Why are you comparing science to
divine intelligence as a cause or responsible party for something, awanderingscot?
Not exact matches
Faithful to it, Vatican I recognised that faith involves a free act which can not «be produced necessarily by arguments of human reason» (DS 3035, 3010); hence the Council added to those external signs the «internal helps of the Holy Spirit» so that the former might be «most certain signs of
divine revelation adapted to every
intelligence» (DS 3009f, 3033f);
as a result faith relies on «a most firm foundation» and «none can ever have a justreason for changing or doubting that same faith» (DS 3014, 3036; 2119 - 2121).
Faithful to it, Vatican I recognised that faith involves a free act which can not «be produced necessarily by arguments of human reason» (DS 3035, 3010); hence the Council added to those external signs the «internal helps of the Holy Spirit» so that the former might be «most certain signs of
divine revelation adapted to every
intelligence» (DS 3009f, 3033f);
as a result faith relies on «a most firm foundation» and «none can ever have a just reason for changing or doubting that same faith» (DS 3014, 3036; 2119 - 2121).
My argument is not for some holy campaign,
as Bushman suggests, but for a good ol' liberal arts education
as most conducive to the full exercise of
divine intelligence.
Darwin saw himself
as giving an explanation, by no means complete, of the variety and distribution of species around the globe; he argued for the superiority of his explanation over its competitors, including those that attempted to account for these facts by appeal to a
divine intelligence.
This was evidently a real contribution to Israel's thinking, for in a later age the wisdom writers turn frequently to it
as a favorite theme, and in particular it serves
as the basis of the lengthy dissertation upon the transcendent
intelligence of the
divine that is put into the mouth of the Lord in the latter part of the Book of Job.
In a structure of thought dominated,
as secular humanism's is, by the strict opposition of «human
intelligence» to «
divine guidance» and by the insistence that any reference to a transcendent reality is meaningless, obviously most traditional religious terms are going to be missing from respectable discourse (or mentioned only to be demeaned)....
At first glance, intelligent design looks like the same argument that evolution's foes have made since 1859, when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species: Only a
divine intelligence could have created something
as complex
as life on Earth.
Well, unless you're saying he should have been a maverick genius who should have seen what no - one else could, then that seems to me to be an unfair comment,
as the market simply reflects the combined
intelligence / view of everyone concerned, and if it was in any way divinable that the market was about to plummet, then people would have
divined that, and the market would have fallen — that's what markets are.