[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

The word also means "chance" and "causeless," which is the meaning I was using.

And, unless there's a hand guiding something with a reason, a meaning, a purpose - that's what the act would be - random, by chance, without a guiding cause.

There are two types of "truth" - objective facts about the physical universe, and subjective concepts about the "mental universe" of human experience. Meaning is something that we create ourselves through the experience of living. There is no evidence for meaning that exists outside the human mind. Similarly, there is no evidence for reasons for natural events. Any claims about "by whom and why" are claims about the physical universe, and thus amount to religion intruding on the realm of science. Religion shouldn't make any claims about the physical universe at all. Instead, religion should focus exclusively on the "mental universe."

Why? If the cause is a supreme being - the who and why (alpha and omega, as it were) - then why shouldn't religion report and record that?

I do not need to be a scientist to see the difference between a gun going off because it's trigger was pulled by a person aiming it at someone, and a gun going off because it fell just exactly wrong and the trigger was moved by what the gun hit. The bullet will leave the barrel at the same velocity either way. The cause of the explosion that provides the motive force will be the exact same. However, if the bullet from both instances hits someone, the result is very different - has a different meaning. I need to be a scientist to explain why the bullet flies as it does, how the trigger causes the explosion, what the impact actually does to the human flesh, etc. But, I don't have to be a scientist to understand the meaning behind the two actions are very different.

This is my view of science and religion. My religion has every ability to speak to the meaning of things, and what that caused. If scientist want to research the mechanism through which the Creator did His work, please feel free. I'm interested in that Truth as well.

True - it's really a topic for abiogenesis. My point is that creationism mistakenly labels that as a flaw in evolution, and that the origin of life is a scientific question.

Not flaw, per se. Omission. There is no scientific explaination that has any shred of credibility. Or, testability.

Again, faith and belief have no place in explaining anything about natural phenomena.

Then science should stay out of it until they have credible proof. Wait, you can't even attempt to prove it unless you have a belief as to how it could be, with still no proof. Thus, evolution is just a belief that people have faith in - like a religion without a supreme being. Are you saying science shouldn't be involved? (Yes, I know you're not saying that. I'm trying to make the point that EVERY unproven theory is just a belief, a faith in something that hasn't been proven yet)