tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415216177401538805.post1497539970260357935..comments2023-08-04T12:50:34.652-04:00Comments on THEOparadox - The Biblical Paradox Blog: Evolution: Science Beyond Its BoundariesTHEOparadoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415216177401538805.post-62579122259170266942011-08-13T10:42:44.510-04:002011-08-13T10:42:44.510-04:00Thank you for the kind and gracious welcome.
Of c...Thank you for the kind and gracious welcome.<br /><br />Of course, you are discussing two of my favorite subjects so I am as a moth to the flame.Debra Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07320659656167721566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415216177401538805.post-80464705306828137532011-08-12T15:45:36.378-04:002011-08-12T15:45:36.378-04:00Debra,
Thanks for taking time to consider this po...Debra,<br /><br />Thanks for taking time to consider this post and share your thoughts.<br /><br />I am aware that there are many Christians who believe in evolution. My main point in the post is that science, strictly speaking, cannot make definitive statements about unobserved events that are shrouded in the distant past. I don't want fellow believers to assume that it is a closed book, from either a Biblical or scientific standpoint.<br /><br />I view evolution more as an attempt to explain history (or pre-history) than a study of the verifiable scientific "facts". Evolutionary theory is one way of explaining how the world got from its origin to the present state we observe. And, naturally, scientists are going to ask, "How did it get this way?" However, in light of all the alternatives, I don't think evolution is the most viable, consistent or believable answer. Yes, my belief in Scripture is part of the reason. But my (admittedly limited) study of science is also part of it.<br /><br />I have to disagree strongly with your final thought. If Christianity is true, then all of the facts we can discover scientifically have to comport with it. Thus faith and evidence should be in harmony and not contradictory to one another. I also can't imagine any science that is not faith-based in some sense, because every scientist has a faith of some sort. Even the most ruggedly materialistic of thinkers holds presuppositions regarding logic and God and the nature of reality. So they are interpreting the evidence through their faith lens. Nobody is truly objective.<br /><br />Although I'm disagreeing with you, I do want to welcome you and thank you for taking the time to interact.<br /><br />Grace & peace,<br />DerekTHEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415216177401538805.post-72051837509470515532011-08-12T15:41:26.902-04:002011-08-12T15:41:26.902-04:00Hi, Debra - It's not my blog, but I don't ...Hi, Debra - It's not my blog, but I don't think Derek would disagree with you regarding natural selection, and neither do I :). This is, as you say, a process that we see all around us in the natural world taking place <i>within species</i>. The problem comes when the claim is made that one species evolved from another. This has never been proven, and makes no sense biologically.The Blainemonsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13157965154638461280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415216177401538805.post-30236608481042381792011-08-12T15:13:54.224-04:002011-08-12T15:13:54.224-04:00I am a Biologist that believes in evolution as wel...I am a Biologist that believes in evolution as well as a Christian.<br /><br />Evolution does not try to explain how things got started but rather explains how new species evolve through genetic mutation over time.<br /><br />Natural selection is the process where, when there are several mutated aleles, one will enhance the survival of that type because it is better adapted to the environment.<br /><br />I will admit that these are theories and hypothesis testing involves adaptation of theory as one does research but I find no conflict between my work as a Biologist and my faith in God as a Christian. <br /><br />My experience as a Christian are based upon my faith in the goodness of God and His promises that have been codified in the Bible.<br /><br />My experience as a scientist are evidence-based.<br /><br />Faith-based science is an oxymoron and evidence-based faith is a contridiction of terms.<br /><br />DBDebra Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07320659656167721566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415216177401538805.post-53289572326497019212011-08-09T19:57:54.744-04:002011-08-09T19:57:54.744-04:00Excellent! Watching the vid right now. I'll m...Excellent! Watching the vid right now. I'll mention another story from our Canyon trip, kind of on the other side of the spectrum. I had a short conversation with a woman who was marvelling at the scenery as well. She said "I prefer to think that God was just up there (here she moves her finger through the air) carving it all out." Well that's a lovely thought, but I told her, "I kinda think this is all good evidence of a catastrophic flow of water after Noah's flood." Her response was like a light going on: "Oh yeah!"The Blainemonsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13157965154638461280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415216177401538805.post-76360828668851290962011-08-09T12:19:45.906-04:002011-08-09T12:19:45.906-04:00Blaine,
That sounds like a great time (minus the ...Blaine,<br /><br />That sounds like a great time (minus the loudly proclaimed assumptions of an overconfident evolutionist). I have seen most of the famous places in America, but not the Canyon. Gotta take my family there someday.<br /><br />I'm sure you've heard that radiometric dating places some lower strata in the canyon at a younger age than higher strata. That's rather funny and telling.<br /><br />Somewhere there's a video that talks about the rapid formation of large canyons - like the Grand Canyon on a smaller scale - just after the explosion of Mt. St. Helens.<br /><br />Just found an updated version of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo<br /><br />Fascinating stuff! He calls it "the Little Grand Canyon."<br /><br />Blessings,<br />DerekTHEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415216177401538805.post-60201540414735239572011-08-09T11:55:50.583-04:002011-08-09T11:55:50.583-04:00"Today's evolutionary theories are quite ...<i>"Today's evolutionary theories are quite a bit different from those that existed 10 years ago, and 50 years ago, and 100 years ago (most evolutionary "theory" is actually hypothesis, despite what they claim). The idea of evolution is itself evolving! I doubt it is reaching a higher form, however."</i> Right on point!<br /><br />I was in Arizona all last week and enjoyed a Grand Canyon hike with some friends. Along the way, I heard a very loud tour guide confidently explaining how modern man has "only been around about 250,000 years or so." *sigh* Oh, and of course the Vishnu schist rock at the bottom of the canyon is as old as the earth itself. All of this is touted as "bedrock" fact with no wiggle room for any other opinion or discussion.The Blainemonsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13157965154638461280noreply@blogger.com