Do theistic explanations have a track-record of failure?

“No, after all…
  • Polytheistic answers on nature/origins fail

      Polytheistic explanations failed at explaining origins and patterns in nature (thunder, water, stars etc.) This is relevant because…

  • Monotheistic answers on nature/origins fail

      Christian explanations failed at explaining origins and patterns in nature For example, the explanation for…
      •… Laplace’s planetary orbit theory debunked “God-did-it.”
      •… Darwin’s biological design theory debunked “God-did-it.” (In conjunction with advances if star-physics and DNA).1

      1. This presuably debunked the theistic explanation, but at least in conjunction with advances in star-physics and DNA. Lord Kelvin strongly argued that the sun could not have the age of millions of years required by evolutionists, implying the prediction that the earth and sun should look relatively young.

        David Snoke (Physics professor at Pittsburgh; 2006 elected Fellow of the American Physical Society): “In the 19th century, two gaps caused problems for Darwinists. First, they had no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. Second, they had no answer to Lord Kelvin’s argument that the earth could not be old enough to allow random variations to produce all the apparent design we see, because simple physical arguments showed the sun could not burn for millions of years.” [In Favor of God-of-the-Gaps Reasoning PSCF 53 (September 2001): 152-158.]