Sentences with phrase «against science in»

Christians have been against science in the beginning because science always ends up proving a strange occurrence has nothing to do with God at all and can be explained with science.

Not exact matches

«We use vitamins as insurance policies against whatever else we might (or might not) be eating, as if by atoning for our other nutritional sins, vitamins can save us from ourselves,» Catherine Price, a science reporter, wrote in the book «Vitamania.»

Introducing the new science of «hotspotting» — and a fantastic new online resource in the fight against opioid addiction.

Mashable's Senior Editor for Science and Special Projects, Kevin Freedman, in «No, New York Mag: Climate change won't make the Earth uninhabitable by 2100» contrasts the story's gloom against hope and optimism, but mostly analyses the science behScience and Special Projects, Kevin Freedman, in «No, New York Mag: Climate change won't make the Earth uninhabitable by 2100» contrasts the story's gloom against hope and optimism, but mostly analyses the science behscience behind it.

In a recent interview with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg TV, Cuban presented an interesting argument against people pursuing so - hot - right - now computer science degrees or attending learn - to - code bootcamps.

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.

In 1955, Scientific American asked the question, somewhat sneeringly, about why so many people were «violently against» the process of fluoridating municipal water — a process that, according to the mandarins of science, was clearly shown to prevent tooth decay and do no harm.

Up against NDP and Liberal opposition parties both opposed to Gateway, Harper «can't afford to lose many seats» in B.C., observes Richard Johnston, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia.

The following, done against the backdrop of the 50th annual Turing Award, an honor in computer science from the Association for Computing Machinery, has been edited for length and clarity.

Cards Against Humanity's intellectual expansion «Science Pack» has raised over $ 578,000 for The Science Ambassador Scholarship, a scholarship fund for U.S. - based women interested in studying science, technology, engineering, or mathematics Science Pack» has raised over $ 578,000 for The Science Ambassador Scholarship, a scholarship fund for U.S. - based women interested in studying science, technology, engineering, or mathematics Science Ambassador Scholarship, a scholarship fund for U.S. - based women interested in studying science, technology, engineering, or mathematics science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM).

For instance, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow — a group that lobbies against climate science — recieved an approximate total of $ 3 million in grants in 2011, according to their tax form.

Measured against 65 other countries, Canada places fifth overall in reading, seventh in science and eighth in mathematics, behind China, Korea, Finland and Singapore in the Organization for Co-operation and Economic Development's (OCED) education assessment released in 2010.

«The current political situation in Austria is a culture of mistrust against traditional parties,» says Peter Filzmaier, a political science professor at Danube University in Krems, Austria.

One of those who find in the discipline more ideology than science, Orrell argues against 10 principles of economic orthodoxy, including the rationality and predictability of the market and its potential to provide happiness.

The daughter of the famed poet Lord Byron, Lovelace's mother had her thoroughly schooled in math and sciences as a bulwark against the young woman exhibiting too many of her dad's literary tendencies.

Cynthia Tice found that to be the case when she and her co-founder launched Lily's Sweets in 2011, when public sentiment was turning against foods high in sugar (thanks in part to books such as Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health).

In an allegory similar to the premise of Walter Miller's Catholic science - fiction novel A Canticle for Leibowitz, MacIntyre imagines a series of environmental disasters turning the public violently against the natural sciences:

Mr. Hawking wins easy battles against uneducated (in science) religious persons, but taking his statement on perspective, He is based on assumptions with serious underlying problems, basically everything from mathematics, to the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, and the lack of proof and evidence for string theories, he is launching a very aggressive statement, probably his last effort on life to counter the anthropomorphic ideas of God, and this is very common in all scientists.

The Romantic movement in art and literature reflected a rebellion against the cold, mechanical universe of modern science.

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?

I am very aware of Cameron and Comfort's arguments against Evolution and they never seem to use Science in their explaination.

Kant's approach may hold at bay the antihumanism of modern science (we are just clever animals in an insignificant corner of a vast cosmos), and it may serve as a bulwark against the ruthless rationality of economic efficiency and the putative demands of progress, but Michalson concludes that Kant's approach to the question of God makes theology less and not more plausible.

If we are right, then we lived our lives to their fullest in intellectual honesty, without the fear of some tyrant getting their hands on us after we die, and without having taken some stupid stand against the validity of sound science, or basic human rights.

