Posted on 10/01/2002 6:32:12 AM PDT by Phaedrus
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Water seeks its own level...
streams of consciousness has a rapids/falls---
going with the flow is easy(no paddling/brains/life)!
But scientists supportive of teaching the scientific controversy over evolution don't fit the stereotype of science vs. religion, so the national newsmedia neglected to mention them.Journalists should relinquish the "Inherit the Wind" stereotype and update their knowledge about what is really happening in the natural sciences. Today, growing numbers of scientists are raising serious questions about Darwinian theory.
Some of them, like biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University and mathematician William Dembski of Baylor University, are proposing a scientific alternative to Darwinism known as intelligent design. Other scientists are simply pointing out that the underlying evidence for Darwinian theory is a lot more complicated--and controverted--than is usually presented to students. Biologist Jonathan Wells points out that biology textbooks routinely cite "evidence" for Darwin's theory that even many modern Darwinists no longer accept as legitimate. The textbooks also ignore the serious disagreements that exist among modern biologists on major issues such as the fossil record and embryology.
LOL!
Tell it to St. Thomas.
Whether those things that are of faith can be an object of science ?
Thin ice. I remember you claiming that horses donkeys and zebras are the same species, even though crossbreeds are infertile.
Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.
Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.
I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Is. 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Sirach 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.
Reply to Objection 2. Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.
Be specific. Cite papers, original, peer-reviewed research, etc.
Whether sacred doctrine is a science?Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.
I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.
Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine.
Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.
Thomas Aquinas died in the 13th century! What we call science today has little relationship to what they called science back then. In fact, it is much more tightly defined now than it was in the 19th century, which is when the "theory" of evolution was propounded. I assert that if the "theory" of evolution was to be put forth today, it would not be acceptable as a theory.
Heck, the only reason it probably still is a theory is that the scientific "establishment" has its back up because it feels it is being attacked by "trailer park fundamentalists". If the Christians had ignored it, instead of politicizing it, the so called theory would already have been reworked several times. As it is, any attacks on the "theory" of evolution tends to get grabbed by the creationists, and so most scientists just avoid the subject. They don't want their tenures/grants/etc. to be threatened.
What are you hooked on...what comes out of the opposite end of your mouth?
sci·ence Pronunciation Key (sns)The word has two most significant senses and Aquinas was using second sense, but even the first sense (in bold) can apply. The medieval dictum that "theology is the queen of the sciences" is as true today as it was 700 years ago, and good science is as dependent on good theology as it was 700 years ago. It's no accident that Western natural science arose from within a Christian worldview.
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena [Intelligent Design].
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study.
Gauss said that mathematics is the queen of the sciences, and that number theory is her crown, with the Law of Quadratic Reciprocity as its most precious jewel.
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.