| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Sources for Stories > Topic: Evolution 'science' Disproven vs. Divine Science |
Topic: Evolution 'science' Disproven vs. Divine Science
| Author | Message |
| schooladminis | Posted – 8/8/2007 7:14:07 PM | show profile { :Breaking News: } Sponsored by JMCP? SMMW? QBID? CCNG? Blacklisted PAIMP? "We know in part...seeing now through a speculum {looking-glass, mirror, telescope} in relation to what is an enigma {obscurely known and unknown}...presently knowing in partial science: but then at last I shall know even as I am known { !:in Christ:! } ( !:in relation to God's Universal Light:! )" Saint Paul to The Corinthians, Caput 13. "In the treasures of wisdom is understanding, and religiousness of knowledge" {:Sirach, .0001}: From the manuals we learn: "Philosophia est scientia omnium rerum, secundum ultimas causas, in lumine naturali comparata." In English: Philosophy is the science of all things, according to ultimate causes {known}, in the natural light {e.g. of reason} compared." And again, philosophy is a word from the Greek lexicon, simply signifying: "The Love of Wisdom". For the nature of love is to unite {all things and the desire of one's soul} in wisdom. And wisdom is "love properly ordered" {Saint Augustine}. Science, however, is a different vision. It serves wisdom by offering her universal truth in whatever order of things is considered - whether wisdom's ultimate causes - or inferior, even least/or particular, causes. Yet one thing is unchanging if it is to be real science: It must be universally true and without opinion or shadow of doubt: otherwise it is not science. For this reason, no "theory pertaining toward science" is actual science. And although science is, by its very nature, the servant of philosophy {wisdom and true love in it}: it is not true that any "theory pertaining {or feigning} toward science" is in fact a true and faithful servant: No more than opinion or {per se dubious} intuition could ever be, yet it may 'in evolution' feign to be, true science i.e. universally true - which it is not. Now: If science must be universally true in order to be truly itself {i.e. the known - the non-enigmatic}, how can we say that "we know in part"? If "known", isn't it therefore "wholly and universally so"? Yes, it must be! Yet how is it that we can "know in part" now without it being either "partially opinion" or "yet wholly dubious"? I respond: What the knower truly knows must be both universal and unchangeable science: but the object that is so universally known is yet one part of many other objects in the universe {yet unknown}. And because these are in addition to your universally-known proper*idea, all these other related objects intermingling near, or causative to, the one object that you have truly {universally} known, remain unknown in part, in relation to a proper judgement: namely, the rational science of some*known nature in an intelligibly*universal form. "Then the just shall shine as the sun... so slowly congealing up*into a treasure hidden in a field: }". |
