Sentences with phrase «evolutionary creationist»

(You can check out the rest of the interview series — which includes an atheist, a Muslim, a Mormon, a humanitarian, an evolutionary creationist, a Catholic, an Orthodox Jew, a gay Christian, a Christian libertarian, a Mennonite, and more — here.)

In our interview series so far, we've featured an atheist, a Catholic, anOrthodox Jew, a humanitarian, a Mormon, a Mennonite, an evolutionary creationist, and a Calvinist.

Check out the rest of our interview series — which includes an atheist, a Catholic, a pacifist, a Pentecostal, an evolutionary creationist, a humanitarian, a Mormon, a Mennonite, a gay Christian, and many more — here.

(You can check out the rest of the interview series — which includes an atheist, a Muslim, a Mormon, a humanitarian, a pacifist, an evolutionary creationist, a Catholic, an Orthodox Jew, a gay Christian, a Christian libertarian, a Mennonite, a pacifist, a Pentecostal, and more — here.)

I'm giving Dennis Venema a few extra days to work on your questions for «Ask an Evolutionary Creationist.»

To use the article's terminology, biology professor and president of BioLogos Darrell Falk is an evolutionary creationist, while science professor Todd Wood is a young - earth creationist.

Ask an Atheist Ask a Catholic Ask an Orthodox Jew Ask a Humanitarian Ask a Mormon Ask a Mennonite Ask an Evolutionary Creationist

Evolutionary Creationist such as BioLogos accept God's Word and common ancestry in creation.

Check out the rest of our interview series — which includes «Ask an atheist,» «Ask a Muslim,» «Ask an evolutionary creationist,» «Ask a humanitarian,» «Ask a gay Christian,» «Ask a Mormon,» and more — here.

(You can check out the rest of the interview series — which includes an atheist, a Muslim, a Mormon, a humanitarian, an evolutionary creationist, a Catholic, an Orthodox Jew, a gay Christian, a Quaker, and more — here.)

(You can check out the rest of the interview series — which includes an atheist, a Muslim, a Mormon, a humanitarian, a pacifist, an evolutionary creationist, a Catholic, an Orthodox Jew, a gay Christian, a Christian libertarian, a Mennonite, and more — here.)

Today I'm thrilled to share biologist Dennis Venema's responses to your questions for «Ask an Evolutionary Creationist.»

We've interviewed an atheist, a nun, a gay Christian, a funeral director, a pacifist, an indigenous theologian, a Pentecostal, a Mennonite, an evolutionary creationist, an Orthodox Jew, a Mormon, and more.

From Paige: What has been the most compelling evidence for you personally that has solidified your position as an evolutionary creationist?

Let's give Jason the opportunity to do that here — just as we have an atheist, a Muslim, a Mormon, an Orthodox Jew, a Quaker, a Mennonite, a humanitarian, an environmentalist, an evolutionary creationist, and so many more.

If you transitioned from an anti - evolutionary / pro-intelligent design view to an evolutionary creationist view a few years ago,» why didn't you keep going and just embrace evolution and drop the theistic aspect?

Check out the rest of our interview series, which includes 12 Q&A s with everyone from an atheist to a Calvinist to a gay Christian to an evolutionary creationist.

From Chris: From the perspective of an evolutionary creationist, what meaning and value do you extract from the creation accounts in Genesis and why would they be important for the Christian faith if they can't be taken literally?

(You can check out the rest of the interview series — which includes an atheist, a Mormon, a humanitarian, an evolutionary creationist, a Catholic, an Orthodox Jew, a gay Christian, a Quaker, and more — here.)

(For inspiration, see the rest of the entries in our interview series, which include conversations with an atheist, a Catholic, an Orthodox Jew, a humanitarian, a Mormon, a Mennonite, an evolutionary creationist, a Calvinist, a gay Christian, and a Quaker.)

So far in our interview series, we've spoken with an atheist, aCatholic, an Orthodox Jew, a humanitarian, a Mormon, aMennonite, an evolutionary creationist, a Calvinist, and a gay Christian.

Some evolutionary creationists have argued that this non-randomness of evolution is a way that God uses evolution to shape His creation (the best work on this topic is Life's Solution by noted Cambrian paleontologist Simon Conway Morris).

is not one that only evolutionary creationists have to answer.

There seems to be a consensus among the evolutionary creationists that the intelligent design folks have not provided sufficient data to support their claims and are therefore not taken seriously by the scientific community.

