Sentences with phrase «by the creation science»

«In the case of geological or biological claims made by creation science, they are proven wrong.

Not exact matches

Science fiction paints us as petrified by our own creations; fears of a bot planet have influenced everything from Asimov's «Laws of Robotics» to HAL 9000's homicidal impulses to Skynet's global genocide.

This tells me that, there is no valid scientific explanation for the creation of the world because it wasn't created by science, but by the creator — God, the Alpha & the Omega.

One may or may not accept Thomas's metaphysical analysis, but at least one can see that the doctrine of creation, in its philosophical foundations, is not challenged by any discovery in the natural sciences.

There are more stories out of the bible that have been proven impossible and or wrong by science than have been shown to have any credibility... Of course I'm talking about actual science... not that christian science and creation «science»... which use scientific sounding things and jump to ridiculous unjustifyable conlusions, or that create incorrect premises and then make up answers to suit the questions.

you cant put your finger on it, cant smell it, or taste it, but your soul will rejoice, if you have one left... this is your connection to the world, to the universe... nothing else really matters at all... we see all of this creation, and we've got the math and science to figure out a tenth of it, but if we cant realize that it was put here ultimatly out of love, and saved by the love of ONE true God, then we are blind even to that tenth... God is great, and may he bless you athiest, muslim, christian, jew, gay, whatever... God is Love, but rest assure He is also our Judge, the Judge of our hearts, hope you get them right.

first, i do agree that the creation of the universe from matter is completely explainable by science.

It is foolish to dismiss the Bible wholesale based on ones that don't have a solid connection with science (the creation of the Earth does, by the way, but not the time frame which is often assumed).

There is not one shred of truth from science to account for the presence of life upon the earth by any means other than a special creation by the great original first Cause - God - Who is life and the fountain source of all life!

The Creation: A Meeting of Science and Religion by Edward O. Wilson.

If the «wall of separation» is lowered, we are told, our schools may be returned to the days of prayers prescribed by state legislatures; evolution may be banished from the classroom and replaced by «creation science»; and religious minorities may be at the mercy of intolerant majorities.

The present paper assumes an historical perception that the Creation of God is being undone by the power of science and technology, which is being manifested in the form of powers of exclusive truth of scientific knowledge, unlimited technological know - how, and their economic and political organization, such as the transnational corporation and the state, including the military machinery.

chance Biblical creation has been disproven by science.

furthermore biblical creation has not been disproven by science, it has complimented it.

The terminology favored by the movement is itself indicative of the degree to which modern scientific questions and secular modes of thought dominate the discussion of creation: Bible science, creation science, scientific creationism, creation research, origins research.

to Jake, in every era or times in the past, humans have different perception of reality, because our knowledge improves or changes toward sophistication, For example during the times of Jesus, there was no science yet as what we have today, since the religion in the past corresponds to their needs, it is true for them in the past, but today we already knew many new ideas and facts, so what is applicable in the past is no longer today, like religion, we have also to change to conform with todays knowledge.The creation or our origin for example is now explained beyond doubt by science as the big bang and evolution is the reason we become humans, is in contrast to creation in the bibles genesis,.

In this perspective, the existence of God, far from being disproved by science is something pointed to clearly by the Unity - Law of material being and the universal, ordered inter-dependence within creation.

The kind of theology I will be engaged in here, by no means the only kind, could be called heuristic theology; in analogy with some similar activities in the sciences, it «plays» with possibilities in order to find out, to discover, new fruitful ways to interpret the universe.6 In the case of an heuristic theology focused on cosmology, the discovery would be oriented toward «remythologizing» creation as dependent upon God.

Science was created by God to observe and gain knowledge about Gods creation... Evolution like I said is still only a theory still unproven and still looks silly in the eyes of Science was created by God to observe and gain knowledge about Gods creation... Evolution like I said is still only a theory still unproven and still looks silly in the eyes of sciencescience

On Wednesday I head to Boston to attend «A Dialog on Creation» — a workshop hosted by the BioLogos Foundation and Gordon College that explores questions at the intersection of science & faith.

Attempting to be loyal to the Bible by turning the creation accounts into a kind of science or history is like trying to be loyal to the teachings of Jesus by arguing that the parables are actual historical events, and only reliable and trustworthy when taken literally as such.

Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist, even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to space, time, matter and history by the biblical affirmation of creation.

