tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post112680786769776310..comments2024-02-18T12:18:45.788-05:00Comments on Sun and Shield: I believe in evolution. So do you! part 3Martin LaBarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-56229833510323531142008-07-16T01:48:00.000-04:002008-07-16T01:48:00.000-04:00July 16, 2008: Thank you for commenting on another...July 16, 2008: Thank you for commenting on another post, Myxite, whoever you are.<BR/><BR/>You believe that. I believe that. But there are some intelligent people who believe that evolution is a strictly chance process, and that the universe, itself, is not here because of any purpose -- they don't believe that there is a God.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, at least a few of them have come to unbelief at least partly because of ignorant anti-science statements made by some Christians.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-23934696436094574922008-07-15T09:53:00.000-04:002008-07-15T09:53:00.000-04:00Evolution is the work of the Creator of the univer...Evolution is the work of the Creator of the universe and all there is in it.Myxitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00410720929493555073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-48384221933867354412008-02-15T08:32:00.000-05:002008-02-15T08:32:00.000-05:00Thanks, A.R.Wallace.I agree with much of what you ...Thanks, A.R.Wallace.<BR/><BR/>I agree with much of what you say, including the fact that I didn't define "origins." I steered away from using "evolution," because I <I>know</I> that that has many meanings, and needs to be specified.<BR/><BR/>I guess that by "origins," I mean how something came about, but that can, indeed, included the universe, the elements, life, large groups of living things, species, and humans, and the mechanisms that produced all of these may have been different from each other.<BR/><BR/>I don't think "scientists know how the universe came to be." They think they know, but they can't prove, or disprove, that God acted to bring it about.<BR/><BR/>As to Gould's Magisteria, as a Christian, I have trouble with a firm separation between scientific findings and religious belief, because I believe that both are revelations of God to us, and that, therefore, properly understood, they should be complementary and compatible.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-83043837666317009712008-02-14T20:13:00.000-05:002008-02-14T20:13:00.000-05:00The scientist Stephen J. Gould said the world can ...The scientist Stephen J. Gould said the world can be divided into two "majesteria." One is the physical world of evidence and experimentation. This is where science goes. The other is the world of thoughts and conjecture and belief. This is the world of religion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Of all the words you defined, the one you didn't was "origins." That, if anything, is the most necessary! The origin of species, as in the title of Darwin's book, is something for which there exists a physical fossil record, and for which experiments can be done to test. Thus, the origin of species falls under the domain of science.<BR/><BR/>Then there's the origin of life itself. This cannot be determined by science, as it only happened once. Scientists have ideas, but they can never be verified any more than the many religious theories. Scientists know how the universe came to be. What they will never know is what came before it and what came after it. Scientists know where babies come from. They don't know where we go when we die. That is the magesteria of religion.<BR/><BR/>The creationism/evolution debate is caused by people leaving their magesteria. Creationism and Intelligent design are unscientific, just as denial of a soul is atheistic. Thus, unless people want Darwinism to be taught in Church, they must stop trying to insert Creationism and ID into science class. One is supported by fact, one by millenia of scripture. They cannot and should not be mixed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-71940708251581737432008-01-03T05:16:00.000-05:002008-01-03T05:16:00.000-05:00There's something in what you say, eclexia, but at...There's something in what you say, eclexia, but at least some scientists do make sense of things from the past, such as paleontologists, cosmologists, historical geologists, climatologists, and some kinds of ecologists.<BR/><BR/>The study of DNA similarities and differences between various types of organisms is usually considered legitimate science, too.<BR/><BR/>Besides, even if history, rather than science, were the ideal place for studying origins, some people wouldn't leave it there, but would thrust it into politics, religion, and science.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for reading.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-26983639133630098182008-01-02T12:03:00.000-05:002008-01-02T12:03:00.000-05:00I find myself wishing we would discuss origins as ...I find myself wishing we would discuss origins as a topic of history rather than science. There are so many assumptions and interpretations that have to be made from what we see to support any theory of origins, even when we look at the geologic record. <BR/><BR/>Making sense of things we discover from the past seems to be the role of historians, not scientists. I may be oversimplifying it. But, it seems like on any side the the creation/evolution debate accusations are made that the other side is using "junk science", when in reality I wonder if it is junk science because it is history instead of science. <BR/><BR/>I'm not totally confident on these thoughts I'm expressing, but I know it has helped my children and I to sort through some of the arguments and evidence on both sides by looking at it from a historical perspective rather than trying to be "scientific" about our analysis. <BR/><BR/>History leaves a lot more room, I believe, for acknowledging that the conclusions being made are assumptions and interpretations based on the "facts" we see, rather than facts themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1127514224606605492005-09-23T18:23:00.000-04:002005-09-23T18:23:00.000-04:00Broken Masterpieces appears to behere .Broken Masterpieces appears to be<BR/><A HREF="http://www.brokenmasterpieces.com/" REL="nofollow">here</A> .Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1127505798577116332005-09-23T16:03:00.000-04:002005-09-23T16:03:00.000-04:00Thanks for your clarity...I've found that instead ...Thanks for your clarity...I've found that instead of dialog the evolutionists simply mock our faith as if it were without reason. Here's a short post on the issue at Broken Masterpieces. <BR/>GTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1127499262647488952005-09-23T14:14:00.000-04:002005-09-23T14:14:00.000-04:00Hi Martin,All 3 in this series have been featured ...Hi Martin,<BR/>All 3 in this series have been featured at <A HREF="http://blogwatch.worldmagblog.com/blogwatch/archives/2005/09/you_do_believe.html" REL="nofollow">BlogWatch</A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1127446976692909622005-09-22T23:42:00.000-04:002005-09-22T23:42:00.000-04:00Martin -Thanks for the effort to clear up confusio...Martin -<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the effort to clear up confusion. Science aside, your posts are about the need for precision in language -- the loss of which is something this lawyer is constantly railing about. Nice job.<BR/><BR/>God Bless.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.com