Posted on 11/18/2011 4:27:41 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
I still want to know the answer.
Does he know, or doesn’t he know?
Someone can have a list a degrees longer than their arm.
If he doesn’t know the implications of Darwin, he’s not qualified to be President.
P.S. Our current one DOES know the implications, I think....
Julia was not a chef.
I’m sure he’d have a answer. He certainly did last night on Greata about the Freddie consulting. He talks all around an issue.
Newt’s choices are pretty good. I might add Mark Twain and drop the Wrights but that’s just quibbling.
Then I'd have Cleopatra.
Then I'd have three big goons to keep my wife away. lol
kidding!
Steve Allen's "Meeting of the Minds" had Darwin, but never dared go there...
“Gingrich converted to Catholicism, Callista Bisek’s faith, on March 29, 2009.”....”
Then I’m assuming that this is probably what he understands to be the case:
Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability.
It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations.
What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man.
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
<>
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Creation Myths of the Tenured
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2010/08/creation-myths-of-tenured.html
"I hear you Mister Winston Churchill but you CANNOT inhabit my mind... which is circular... and your potentialisms can visit but they are not welcome to stay. No! I don't need anymore wine, Charles Darwin!! I know about the vestibules of your particular genus! My inner sanctum has eeeevolved and is safe from your penetrations of degeneration!!"
True. It will be the other way around:
15And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you.18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
Are you the writer for “The most interesting man in the world!”
LOL
LOL — I think you’re only half kidding. LOL
He may be on that list -- Bundy is.
Ick.
Matchett-PI has a comment re evolution in Post # 28.
All of his picks are dead. That would make for an awkward (and very quiet) dinner party. They did say living or dead, but I think I’d stick with inviting all living, as having corpses brought in would make the living guests more uncomfortable.
..Amen, and I get hungrier for that great event every day...
Ok, I saw Reagan’s name on the list and thought, what is he, a potted plant?
Anyway, interesting that Newt picks Churchill. I pick Newt and one of the reasons is I think he will be “our Churchill”.
Is that surprising? Maybe not, USAians luve their politicians
In 2002 there was a public poll in the UK selecting the 10 greatest Britians. Only 3 politicans made the list(Churchill, Elizabeth I, Oliver Cromwell)
The USA copied the idea and selected 10 great Americans, only 3 of which weren't politicians (Ben Franklin, Elvis Presley, Oprah Winfrey)
I typed my question — Only one politician? — because I saw Reagan (along with Churchill) on some list in the post, don’t know what that list is.
Never mind. I wish I could delete my “Only one politician?”
What I wish was, that on this post there had been “Only one list”, the list mentioned in the title, Gingrich’s list which, I guess, didn’t include Reagan.
“one politician”
That was my fault — I didn’t make clear Newt’s list vs the master list — but fixed that down the thread.
Sorry to not have been clearer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.