Not exact matches

He's just refuting the ridiculous assertions by some creationists to refute clear evidence of evolutionary theory, or suggest that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

I have yet to find a creationist (ID) that can explain even the basics of modern evolutionary theory with any accuracy.

Funny how IDers don't claim to be creationists, yet both have the EXACT same language and interpretation of evolutionary theory verbatim, go to the same church, watch the same videos, use the same arguments, vote for the same leaders, listen to the same pastors, and quote the same scripture, etc...

If a professor of evolutionary biology announced that they were going to spend the next year as a young earth creationist, they'd lose their job and their peers would likely deride the decision.

So far the creationists have done a service in calling to the tendencies in science and evolutionary theory to transform methodologically self - limited statements into all - encompassing metaphysical judgments.

The problem, however, is that instead of forcefully challenging all these conclusions — which do not directly and necessarily follow from science or from evolutionary theory — the scientific creationists encourage them.

This attitude has also been held among scientists until recently, when the creationist pressures on public education and policy became so threatening that some scientists founded a new journal, Creation / Evolution, a «Committee of Correspondence» and a Creation / Evolution News letter, aimed at defending evolutionary science and dismantling creationist arguments.

Young - Earth Creationists: 6000 — 10,000 years ago»... the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology.

As I've said many times before, I'm not particularly interested in converting young earth creationists into evolutionary creationists.I believe that Christians should be able to fellowship together in love and unity regardless of their various positions on the interpretation of Genesis Being neither an Old Testament scholar nor a scientist, I'll leave that debate up to the experts.

According to a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books by John Maynard Smith, the dean of British neo-Darwinists, «the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould's] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.

Creationists» tactics also have a more profound impact on science education which goes beyond biology because they communicate the idea that there is something lacking or something wrong with evolutionary theory, an idea which is not actually true from a scientific standpoint.

Unfortunately, efforts to push forward a careful alliance of theology with evolutionary biology are often obscured by the more sensational spats going on between IDT defenders and creationists on the one side, and evolutionary materialists on the other.

On the other side are «creationists,» who argue — against not only science but also those faiths that accept the compatibility of evolutionary biology and Sacred Writ — that the earth was created on or around Sunday, October 23, 4004 b.c., a conclusion based on a sincere but discredited calculation by James Ussher in the seventeenth century.

In this article Johnson provides what he calls a «rough description» of modern evolutionary biology, raises a series of arguments against evolution, and finally proposes a creationist view of the origin of species.

He transitioned from an anti - evolutionary / pro-intelligent design view to anevolutionary creationist (sometimes called «theistic evolutionist») view a few years ago, and blogs about that journey at Biologos.org.

Young earth creationists and «the new atheists» (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) actually have more in common than one might think, for both groups have arrived at the conclusion that accepting an old earth and evolutionary theory inevitably rules out the existence of God.

Here is a direct quote from a creationist: «Because evolutionary biology hasn't explained everything, therefore God must exist and must have created everything.»

ID / creationists like to invoke «common creator / common design» but this simply fails when considering the validated evolutionary predictions of where defunct genes should be found.

Additionally, this ID / creationist argument fails in light of clear examples of common forms with discrete evolutionary lineages and accompanying discrete genetic const - itutions (e.g. new world v. old world vultures, etc).

And the idea that a world of high - level sentient creatures could be created only through an evolutionary process is surely not a logical truth — as illustrated by all the creationists who deny that our world was so created.11 Hasker has defended his view of God only by implicitly giving it up.12

As for the Eye — Creationists only ever refer to the rhetorical portion of Darwin's statement in which he said «to suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree» — but they never point out that he then went on to describe the evolutionary path of the eye — a theory which over a hundred years of careful research has confirmed.

As young earth creationists often do, he points to «gaps in the fossil record» as a flaw in evolutionary biology.

After becoming a Christian, he reevaluated his evolutionary beliefs from training in secular geology, and is now a young - earth creationist.

When we think about doubts over evolutionary science, we tend to think of the highly politicised views of young Earth creationists in the US.

As a bonus, this research undermines creationist arguments about the impossibility of large - scale evolutionary changes.

Subjects in the issue include the importance of natural selection, the sources of genetic variability, human evolution's past and future, pop evolutionary psychology, everyday applications of evolutionary theory, the science of the game Spore, and the ongoing threat to science education posed by creationist activists.