Sentences with phrase «by evolution deniers»

There is no dispute that the earth has been warming since the last ice age (except perhaps by evolution deniers).

Not exact matches

The first pits nearly the entire scientific community against creationists, who believe that they are upholding the veracity of Scripture by denying that evolution happened at all.

Evolution is complete and utter nonsense meant for consumption by delusional God - deniers.

Those are obfuscatory terms made up by Creationists when they realized they couldn't deny evolution as an entirety anymore.

«Micro» and «macro» evolution are obfuscatory terms made up by Creationists when they got backed into a corner and could no longer deny that evolution can be demonstrated.

How can 60 years go by with the chemical understanding of evolution and still a huge population denies it!

A second response was to develop a different worldview in which Christians could both affirm the empirical evidence for evolution and deny that it has the reductionistic implications given it by the mechanistic worldview.

Despite agreeing with mainstream science on these issues, they deny evolution: they believe that the vast majority of species (and especially humans) were independently created by God during earth's long history.

For decades religions denied evolution to even speak of it in some places you would be put to death, but as the years went by more and more evidence that supported evolution surfaced, that it got to a point were it could not be denied anymore so what do the religious do, what religion has been so good at doing and its adapt.

Ok we cant deny it anymore the church said, so lets say GOD created evolution but we will not calll it evolution because thats just is admitting that science was right, lets call it Smart design, and so creationism was born, its no surprise that any great discovery gets hijacked and twisted and changed to fit with the religious when so long before proven it gets denied by the same people.

Evolution has not been «falsed» — it is supported and accept by all who understand it, and only denied by those who don't.

We must begin, though, with a confession that the idea of a designing and controlling deity whose existence is rightly denied by many skeptics is also problematic from the point of view of a kenotic theology.If God is all - powerful in the sense of being able to manipulate things at will, then the facts of evolution do indeed cast doubt on the plausibility of theism.

Process thought does not deny the possibility that man could destroy the billions of years of evolution by bringing it to a tragic end.

We generally believe in evolution, and so do not nearly place ourselves on the same kind of pedestals that evolution deniers do by thinking that they are modeled on some perfect being.

I'm seeing a lot of comments where people accept that evolution per se occurs, but either deny that there is evidence of life arising by the theory of evolution by natural selection or just want to treat creationism as equal to that theory in the classroom.

We do not deny or circumscribe the Creator, because we hold he has created the self - acting originating human mind, which has almost a creative gift; much less then do we deny or circumscribe His power, if we hold that He gave matter such laws as by their blind instrumentality moulded and constructed through innumerable ages the world as we see it... Mr Darwin's theory need not then be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill... At first sight I do not see that «the accidental evolution or organic beings» is inconsistent with divine design - It is accidental to us, not to God.»

If they were intelligent they would understand that denying evolution is an unintelligent act since one is by definition choosing ignorant belief over fact.

Christians to deny evolution by natural selection, or to assert against all evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old rather than four and a half billion years, I can not imagine anyone being counted among the goats at the Last Judgment because when faced with what they sincerely believed to be a choice between God and Darwin, they chose God.

According to Giberson and Stephens, you might be an anti-intellectual fundamentalist if you are an evangelical who: dismisses evolution as «an unproven theory»; deny that «climate change is real and caused by humans»; think that «the founders were evangelicals who intended America to be a Christian nation»; defend spanking children; believe in traditional roles for the sexes; think that reparative therapy can «cure» homosexuality; and / or oppose gay marriage.

Sean B. Carroll, an evolutionary biologist at UW — Madison, has traced similarities between an anti-polio vaccine movement by chiropractors in the 1950s and later attempts by others to deny evolution.

In the introduction of the book, which ScienceInsider has reviewed, de Mattei criticizes scientists for failing to accept that the theory of evolution isn't supported by evidence and for ideologically denying any metaphysical truth, starting with the existence of a God that created the Universe.

Yet by assuming that government is always and everywhere inefficient, Glenn denies the critical fact that the very existence and successful evolution of markets, civil society, and organized religions have been facilitated by effective government.

And of course Darwin's Theory of Evolution was * built * on observations, he didn't build his theory by * denying * observed data or * making sh*t up * (like magic powers for galactic rays).

Deny evolution and you are branded a Neanderthal by anyone who didn't actually sleep through high school biology class.

How the overwhelming evidence for evolution can be denied so easily by so many is a mystery.

My impression is that scientists consistently respond to public skepticism about evolution by denying its speculative aspects.

Among these books are free - market classics by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy by Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White which makes «an unapologetic case for fossil fuels», and The Evolution of Everything, the latest publication by British climate science denier and coal mine owner Matt Ridley.

What little debate that actually happens is both informed and framed by the (justified) science community's response to evolution deniers.

By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.