|
1. Christianity has never been directly opposed to the furthering of science, but acts as a conservative limit; viz, there's no reason to suggest that vestigial organs are anything other than what they are (provided, of course, that the scientific community is right - bear in mind that gangrene was treated by vivisection until relatively recently)
2. 'Could be uncaused' - it's a metaphysical point so suggest 'un-cause'; I don't really see that science has the analytical tools for metaphysics. As soon as it starts making interpretations of its finding it tends to turn things to shit (see nuclear bombs and Richard fucking Dawkins). To a blank objectivity there is no cause or need of cause; there is no blank objectivity.
3. 'Conform to the views of a Christian God' is mis-leading - there's as many different Gods to Christianity as there are Christians. Questions of arche-genetics don't interest me personally, at all.
4. Who could presuppose to know the mind of God? By which I mean, of course God is going to be anthropomorphised (Deo-anthropo-morphemic?) but that doesn't reify anything. Which possible makes me apophatic, which is science's least liked position.
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Savage Clone
Last time I was in Chicago I spent an hour in a Nazi submarine with a banjo player.
|
|