Sentences with phrase «evolutionary theory does»

a. Evolutionary theory does not address the origins of the universe or even the initial origin of life.

Evolutionary theory does not and never was intended to explain how life began.

Under their model of evolution, it's not the case that «Evolutionary theory doesn't predict gaps.»

However, evolutionary theory does not consider such short time scales, but rather developmental changes occurring over millions of years.

Also, evolutionary theory does state animals sharing a certain characteristic can possess a similarity without sharing an immediate common ancestor like a bird and bat wing.

I will give you a clue though, evolutionary theory does not meet the criteria..

It's important to note that evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the origins of life.

Who is Dawkins, asks McGrath, to belittle theism when such giants of evolutionary theory did not?

Not exact matches

You DO realize that your brand of evolutionary science is FUNDAMENTALLY based on THEORY, as is the VAST MAJORITY of SCIENCE?

I will admit that I do not understand the ins and outs of modern evolutionary theory, however, I do understand the basics and do not discount them.

Funny how IDers don't claim to be creationists, yet both have the EXACT same language and interpretation of evolutionary theory verbatim, go to the same church, watch the same videos, use the same arguments, vote for the same leaders, listen to the same pastors, and quote the same scripture, etc...

I find it highly entertaining, although depressing, that Intelligent Design folks try to discredit evolutionary theories with fanciful strawman arguments because they really don't know what they're against.

Obviously, I can't speak to the work conditions created by the prof mentioned in this article, but I do know that there are too many evolutionary scientist who defend evolutionary theory like a religious zealot defends their faith.

This program gives Wilson many opponents: anti-functionalists among theorists and historians of religion (it's no accident that among theorists of religion Wilson chooses arch-functionalist Émile Durkheim as his hero); evolutionary theorists who don't think that such theory is usefully applicable to social groups; those who think it is applicable to social groups, but conclude that religious groups are maladaptive; and theological realists, who think the whole enterprise vitiated by its procedural naturalism.

The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present - day organism.

Does the acceptance of the Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory by many leading scientist make these true?

So far the creationists have done a service in calling to the tendencies in science and evolutionary theory to transform methodologically self - limited statements into all - encompassing metaphysical judgments.

(5) Evolutionary theory is similarly influenced by the reductionistic bias of science, with its tendency to try to understand phenomena in terms of the simplest explanation (the law of parsimony) and to do so by always explaining higher orders of things in terms of lower orders — as if nothing significant were being omitted.

The problem, however, is that instead of forcefully challenging all these conclusions — which do not directly and necessarily follow from science or from evolutionary theory — the scientific creationists encourage them.

I was in my early twenties when I first encountered a fossil record that didn't match what I'd been taught in Sunday school about the «myth» of evolutionary theory.

Read up on basic evolutionary theory to understand your «blob» questions (though you did a straw man perversion of the concept in a lame attempt to discredit it without actually getting an answer).

But evolutionary theory proposed that there was an explanation for all this complexity that did not involve any creative act.

Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 - 2 did not originate in response to evolutionary theory, but have been around for a long time.

That's exactly what I tried to do about two years ago when, despite some serious trepidation, I decided to learn all I could about the science behind evolutionary theory and the biblical scholarship surrounding interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.

They don't need to know about homosexuality and atheism and racism and evolutionary theory.

Then again (and much more likely) the SOB doesn't even exist - and all this suffering and bloodshed is merely the outcome from ignorant, delusional believers who don't know crap from Crisco about evolutionary theory, genetics, astronomy, and biology.

No longer do scientists prescribe to Darwin's theory of slow evolutionary process but now state evolution is sporadic!

So, no matter how convincing you think evolutionary theory is, it does not follow that it debunks the belief that there is a self - existent creator.

So when the agnostics, atheists, etc. of the world come up to someone like him and discuss evolutionary theory, situational ethics from an historical worldview, or why God allowed the cast of «Jersey Shore» to be born, he'll just remember how he flunked the quiz and rely on his «simple faith» as «all good Christians do»..

