Sentences with phrase «accept science as»

I think it is important to note the enormous role of ideological motivation because it means most of the denial lobby will not accept the science as long as it runs counter to their ideologies.

Let's put elected officials on the science committee who accept science as reasonable explanation for the world around us.

And things evolve, you know; nothing is created «through a vacuum»... your beloved Science has shown us that, so Christians accept science as well.

Another problem is accepting Science as scripture.

Let us assume that society rejects the imaginary demons of the supernatural and irrational, and accepts Science as the ideal social and intellectual growth medium.

Not exact matches

After participating in the Y Combinator tech accelerator — FarmLogs was the first farming - focused startup ever accepted into the program — the duo started marketing their data science tools to farmers growing row crops such as corn, wheat and soybeans.

So he applied to the University of Pennsylvania and was accepted as a double major in computer science and biology.

On Monday, as Irma weakened over Georgia, Bossert used a White House briefing to offer more hints of an emerging climate resilience policy, while notably avoiding accepting climate change science: «What President Trump is committed to is making sure that federal dollars aren't used to rebuild things that will be in harm's way later or that won't be hardened against the future predictable floods that we see.

Obviously not entirely, but as this science suggests, you'll probably be better at achieving mental well - being if you moderate your expectations and accept that constant joy is neither attainable nor desirable.

An athiest is trapped in the walled city of science, whereas a person of faith can go beyond that and explore the unkown from alternative perspectives as well as accepting the scientific aspects of the universe.

faith goes against science itself; faith means no proof, in science without proof nothing is accepted to be fact (aka theory) as far as a god, which one?

David It is because a lot of these people will accept psuedo - science as if it were science.

As for Rasputin's apparent ability to stop Alexei's bleeding, Smith explains at length how modern science accepts the influence of mind over body.

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 oScience 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 oscience doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

The problem is that unless you accept the Bible as literally true — a perspective that has NO basis is science or history — your argument is entirely useless.

or in denial, to accept what science says is «fact» so as to justify their own behaviors..

Medical science is always developing, and what was accepted as true in the past can be disproved in the present.

Second, that what is taught must not conflict with the accepted facts of science, or the pupil is bound to be in trouble as he senses the disparity.

This understanding of the limited scope of scientific method had been generally accepted since Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781); but in nineteenth - century evolutionary parlance it took on the specific meaning that «all beginnings and endings are lost in mystery,» a phrase that became commonplace in the sciences and social sciences as a way of dismissing or circumventing probing questions that sought to assess the larger implications or consequences of scientific analysis.

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.

Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.»

It really was a whole lot easier to be faithful back in the past, before science, when all forms of superst.ition were just accepted as «reality».

The first step in grasping Christian Science is to recognize that it not only accepts but builds upon these events, as well as upon the healing stories.

3) True creationism has full respect for the unknown; science by itself is destined to explain everything away even if it is not bona - fide and complete (theory accepted as truth).

I find it baffling that anyone would claim it's good news for the faithful that science has more evidence for what science already accepted as fact for so long.

The concept of logos is accepted today as having affinity primarily with the world of the sciences, all of which, it is believed, give us a handle on ultimate reality and the meaning of human existence.

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.

The problem is when we accept Scripture as science.

If we accept their bias of a priori materialism, and embrace Lewontin's declaration of the problem and his proposed solution — embracing the social and intellectual apparatus of Science as the only begetter of truth — can we follow his solution to its ultimate conclusion?

The problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.

Predictably, she has been savaged by those in the GLBT community who rely on the «born gay» argument, supposedly supported by science, to justify sexual orientation being analogous to race and thus to be accepted and celebrated as a «given» of the human condition.

As Collins and Miller illustrate, there are those who accept a divine supernatural realm and methodological naturalism (as opposed to metaphysical naturalism); but because religion is introduced long before science education, your «brainwashing... only ways» statement and your subsequent tu quoque are both faultAs Collins and Miller illustrate, there are those who accept a divine supernatural realm and methodological naturalism (as opposed to metaphysical naturalism); but because religion is introduced long before science education, your «brainwashing... only ways» statement and your subsequent tu quoque are both faultas opposed to metaphysical naturalism); but because religion is introduced long before science education, your «brainwashing... only ways» statement and your subsequent tu quoque are both faulty.

