How one thing is not like the other
In his most recent diatribe against evolution, OJ applauds Islamic countries for embracing creationism.
Any estimates as to how many of those Nobel Prize winners think creationism would be a valuable addition to American science classes?
What a bizarre notion [that creationism corrodes scientific education]. Americans just won pretty much every Nobel prize and we reject Darwinism.
Any estimates as to how many of those Nobel Prize winners think creationism would be a valuable addition to American science classes?
posted by Hey Skipper at 12:41 AM
10 Comments:
You should have answered that, although Europeans embrace Darwinism, they make up nearly all the saints.
Peter, what's the difference between saints and blesseds?
Why would a poor little Canadian Protestant country boy know that? Why not ask David? He..um...knows everything!
I think your link to Judd's post is messed up - it just takes me to this post. But I think I remember seeing it recently.
I don't really see how whether or not Nobel Prize winners support Creationism in science classes is related to Judd's most recent diatribe.
... because the link you posted is a list of saints and blesseds.
We just elevated Damien the Leper from blessed to saint, with Mother Marianne in the wings.
A blessed is a sort of apprentice saint.
Orrin should ask how many of those Nobelists attended bible college.
Thanks Harry.
I think your link to Judd's post is messed up.
Thanks, fixed.
I don't really see how whether or not Nobel Prize winners support Creationism in science classes is related to Judd's most recent diatribe.
The "bizarre notion" is that creationism is somehow anti-scientific, the bizarreness demonstrated by how many Americans apparently do not accept evolution, and how often the Nobel is awarded to Americans.
One thing is not like the other. At best the linkage is a non-sequitor; otherwise, it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who blunders upon that post.
erp, I thought you said you had been taught by the good sisters. I would have given a less flip response otherwise.
The church has three levels of recognition of good behavior.
1. Venerable. A candidate status, given to defunct Catholics who died in unusually good odor. This sets off some formal recordkeeping, including a little discreet investigation to see whether the private life of the candidate saint was all it should have been; and it puts the laity on notice to keep a sharp eye for miracles.
2. Blessed. Formal candidacy for sainthood -- much like being a candidate-member of the Politburo -- and the start of accumulation of evidence of miracles.
3. Sainthood. This used to require 2 official miracles, although with Damien, there seems to have been only one.
John Paul II was anxious to generate a lot of more current saints than the somewhat tired dragonslahyers and virgins of the distant past, but the recent record of Catholics has been none too impressive, so they had to, like Yale, accept pretty much anybody.
Harry, My request of Peter was flippant as well.
You're right, I did go to a school run by the Sisters of Charity even though I wasn't Catholic (long story). They were outstandingly kind to me nevertheless and I remember them with great fondness. I tried to show my gratitude by becoming a student worthy of their attention and probably learned 90% of what I ever knew from those gentle Irish girls.
Post a Comment
<< Home