Yes, I like thousands of highly credentialed scientists from the world's leading academic and scientific institutions who have written dozens, if not hundreds of books casting doubt on Evolutionary Theory, I do have our doubts about evolutionary theory anEvolutionary Theory, I do have our doubts about evolutionary theory and DarwTheory, I do have our doubts about evolutionary theory anevolutionary theory and Darwtheory and Darwinism.

Don't let the media, the school system (mainly ours) and popular belief fool you into thinking that every single scientist claims that the evolutionary theory is a fact.

Does evolutionary theory undermine traditional morality, or does it supportDoes evolutionary theory undermine traditional morality, or does it supportdoes it support it?

You don't seem to know much about current evolutionary theory nor atheism, based on this pathetic, simplistic, childish rant.

For Wilson these roots and some of this knowledge are themselves guided by what he believes are the universal and eternal principles of Darwinian evolutionary theory Wilson never acknowledges that, by relying on that theory and by generalizing it, he subscribes to principles that transcend particular histories just as surely as do the ideas of the theological and philosophical transcendentalists.

His article, «Science Three, Religion Zero,» asserts with a confidence wondrously uninhibited by learning that religion has been done in by the Copernican revolution, evolutionary theory, and historical - critical consciousness.

Ayala is at pains to show that the evidence for evolutionary theory is overwhelming, and that it provides a sensible framework in which to do biology, explaining many of the characteristics of livings organisms and their interrelation.

Do you know that just recently, some evolutionary biologists discovered that some species grow younger with age, which is contradictory to the Evolutionary Theory, and that our Solar System has no Black Holes, which is contradictory to the Big evolutionary biologists discovered that some species grow younger with age, which is contradictory to the Evolutionary Theory, and that our Solar System has no Black Holes, which is contradictory to the Big Evolutionary Theory, and that our Solar System has no Black Holes, which is contradictory to the Big Bang Theory?

Scientists do not have clear, provable theories to describe the evolution of all species in existence, and everything about the earth (if you think I'm wrong on this point, you either live in a box or you're delusional), but we do not throw out evolutionary theory merely because it is incomplete.

Quite apart from this problematic classification of Anglo - American realists and American pragmatists (cf. GMPT 136 - 80) such conventional associations tend to obscure, rather than elucidate the influence of evolutionist theories on Whitehead's philosophical development, and do nothing to clarify the actual influence on, or to evaluate the compatibility of evolutionary cosmologies with, Whitehead's philosophy.

Such views do not (any more than, say, Toynbee's philosophy of history) constitute an evolutionist theory or an evolutionary cosmology.

If you have an issue with evolutionary theory, then do your work on why it's wrong and submit it for publication and collect your many prizes (Nobel and otherwise) and rejoice at the reprinting of every single science book in the world with your theory in it.

We sure didn't create ourselves & the evolutionary theory is asinine as well as any other theory that they tried to create as an explanation for our existence.

If I did nt know better, I would start to suspect that either: a) you do nt actually know enough about the various aspects of «evolutionary theory» to be able to clarify your position or b) you arent interested in clarifying your position, as it would eliminate your continued misuse of the false dilemma..

you dearly love that false dilemma do nt you see above, you have to clearly define what you mean by «evolutionary theory» to be able to clearly differentiate between our positions.

To this end, Gould later commented that «Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time.

a) you do nt actually know enough about the various aspects of «evolutionary theory» to be able to clarify your position or b) you arent interested in clarifying your position, as it would eliminate your continued misuse of the false dilemma..

Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can co-exist — that some creatures have changed gradually and others have had long periods of stability doesn't invalidate evolutionary theory.

Common misrepresentation by those who do not understand, or want to understand the evolutionary theory.

=============== @momoya» If you have an issue with evolutionary theory, then do your work on why it's wrong and submit it for publication and collect your many prizes (Nobel and otherwise) and rejoice at the reprinting of every single science book in the world with your theory in it.»

You may reject evolutionary theory, but do you also reject simple Mendelian genetics?