Sentences with phrase «accept evolution because»

Scientists from all walks of life, around the world accept evolution because of the evidence and where it leads.

The rest of Nye's argument that believers in creation need to accept evolution because everyone else supposedly does is ludicrous.

Not exact matches

you can not prove a negative look it up... also you accept that evolution is legit... why because it has evidence... the sky fairy has none but you want to believe it... that does not make it real.

The church USED to shun evolution, however, these are all things now accepted in most churches --(among many other transitions that I haven't named here) because to refuse to adapt to a changing society is asinine and detrimental to the growth of the church.

Evolution and Creation Dear Fr Editor, Evangelical Creationists, I believe, can not accept the theory of evolution because it appears to conflict with GEvolution and Creation Dear Fr Editor, Evangelical Creationists, I believe, can not accept the theory of evolution because it appears to conflict with Gevolution because it appears to conflict with Genesis 1.

I got called into the pastor's office once because a «brother» in a small group I was in reported to him that I was not qualified to work in a divorce recovery ministry because I accepted evolution!?

I also hear from a lot of evangelicals who have begun attending Mainline Protestant churches precisely because they welcome LGBT people, accept scientific findings regarding climate change and evolution, practice traditional worship, preach from the lectionary, affirm women in ministry, etc., but these new attendees never hear the leadership of the church explain why this is the case.

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

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.

Reading some of the ignorant comments on here about science does make it hard to accept evolution, because so many comments here don't evidence evolution.

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

Because plenty of respectable people like Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (who are not scientists) don't accept evolution, and that somehow validates his opinion.

If Chad and others argue that naturalistic evolution must be dismissed because we don't know exactly what happened with gene mutation and transmission frequencies during particular periods of rapid change, then how can we accept a replacement argument in which we don't even know what happens at all?

I get angry when my most reasoned arguments are dismissed as «emotional» and «shrill» or when people question my commitment to my faith because I accept evolution or support women in ministry.

I am yet to hear an evolutionary biologist claim that they accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution because:

We emphasize that we do not decide that a state «mandated statement violates the Constitution simply because it disclaims any intent to communicate to students that the theory of evolution is the only accepted explanation of the origin of life, informs students of their right to follow their religious principles, and encourages students to evaluate all explanations of life's origins, including those taught outside the classroom.

According to Jim Peebles of Princeton University, Lemaitre's framework for cosmology is still relevant today because it «consider [s] scenarios for the evolution of structure that start at high redshift with initial conditions that do not seem unduly conjured, evolve accordingto accepted laws of physics, and end up looking more or less like the universe we observe.»

and many religious students appeared to reject evolution because of their faith even though they understand that the scientific community accepts evolutionary theory as valid.

We will now get letters from various disgruntled listeners who contend that they are very well educated because they hold some degree from some renowned university and yet they still do not accept evolution.

It was pretty groundbreaking stuff at the time, because rather than the prevailing, societally accepted view, which believed that man was at the apex of all things, Darwin put forth this idea that each species followed its own independent course of evolution, but with repeating structures and patterns, common solutions to biological problems appearing again and again.

Should we accept climate consensus because consensus exists around, say evolution?

They argue that because evolution is overwhelmingly accepted, AGW deserves endorsement.