My ABD was in Greek and Latin. Not much "selling out" required there. Same holds of Computer Science. I was saying that, in my book, I consider it better that he does NOT have a degree in science. Those with degrees in science have often sold out. So you took my comment the complete opposite of what I intended. I considered his lack of science degree a plus.
Well, you're implying that having a science degree is a minus. That's what I was addressing.
Just my experience, but I've found a lot of militant progressives in computer science, who even when learning, wrote software supporting leftist causes. Study of physics or engineering doesn't generally lend itself so easily to such causes. (Physics and "physical" engineering more often has military applications, but that's something different.)
And I know good people in medieval and Latin studies (mostly in linguistics), but there are also feminists, and the feminists seem more often promoted in that field. I'm sure you can think of issues in Greek studies as well.
That's not even close to what the Modernist said. He did not say that there were no theological grounds to oppose a particular theory. He said that we cannot argue against science with theology, nay, more, that the Church tells us this.
So you agree he said the Church tells us not to argue this on theology. The Church directs.
You could say this is an error of fact (ie - the Church doesn't say this), but it doesn't look to me like he is saying that theology is subservient to science. Not in general, and not even in this particular case. That's your interpretation of what he said.
Topic: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis (Read 6833 times)