Sentences with phrase «accept evolution think»

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

Not exact matches

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

If the early church could hold together communities made up of Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, men and women, circumcised and uncircumcised, tax collectors and zealots, prostitutes and Pharisees, kosher believers and non-kosher believers, those who ate food sacrificed to idols and those who refused, I guess this evolution - accepting, hell - questioning, liberal - leaning feminist can worship Jesus alongside a Tea Party complementarian who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and that Ghandi and Anne Frank are in hell.

Unfortunately the religion that i follow the basis of makes everyone think that I am not open to the concept that I can be wrong, My religion says that i shouldn't believe in evolution but I do, My religion says that I shouldn't accept gay's, but I do, and my religion says I shouldn't have sex before marriage, but I do.

To accept that Space - Time is convergent in its nature is equally to admit that Thought on earth has not achieved the ultimate point of its evolution.

THINK about it... I can turn that RIGHT around and say «If evolution haes been proven then we ALL accept it as true» DO ALL of us say it is real?

To Don: it takes an education and a thinking brain to accept a scientific theory like gravity or evolution.

A timeline describes the declension from the biblicism of Martin Luther and John Calvin to the thought of Descartes, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Darwin and Charles Hodge (he may be an archconservative to most Presbyterians, but his acceptance of Darwinism lands him in the hall of shame here) to a certain Charles Templeton, who once traveled with Billy Graham but unfortunately accepted evolution and ended up writing the atheist tract Farewell to God.

However, I accept evolution, don't think the Bible is strictly «inerrant» (I'm in the «inspired but not literally word - for - word accurate» camp), and am not even remotely on board with the standard Adventist end - of - time beliefs.

In the cases, just this last couple of elections, where stem cell politics, for example, has been played out in the electoral process, stem cell research is [has] done better than the winning candidates for offices; and I think, apart from that, I think that we do have a serious problem in general education of the sciences and that accounts for the reluctance of a large segment of the population to accept the principles of evolution and think that there is still a debate about it, which there isn't — and that's a problem we need to solve, — but I still think there is an incredible constituency for science in this country.

Moreover, on issues such as climate change or evolution, scientists and their organizations are often distracted by over-estimating the size and influence of these groups and by thinking that the goal of communication is to convince these particular publics to accept expert interpretations or proposed policy actions.

I hear from liberals who claim to believe in evolution but don't actually accept that a history of random variation and natural selection is of relevance in thinking about human behavior: as with Scopes, the only part of evolution they believe is that it contradicts the Bible.