Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
|
aquinas! oy...
that belongs in the attic of antiquities, before the invention of electricity, before there was empirical science, even... doesn't the practice of philosophy require us to be current, i.e., to address the situation at hand, with our current knowledge?
kant argued that the number of stars had to be infinite so that their gravitational pull would keep them in static orbits, because he only had newtonian physics and lacked the data regarding the expansion of the universe.
another time this science friend got me together with her philosopher friend so i could explain to her dawkins's selfish gene theory. the exposition was cut short when i used the expression "reproductive machines"-- she quickly chimed in to say that,
per aristotle, genes could not be machines because machines had to be manmade. no manner of rhethorical licenses were allowed, and she managed to discourage me at any attempts at explaining a more-or-less current scientific theory--- because of what aristotle wrote 2500 years ago!
with this in mind, can you please explain how is aquinas relevant
today in the discussion of creationism?