[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

You should have told the girl to let you finish explaining before she had her way with it.

there was no girl. my friend was a professor, her friend was an older wrinkly woman who likely had been taught "philosophy" at a seminar, hence, rather than listen to the explanation, she refuted my terms at every point based on the fucking doctors of the church.

i was not "made to feel bad", i just thought it was stupid of her that she'd refuse to hear a theory because it was not compatible with a dead greek (an admirable one, still dead). she was great at quoting archaic sources but useless at understanding.

my question though (which you haven't answered yet, and i'm not interrogating, i'm honestly asking) is what do these archaic people have to do with our current debates? yes, they came up with certain solutions, certain modes of addressing problems, but besides that, you posted a link to the summa theologica and in spite of your answer to lurker i still don't get how you see that book as relevant to the current debate of creationism "vs." science.

i side with stephen jay gould in believing that science and religion don't/shouldn't touch each other's dicks, so i find the opposition to be a spurious one, based more on politics than on a quest for truth, but that's just me.

so again could you explain your posting of the link to the aquinas wikipedia article? because i don't see the relevance.