But, Aquinasfan, with reference to two of our earlier topics:
Aquinasfan seems to be under the illusion that "laws of physics" are something other than human constructs that describe and condense experimental data. All such laws have limits to the range of phenomena for which they are accurate, and therefore fall somewhat short of being TRVTH.
It's a cause and effect thing. I don't know of anything, aside from God, that is uncaused. Similarly, I know of no law that has no "law-giver" or creator, etc.
In some contexts it does, in others it doesn't. If you're truly a fan of Aquinas, you should be able to make such distinctions.
What's your point?
with regard to this question of Professor Ruse's sex life, that's the question you never answered (referring to our earlier exchange): How could you possibly know what sort of attitudes Ruse and his partners had towards one another?
From his own words. Let me put it to you this way. If some dude at work mentioned something like this at coffee break, would you question his character? I sure as hell would.
Your willingness to condemn the man without evidence...
Publicly declaring, without prompting, that he sleeps around, doesn't constitute evidence of a lack of morals? I suspect that your confusion regarding his character would evaporate if he was dating your sister.
...is disturbing and calls into question your judgment.
Oh dear.
Moreover, even if he were a libertine (which I don't grant), his personal habits are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the scientific and philosophical claims he makes. You should know this.
But the issues which he positions himself to judge the truth or falsity of will determine whether his promiscuity is the result of matter in motion or a sinful character.
He has a vested interest in the debate and should recuse himself.