Sentences with phrase «accept evolution as»

Some believe in the «micro-evolution» of nonhuman species while others accept evolution as part of a divine order.

You said, «We scientists do not accept Evolution as truth yet.»

And I don't personally know a lot of Christians who accept evolution as fact.

I know there are many scientists, Christian and non-Christian, who do not accept evolution as fact.

How can atheist be more «moral» when most accept evolution as a fact?

Related to the litmus test comments — How about this litmus test: if you don't accept evolution as the only rational explanation for the diversity of life on Earth you can not run for office.

American Muslims are almost twice as likely to accept evolution as American Evangelical Protestants and Jews are more than three times as likely to accept evolution as Evangelical Protestants.

Some religions accept evolution as true and assume that god left it to run it course, with some» direction» of course.

For example, I accept evolution as the best explanation of how we got here.

Many theists accept evolution as true.

Real scientists who work in the field of immunology accept evolution as a fact.

Obviously the Catholic Church compromised with accepting evolution as fact since it is irrefutable.

None of that belief was ever predicated on a specific interpretation of Genesis with respect to scientific details, and as such, accepting evolution as a mechanism by which God creates did not alter those beliefs.

Your formula is meant to be simplistic and «powerful», but your understanding of really large numbers is what is actually what is holding you back from accepting evolution as being true.

Every one of them fully accepted evolution as a fact.

Even the sick catholic church accepts evolution as FACT, why should it be so difficult for the Talibangelicals.

Not exact matches

I think most non-Cathotic Christians who accept evolution think along those lines as well.

Have the JPL scientists get jobs at his church as deacons, then have them hand out DVD's on evolution and the Big Bang theory after Sunday service and then see how accepting and open minded they are (G).

The theory of evolution is also embraced by many who claim to accept the Bible as the word of God.

When the nation of Cyprus has a higher percentage of people who can accept evolution, you as a nation have a problem.

= > current accepted Chuckles «As for your evolution question, chad... give up, seriously, you're asking pointless questions that have no bearing a) on the theory itself and b) are important to answer.

It is one thing to accept Evolution, with its overwhelming evidence, as proof of God's work.

The Science behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

Dala, you believe (as I understand) in evolution and the accepted conclusion that the earth is over 4B years old.

«Darwin accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior at his deathbed... he renounced his theory (it is a «theory,» after all), thus, evolution is nothing but... but... but a «theory»!»

It is as a lawyer in the Bible said, that it is «inexcusable» to cast aside all the «proof» that life and all the universe just arose at random and accept a mindless speculative theory called evolution.

Today, the religions of Christendom display a similar disrespect for the truth of the Bible, by giving preference to scientific theories, such as the Catholic church accepting evolution.

«If you accept evolution, even a well - meaning, theistic evolution, this will eventually become pantheistic evolution, which in turn will become atheistic evolution» — as if this were a series of logical steps to inevitable conclusions.

You continually dodge the fact that your quotes are out of context, that you jump to invalid conclusions, and that the scientific community accept, no embrace, evolution as fact.

Pew reports that «in their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life and less prone to see Hollywood as threatening their moral values.

As for me, I think I was thinking of 98 % because that is the figure for the number of professional scientists that accept evolution.

But evolution is more than change, and every theory accepts as evidence only what fits the theory.

We concede that not all who doubt the existence of a personal God do so because they accept the theory of evolution, whether the word be restricted to biology or enlarged to its cosmic significance, but we do say, and from experience know, that most modern agnosticism is bound up with those non-theistic philosophies of evolution that stream off from Hegel as their modern fountain - head.

If the traditional formulations of God show him to be the Perfect Good, Absolute Truth and Supreme Being, since goodness, truth and being are positive values, then there should not be too great a difficulty in accepting a formulation of God's eternity as Absolute or Perfect Time, since time is now revealed to us as positive, thanks to the discovery of evolution.

science is not everything, the problem is when the critical and objective philosophy of science is accepted as absolute in reality.God is beyond logic at this point of our consciousness, The process of gods will manfistation is evolution which accepts all variables in the process, the input could be not what scienctists wants.Thats why faith or religion is part of reality.

Many scientists are certainly skeptical of many of the finer points of evolution, but as a whole, the evolutionary process is accepted as fact amongst any and all biologists that put science ahead of religion.

If evolution is a law, as so many seems to accept, you would see apes evolving into human beings since beginning of human history and everyday of our lives.

The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution can not be proven so they are not scientifically proven laws and are accepted on faith as true by some.

I do not «believe» in evolution, I accept it as fact.

I did, however, know about evolution, from my Biology classes, which I had accepted as pretty much fact.

The Church has accepted evolution since its inception, as well as the Big Bang theory, etc..

Many or all of these hypnosis / problems that you mentioned here and in other posts as objections to flood and / or evolutionism (such as Coconino Sandstone) are not new and are addressed in sites like creation.com Finally, because you mentioned Christians who accepted evolution, how about some atheists who oppose Darwin's evolutionism such as Nietzsche or, more recently, Jerry Fodor and Piattelli - Palmarini

The nine benchmarks also accept the contemporary understanding of time, the role of unpredictability (novelty), persuasion as a higher form of power than coercion, and the priority of evolution and change (instability) over equilibrium or stasis.

The theory of evolution is as widely accepted and as well supported as the germ theory of disease, cell theory, etc..

Freddie has written a post that forces me into the odd position of defending Sam Harris; the crux of which is the claim that once we accept the human mind as being a contingent accident of evolution, we necessarily must abandon any faith in the intellectual edifices constructed by such minds:

In Roman Catholicism, for example, one goes from the official condemnation of the «modernists» in an early part of this century to what might be appropriately described as the dominant position today, found in Pope Pius XII's Human generis (1950), which, concerning the relation between evolution and creation, accepts evolution yet insists on the special, «second» creation of the human soul.

This takes the widely accepted fact that the strength of basic forces of the universe, as measured by fundamental physical constants, are exactly right, and «fine - tuned», for a development upon the Big Bang which produced planets like ours, fit for the evolution of life.

You begrudgingly accept evolution (about a century after Darwin proved it and after accepting Genesis as literally true for about 2,000 years) and that Adam and Eve was totally made up, but then conveniently ignore that fact that your justification for Jesus dying on the cross (to save us from Original Sin) has therefore been eviscerated.

But once we have accepted the general Law of Recurrence linking the growth of consciousness to the advance of complexity within a process of universal evolution, nothing can arrest the logical sequence in which two worlds which we were accustomed to regard as being completely separate are seen to approach and complement each other.

The Britannica tells us that «evolution is accepted by all biologists and natural selection is recognized as its cause....