) but it means that God's role is one of organiser not originator of matter and the universe. Thus, if matter always existed, then it opens the door to the idea that matter was available to satisfy the requirements of the counter proposal that the life emerged from the interactions of elements in the universes (no creator required). And on the points of God being outside of space, time, matter, what does this even mean. For example, the very days given in Genesis are given because things happen in a sequential fashion. God decides to make man, God makes man, God kicks man out of the garden. If there is sequence there is time. If there is no sequence then everything happens not even instantaneously because instantaneously requires and instant, it happens all at once absent any time. If God is outside of matter, any form of 'matter' then God is made of nothing. I mean if we take it near literally that God has no substance at all, not even antimatter (for example) then God is made up of nothing, so what is the difference between that and not actually existing? Finally, Space - If God exists outside of space, a close translation of that is 'God exists nowhere'. No matter where you look in space, you won't find God there because god exists outside of space. This either implies there is 'a form of space outside of what we call space' or in the entire extent of everything with zero existing outside it, you won't find God anywhere. All of these elements point to an incomprehensible idea of a God who cannot act sequentially, has no form, and does not exist. It's literally gobbledygook. As an Agnostic Atheist, my position remains that, whilst it is possible that this world is a creation, we must be willing to be honest and pragmatic in looking at the evidence that we have the capacity to define and measure. That evidence points to a material explanation of our world. The religionist position points to the type of explanation it would be very reasonable for a primitive mankind to suggest and logically seek to unpack into evolving rituals and beliefs (exactly what I'd expect to see based on their starting position). However, unless we can find evidence of an intelligent creator, then we ought to retain the view that at present, the abiogenesis assumption, and the evolution explanation are the most simple and reasonable. This fits in line with statements made by individuals like Pierre Simon Laplace when asked about where God was in his model of the planetary system - in which Laplace pointed out in effect that it all seemed to work fine without God. It is possible we're in a simulation, it is possible everything was created in an instant but made to look like it had a long history, many things are conceptually possible. These make for interesting philosophical discussion. However, how we structure our society, live our lives, define our laws, needs to lean more to a grounded view of what we can prove. Although I do admit, I like Hume's argument of 'there's what there is, and what there ought to be'. :)
@@nakedmolerat437 Actually Richard Dawkins claims that. There are plenty of scientists working on abiogenesis that claim that they have created life in a lab.
@@nakedmolerat437 no they have not created the conditions for life. The closet we have come was the Miller-Urey experiment and since then only more questions have come up. There is not even proof for the type atmosphere that existed. I am sure you are so well versed in abiogenesis that you know of Dr James Tour. He exposes several names that have claimed to have created life. No one is even close at this time. Now enters science of the gaps, and you say just give it more time. I am will tell you now that we will never have a natural explanation for the origin of life, because it is God that created life. Again, Dr James Tour, I will grant you all the parts of a cell, even though you have no idea how to build one, now make it live. The challengers do not even make an attempt. You have a living cell that just died, surely you can resurrect it. We cannot even define what was lost when the cell died. How do you know that we have created the conditions for life, when no one can define what life is?
@@nakedmolerat437 Except that their experiment a certain type of atmosphere that is not proven. There have been other experiments done that show that with the atmosphere they chose that not all amino acids could form, which is a huge problem. No one has come up with evidence for what "prebiotic Earth" was like.
It hurts my brain how purposefully ignorant people can be. It also saddens me that our educational systems are doing such a terrible job. The fact that most of what our society knows about evolution comes down to "we came from monkeys" is worrisome. Id suggest that each of you spouting misinformation about evolution and biology should spend some time educating youself on the subject, but I fear if you do so as this man did, seeking personal validation, the effort woild be wasted. Good day.
John Lennox didn't address the issue at all. As Christians, we have a book we call the Word of God. Either the Bible is the Word of God or as Christians we are fools. The Word of God tells us God created all that there is in six days. Piecing together the genealogies and histories in the Bible, we have an age of the Earth which is just about 6,000 years. The difference between the 6,000 years given to us by the Bible and the 4 billion years given to us by the proponents of evolution is a chasm that cannot be crossed. If you accept evolution with its billions of years, you have rejected the Word of God. It's just that simple. John Lennox believes and teaches heresy. It's just that simple.
rubiks6 ***the word of GOD? in what Language? English? French? Latin?... no matter witch Language, for us to understand the language of GOD it must be translated in a Language that we can understand, it is the task of Science to translate it.***
@@adelinomorte7421 - "Science" is an endeavor of "scien *_tists,"_* is it not? The biblical exegetes among us know the original biblical languages of the Bible, do they not? Are you suggesting that effective communication is impossible between communicators of different languages? (I hope you can read my words even though I did not boldface all of them.)
If you believe in God you don't believe in the most plausible explanation you believe in the most ignorant one. God was "The most plausible explanation" for millions of things in the past that we now have the actual answer to. Like why it rains. God use to be the most plausible explanation so people believed that. There's nothing plausible about "God dun did it"
@@reality-winner5759 You need to pipe down, take a seat and work on your manners. "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"- Theodosius Dobzhansky, evolutionary biologist and Orthodox Christian.
Very clever speaker. He’s playing the shell game. He answered a question that wasn’t asked so he could ‘discredit’ one single rival author while plugging his own book. Him not being able to imagine information/dna, etc. without god, is already a fallacious argument. Saying it’s not first doesn’t change that.
Nope. The science of statistics concludes that odds of < 1 in 10^80 -120 is impossible by chance. A single peptide chain of 50 homologous a.a's forming from random codons is
@@glenliesegang233 That argument is also fallacious, a false dichotomy; either order from god, or random processes. That’s never been the findings of scientists. Whether from a god or not, there is order inherent in the universe. From the grand scale down to the molecular level. Your numbers are big, but largely irrelevant to the question.
@@markoshun science says "my numbers" fit the criteria of "impossible without an Intelligence creating the effect observed." I follow the science. You?
@@markoshun draw a perfectly square box without a ruler. Let nature make a precise crystal without the highly intrinsic ordered fine structure of matter and forces within its atoms. Precision only comes from what has quantitized values.
Big John believes in a hybrid world..part natural, part supernatural..and all is well with him shoehorning his religious folklore beliefs into the science lab..amen
