tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post4461457502250227772..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Funding Ontario Religious Schools, RevisitedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-83325916403795709592007-09-23T00:40:00.000-04:002007-09-23T00:40:00.000-04:00I was travelling in Ontario last week, and (over)h...I was travelling in Ontario last week, and (over)heard this discussed by numerous people, at places like MacDonald's. many of them see it as benefiting Muslims, and they don't seem to like it too much. This could blow up in somebody's face.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-39479075133754804582007-09-22T20:36:00.000-04:002007-09-22T20:36:00.000-04:00@papa giorgio: when you're done setting Larry stra...@papa giorgio: when you're done setting Larry straight about the "evolution" thingy, maybe you can explain "biochemistry" to him. <BR/><BR/><I>But nothing like being classified as an idiot to keep the conversation rolling!</I><BR/><BR/>No, I think it's ID-iot...you know, like in Cypriot. Right? Obviously, it should never be confused with "cdesign proponentsists", who are the people who are actually active in that field.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01010178962574928062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-73711057276040201442007-09-22T08:16:00.000-04:002007-09-22T08:16:00.000-04:00What I find amusing is that they act like this bum...What I find amusing is that they act like this bumping of religion and science is something new.<BR/><BR/>Since the earliest days of the Renaissance, science has discovered things which appear to contradict a literal reading of the Genesis story. The first, of course, was astronomy. What did theologians of the day do?<BR/><BR/>They wrote things like this:<BR/><BR/><I>Moses describes the special use of this expanse, "to divide the waters from the waters" from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. <B>He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.</B> [...] The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses.</I><BR/><BR/>(Emphasis mine.)<BR/><BR/>And this, in response to the story of the creation of the "greater light" (the Sun) and the "lesser light" (the Moon):<BR/><BR/><I>It is well again to repeat what I have said<BR/>before, that it is not here philosophically discussed, how great the sun is in the heaven, and how great, or how little, is the moon; but how much light comes to us from them. For Moses here addresses himself to our senses, that the knowledge of the gifts of God which we enjoy may not glide away. Therefore, in order to apprehend the meaning of Moses, it is to no purpose to soar above the heavens; let us only open our eyes to behold this light which God enkindles for us in the earth. By this method (as I have before observed) the dishonesty of those men is sufficiently rebuked, who censure Moses for not speaking with greater exactness.</I><BR/><BR/>The most amusingly ironic part is that the person who wrote this is none other than John Calvin, after whom the school in question is named.Pseudonymhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04272326070593532463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-66630345374932102352007-09-21T10:43:00.000-04:002007-09-21T10:43:00.000-04:00Oh, golly: Papa G, you have no idea who you're res...Oh, golly: Papa G, you have no idea who you're responding to, do you? ;-) (I'll let Larry sort it out if he chooses -- or go read his blog).Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-31281263772217790912007-09-21T10:01:00.000-04:002007-09-21T10:01:00.000-04:00To respond to Larry Moran,Natural selection is a f...To respond to Larry Moran,<BR/><BR/>Natural selection <B>is</B> a fact, but many even in the evolutionary community are bringing it down a notch or two in importance in its ability to <I>"change"</I> species. This isn't an idiots vs. scientist "zero sum" game. It is a debate and discussion within the scientific community.<BR/><BR/>There are, recently, additions to my son's biology books that allow space for punctuated equilibrium. Which even classify the fossil record a bit differently than neo-Darwinism... which may be the hint in the "Darwinian adaptation" mention? (Speculating here)<BR/><BR/>But nothing like being classified as an idiot to keep the conversation rolling!Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-9198127913409445502007-09-21T07:20:00.000-04:002007-09-21T07:20:00.000-04:00Actually, natural selection is a fact. But we can'...Actually, natural selection <B>is</B> a fact. But we can't expect IDiots to know this, can we?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.com