[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

I haven't said that it is relevant to the current discourse. If you read earlier, I was arguing that creationism, if it should be at all taught, should be through philosophical seminar. My reference to Aquinas was to show that creationism can be argued. Evidently there are students for and against intelligent design in every high school, or at least they are curious about it. It is in a philosophy course that creationism be allowed to be heard and argued over.

ok, but when lurker said "i still dont' see how you can argue for creationism", he wasn't referring to the middle ages, he meant (i'm sure) in our current context. hence i found your posted link irrelevant.

the question then is to be rephrased as "how can you credibly argue for creationism today"? and you could-- but you could look at more modern sources that take into account our scientific knowlege (unlike kant's discussion on the number of stars). there was recently (the 70s?) this english physicist genius madman, fred hoyle, who argued in favor of a "constantly created" universe (and he was a theist i believe). and roger penrose i believe has argued (i'm not sure successfully) for the existence of a platonic world of ideas that makes mathematics possible...

and yes, creationism could be discussed in philosophy, i never "denied kids the right to expressed themselves" because "a girl made me feel bad". what the fuck! but am i IRATE about the fucking churchmongers fucking with kid's science education? fuck yes. it's an atrocity.