For example, the Bible says that time was created by God when He created the universe.19 Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, demonstrating that time began at the formation of the universe.20 Of course, the biggest coup of the Bible was to declare that the universe had a beginning21 through an expanding universe model.22 The New Testament even declares that the visible creation was made from what was not visible and that dimensions of length, width and height were created by God.23 In addition, the Bible refuted steady - state theory (saying that the creation of matter and energy has ended) 24 long before science made that determination.

The Common Creation Story offered by the sciences is an object of intense scrutiny by theologians as diverse as Gordon Kaufman, Sallie McFague, Wolfhart Pannenherg, Langdon Gilkey, Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, Nancey Murphy, Robert John Russell and John Polkinghorne, to mention only the most prominent names.

Believing in creation by God is not denyng the truth of science.

We had an amazing sermon by a Chemist at my church last year talking about how science doesn't refute God's creation, nor does Creationism refute science.

The culture in the science community does that by valuing the debunking of poor science as much as creation of new science.

The creation myths of all religions are proven to be incorrect by modern science.

All creation myths are proven incorrect by modern science, so basically religion has no evidence.

One clear positive element in the stem - cell debate for me was hearing the top researchers in biomedical science reinforce The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 343: «Man is the summit of the Creator's work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of other creatures»).

It was great to be able to articulate the vision promoted by Faith Movement of Creation through «The Unity - Law of Control and Direction» and to be able to explain and to answer the questions related to Science and the orthodox Catholic Faith.

Science took a sharp turn; Paley's natural theology, with its assumption of fixity of species since the Creation of Genesis, careered into obsolescence; eventually, his watchmaker was blinded by a scathing Dawkins.

Understanding science is — at it's heart — a religious endeavor; it attempts to get to the structure imposed on creation by the one who creates.

The finding of more facts, details, and scientific laws does not diminish God in my mind one bit — in fact, the magnificence of the details of His creation, as discovered by science, provides more reason for me to believe in Him.

The point is illustrated by the logic which the National Academy of Sciences employed to persuade the Supreme Court that «creation - scientists» should not be given an opportunity to present their case against the theory of evolution in science classes.

James, When the creation myths of all religions are shown to be incorrect by our knowledge of science and the majority of the bible is either proven wrong or can not be verified, don't you think that skepticism is the sensible path?

When the creation myths of all religions are shown to be incorrect by our knowledge of science and the majority of the bible is either proven wrong or can not be verified, don't you think that skepticism is the sensible path?

For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

What it affirms — specifically, the creation of nature by a Supreme Being who transcends it — can not represent itself as science.

It means, obviously, that whatever science may tell us about the processes by which creation takes place, science can never take the place of the Lord of heaven and earth by whose wisdom and power the processes were initiated and continue.

However, Weigel gives too little emphasis to the equally prescient emphasis in Gaudium et Spes on the dynamic world view ushered in by science, nor to its vision of the Christ as the recapitulation of all creation and history.

By his correlating of science and theology, he has disclosed fresh possibilities of man's participating in the new creation.

The doctrine itself must be the same identifiable, defined teaching that is the historic Catholic faith, but this has to be projected against the backdrop of the vast new vista of creation revealed by modern science.

The theological dogma of the human soul being a spiritual creation of God is often ridiculed as a concept that has been rendered unnecessary by science.

Tireless lobbying by that California - based society for the past decade is largely responsible for the introduction in a number of states of legislation that would require giving equal time in science classes to the teaching of the alleged single account of creation as recorded in Genesis.

Yet some either deny a concept of God based on a human like diety... without logically understanding it has to be something more than that... or worse only see a chaotic uncaring universe..., without understanding the complexity of the infinite miracles, defined by science alone, not to mention the influence of noy yet known to science, occurences... that have occurred for billions of years to end up in their creation and also supporting their every day survival.

Our attempts to see the natural revelation God has installed in the Creation act includes what «Science» discovers, but knowing we need to filter worldly bias in the presentation of such «scientific» evidences since the ideas of the world are driven by another mindset.

Philosophy and theology might make an important contribution to this fundamentally epistemological question by, for example, helping the empirical sciences to recognize a difference between... evolution as the origin of a succession in space and time, and creation as the ultimate origin of participated being in essential Being.»

«We do not protect the Bible or render it more believable to modern people by trying to demonstrate that it is consistent with modern science... It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal.

Thus moral insights are intuitions of God's good and perfect will, and aesthetic delight is a sharing in the Creator's joy in creation, just as the wonderful cosmic order discovered by science is truly a reflection of the mind of God.