Bottum opines that we should prepare ourselves for the next chapter in the culture wars, in which the left here will get into step with its European compatriots, espousing a militant skepticism toward science while maintaining their polemic against the religious right, but this time for its uncritical embrace of scientific progress.

Unless the US wants even more funds going to religious schools and communities so as they can grow and cause more brick walls against the discoveries in science.

I see the argument against the term «atheist,» but I don't like «non-believer,» either, because I believe in lots of things — science, truth, empathy, the power of creativity, etc — just not in anyone's god (s).

we would self sustain ourselves... they have been the prime reason fr th recession due to higher oil prices to indirectly stage war against america and the rest of the world... cowards... if ther was no oil... the time has come for the next era... we are not far away from that day... the world is changing... science is developing in exponential way... new species are still being found... ther is always a progress... and these extremists are travelling to the end of the road... which will form the next journey fr the major part of the other world... no oil... no islamist would be heeded anymore... those people ll crumble very soon

The experts have stated that social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents — concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people — are unfounded.

His quote in the article from last week was, «If you go against science, you're going to lose your kids.»

But I didn't like the hatred against gays, the bashing of well - established science, the cherry - picking versus from the Bible to fit today's agenda, and in many cases, not following the words of Jesus himself.

De Chardin made two important points: firstly that the science of man seems to come out decisively in favour of monophyletism and secondly that any decision for or against monogenism must ultimately elude science in view of the depth of time that has elapsed since the creation of man.

I actually do find evidence supporting Christianity and God in general throughout history, mathematics, and science, but you will call me blind nonetheless because you adore grouping people together to discriminate against them for actually comprehending something you can not fathom.

as for science... nothing in the bIble goes against iot..

Like how many people used pseudo science in wars against people, maybe pseudo religion was used, too?

In this context we should like to warn against the snobbery of certain circles who imagine that natural science, technology and social planning have nothing to do with culture, which in their view can only be created by individualistic eliteIn this context we should like to warn against the snobbery of certain circles who imagine that natural science, technology and social planning have nothing to do with culture, which in their view can only be created by individualistic elitein their view can only be created by individualistic elites.

Its doctrine of creation and faith in the dependability of God contributed to the rise of modern science, as Whitehead has persuasively shown.9 Yet the scientific method had to make its way against a heavy weight of ecclesiastical opposition.

The militant atheist Richard Dawkins uses science as a weapon in his war against religion.

Induction has been accused of many shortcomings, but the common denominator of the various criticisms leveled against it, from Popper to Kuhn to Feyerabend, is that belief in induction is responsible for a naive empiricism which views science as based on uninterpreted observation and direct verification of theories by the «facts.»

I have nothing against religious people — but if you are regressive, and refuse to believe in science, you are a dead weight on our country holding us back from competing in the world.

In Science and the Modern World, Whitehead argues strongly against the value of pure abstraction because it leads to thinking that is detached from concrete reality and it leads to narrow specialization.

Paradigm shifts in science have historically resulted from revolution against the church and anti-intellectual philosophies.

Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye to a debate, even while Ken Ham continues to run from me and my proposal that he «come out» and «come clean» regarding his positions relating to my argument that so many of his followers rail against but which quite properly is able to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young - earth creation - science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

Mays recognizes that Whitehead's method in speculative philosophy is akin to the hypothetico - deductive method of the sciences, where from particular observed data one frames a theory and then tests it against other data.

Wishful thinking of this sort is difficult to argue against, but it may be relevant to note briefly that the status of «action at a distance» is by no means so clear cut in contemporary philosophy of science as they seem to suppose.

The numbers of logical and reasonable people is on the rise in spite of the campaign against science and facts.

Such a claim needs to be set over against the fact that modern science developed in the West.

It is this kind of «hate - speech» which led to the burning down of 77 churches in Norway by militant atheists and which at the most extreme end of the atheist movement leads to comments such as this from the Church Arson website «Any intelligent Antichrist methodology at that point will involve a consolidation of strength, public education in the ways of science and logic for our individual members, and actions taken against the remaining believers.

It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

In closing Bill Nye the Science Guy... you can not tell parents to go against and not teach their kids, the traditional beliefs that have been handed down from generation to generation because it goes against what you believe.

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.