Sentences with phrase «debate over the theory»

The South Carolina board of education voted 10 - 6 last week to reject a proposal that would have asked students to «critically analyze» evolution as part of the state's science standards, the latest chapter in a debate over the theory's status in the state.

As an example of how active the debate over his theory is in the scientific literature, Sloan & Wolfendale, 2013 (Open access), which criticises the theory, was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters on 7th November 2013, but coincidentally, on the next day, a new paper by Svensmark — Svensmark et al., 2013 (Abstract; access to ArXiV preprint)-- was published in Physics Letters A.

Not exact matches

While Linux fights might have broken out over engineering approaches, and early bitcoin debates revolved around ideology and theory, Garzik thinks something much less abstract is driving bitcoin's current unrest: money.

I have contacted over 50 supporters of the theory in Canada, the USA, the UK and Australia to see if they will debate a skeptical climate scientist.

Recent debates in the pages of First Thingsand other conservative journals over Darwin's theory of evolution and creationism reveal the degree to which Catholics seem stuck in the trees for want of seeing the forest, the lopsided degree to which the Church gives assent to philosophy without deeply exploring the particular science it considers a threat, (this journal, it goes without saying, excepted).

During the debate over «biblical inerrancy» that raged among evangelicalism for several years in the late 1970s, I remember someone observing that Harold Lindsell's 1976 book, The Battle for the Bible, which pretty much got that debate going, was more a theory of institutional change than it was about theology as such.

Whatever roles philosophical and theological ideas played in the debates over heliocentrism, biological evolution, and the Big Bang theory, the scientific issues were eventually settled by more and better data and by considerations that were purely «scientific» in the modern sense.

Much of the debate over Stark's work has focused on his application of «rational choice theory» to religion.

After stating that debates over fundamental theories do not resemble logical or mathematical proofs, Kuhn concludes:

SCHÖNBORN REFINED The important debate over the nature of the Church's acceptance of the theory of evolution has been refined over the last couple of...

Much modern intellectual debate, particularly within the popular arena, centers on disputes between religion and science over such seminal issues as creationism versus evolutionary theory, or theological explanations of the origin of the universe versus the «big - bang theory» of the new cosmology.

The most obvious example of religious implications in biology is the topic of evolution.12 In the debate over the relation of Genesis to the Darwinian theory of natural selection there have always been several views of the Bible.

SCHÖNBORN REFINED The important debate over the nature of the Church's acceptance of the theory of evolution has been refined over the last couple of months, allowing a clarification of the key issues.

Something to Consider: People debate over the identity of Mystery Babylon in the book of Revelation (there are many theories).

Ever since, scientists have debated the cause of the anomaly, split over two competing theories of its origin.

But few have noted that the idea at the core of the book, M - theory, is the subject of an ongoing scientific debate — specifically over the very aspect of the theory that might scrap the need for a divine creator.

They often sat up late into the night, in intense debate over the meaning of the revolutionary quantum theory, then its infancy.

A familiar debate over the origins of life — this time centered on a science - textbook sticker — is playing out in a Georgia courtroom, where parents are challenging their school district's written description of evolution as «a theory, not a fact.»

Some of these mini-games include Hangman's Gambit Version 3.0, Theory Armament (which is a rhythm game), Debate Scrum (which is a team - based debate game), Mind Mine (which is a puzzle game where the object is to turn over blocks and match colors), Psyche Taxi (which has you driving a car in order to collect letters and eventually choose a path to answer a question), and Mass Panic Debate (which is similar to Non-Stop Debate, but this version has multiple characters talking all at the same time and is heDebate Scrum (which is a team - based debate game), Mind Mine (which is a puzzle game where the object is to turn over blocks and match colors), Psyche Taxi (which has you driving a car in order to collect letters and eventually choose a path to answer a question), and Mass Panic Debate (which is similar to Non-Stop Debate, but this version has multiple characters talking all at the same time and is hedebate game), Mind Mine (which is a puzzle game where the object is to turn over blocks and match colors), Psyche Taxi (which has you driving a car in order to collect letters and eventually choose a path to answer a question), and Mass Panic Debate (which is similar to Non-Stop Debate, but this version has multiple characters talking all at the same time and is heDebate (which is similar to Non-Stop Debate, but this version has multiple characters talking all at the same time and is heDebate, but this version has multiple characters talking all at the same time and is hectic).

The oil - garchs and Crikey are jumping for joil over their victories — especially the one where we go on debating season theory yes, season theory no, while they rake up huge profits.

Overall, I think the debate over the iris hypothesis is a testament to the efforts the scientific community goes through to evaluate challenges to theories and find ways to improve our understanding of the climate (for instance, see Bill Ruddiman's post from last week).

We see exactly the same sort of thing with the debates over evolution and over various conspiracy theories.

The presidential debates, in theory, offer one of the few times when a prominent journalist can pivot from the heated real - time issues and buzzy talking points to pinning candidates down on tougher challenges that, mostly, lie over the horizon.

He's still advertising QUOTE: Top Scientists in Heated Debate over «Slaying» of Greenhouse Gas Theory UNQUOTE and saying «Not wishing to allow such a slight to pass O'Sullivan emailed Dr. Curry and challenged her to debate the issue but she decDebate over «Slaying» of Greenhouse Gas Theory UNQUOTE and saying «Not wishing to allow such a slight to pass O'Sullivan emailed Dr. Curry and challenged her to debate the issue but she decdebate the issue but she declined.

John and I had just agreed to move the recent debate we were having about how dead the Greenhouse theory might really be after the attack by those dragon slayers over to Judith's up coming new thread that John was boasting about.

The Goddard Institute has played a very prominent role on both sides of the debate over man - made global warming theory.

The real debate in and outside the scientific community is over questions that flow from that theory, including the following:

Ender: It is interesting that you say Global Warming is back to being a theory I thought the debate was over!

Further, what do you even define as an «orderly debate,» why are «orderly debates» as you would define them necessary to thresh out the truth and validity in a scientific theory, and in what ways are the current debates over creationism / evolution, or (non)- CAGW not meeting this standard and being hindered accordingly?

Its as if a group of scientists said that String Theory is real and the debate is over.

Nonetheless, both of these potential problems are in keeping with the main point of this essay, which is that the science is not «settled» and there is actually quite a lot of debate over man - made global warming theory within the scientific community.

Darwin's theory is 150 years old, but robust debate over fundamental characteristics still dominates the literature regarding biological evolution (e.g. in recent decades the tussle between the selfish gene emphasis and the group / multi-level evolution emphasis).

The theory is debated if volcanic activity, over such a long time, could alter the climate enough to kill off 95 % of life on Earth.

We believe that our results show that the debate over the man - made global warming theory is indeed now «over».

There has been so much confidence placed in the greenhouse effect theory, that most people seem to have thought that «the scientific debate is over».

From a historical perspective, no system as complex as science was cracked by man in as little as 30 years, but it is not unusual that people try to declare that the debate is over (The phlogiston theory of combustion is settled science!)

Science, as a practice and technique, has evolved, been developed and understood, over millenia of arguing, so that basic mistakes and frauds can be avoided, and rational debate be held over competing theories.

To (hopefully) start a discussion off, I'll mention the debate over the Minimalist Program (MP), which seems to me to roughly represent two semi-mature paradigms growing together from the same root scientific field (neuro - linguistic theory).

Similarly, the theories of the ethnologists expounding the backward stages of evolution of the Aboriginal race were vividly brought to life once again just last year during the public debate over Native Title when we were all told how Aboriginal people had failed to even invent the wheeled cart.