Once people accepted as an article of faith that modern science could explain the totality of our world, they had to say that anything which fell outside the scope of science isn't real.

Indeed, most cultures in human history have generated no such marvel as the modern scientific movement, and even in our own culture, scientifically oriented as it is supposed to be, most people accept the benefits of technology and use the vocabulary of science but do not in fact choose to abide by the disciplines that alone make scientific productivity possible.

Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist: «The problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.»

Is it possible and after reading about it i kept on thinking «i will sell to my soul for 20 carats get out shut up i will never ever sell my soul to you oh god please help me and this is continuing for a few days i am afraid that i have sold my sold to the devil have i please help and still i think god's way of allowing others to hate him us much worse even you know and can easily think think about much better punishments like rebirth after being punished for all the sins in life and i am feeling put on the sin of those who committed the unforgiviable sin (the early 0th century priests) imagine them burning in hell fire till now for 2000 years hopelessly screaming to god for help i can't belive the mercy of god are they forgiven even though commiting this sin keans going to hell for entinity thank you and congralutions i think the 7 year tribulation periodvis over in 18th century the great commect shooting and in 19th century the sun became dark for a day and moon was not visible on the earth but now satun has the domination over me those who don't belive in jesus crist i used to belive in him but now after knowing a lot in science it is getting harharder to belive in him even though i know that he exsists and i only belived in him not that he died for me in the cross and also not for eternal life and i still sin as much as i used to before but only a little reduced and i didn't accept satan as my master but what can i do because those who knowingly sin a lot and don't belive in jesus christ has to accept satan as their master because he only teaches us that even though he is evil he gives us complete freedom but thr followers of jesus and god only have freedom because they can sin only with in a limit and no more but recive their reward after their life in heaven but the followers of satun have to go to hell butbi don't want to go to hell and be ruled by the cruel tryant but still why didn't god destroy satun long way before and i think it was also Adam and eve's fault also they could have blamed satan and could have also get their punishment reduced but they didn't and today we are seeing the result

The basic insight of the sociology of knowledge (my particular gate into the social sciences) is that, with the exception of an acute toothache, which can be experienced without support from others, we accept the reality that is taken as such by those around us.

To the end, such science as they possessed was accepted uncritically from their great contemporary cultures.

In all cases, however, to accept such statements as true is to challenge the full autonomy of science and history within their own proper spheres; and it is this challenge to a genuinely secular outlook, rather than any particular statement in itself, which makes classical theism so widely unacceptable to contemporary men.

Even simple ordinary folk today put reason before faith, unlike before the «enlightenment» when theology was accepted as the «queen of sciences» and science its handmaid.

As usually presented, then, even by its more sophisticated spokesmen, classical theism requires acceptance of statements about the world, about its origin or end or the happenings within it, which men today are willing to accept, if at all, only with the backing and warrants of science or history.

Let it first be said that Christian Science accepts the Protestant Christian Bible, just as other Protestant Christians do.

I have tried, fortified by the most generally accepted and solid conclusions of science, to take the reader above this scene of turmoil; and as we have risen higher so has the prospect acquired a more ordered shape.

After many years of confusion instilled by my religion, which is done I believe on purpose, I began to accept science instead of myth as fact.

Midgley, a retired philosophy professor from Newcastle, has published many provocative and insightful books in the past 15 years, combating various streams of uncritically accepted suppositions in science, ethics, philosophy and modern culture as well.

Religious people blindly accept ancient mythology and ignorant superst!tious nonsense as reality while rejecting modern science.

I will agree with CJAs point that Catholics do in general accept the established theories of science as God's plan for the ordering of the world.

Science is constantly being refined to help us with what we eventually accept as knowledge.

We accept the facts as presented by science... facts that can be backed by peer reviewed studies.

We use science in our daily lives and actual scientific proof for almost everything we do in life, but we accept an imaginary friend such as God as the absolute truth and want to make everyone eat that junk like it's the universal truth.