Sentences with phrase «for accepting evolution»

Not exact matches

For example, I accept evolution as the best explanation of how we got here.

= > current accepted Chuckles «As for your evolution question, chad... give up, seriously, you're asking pointless questions that have no bearing a) on the theory itself and b) are important to answer.

The theory ABOUT evolution most widely accepted is an updating of Charles Darwin's hypothesis that all of today's species descended from common ancestors due to natural selection based on best current fitness for constantly changing environmental circmmstances.

Today, the religions of Christendom display a similar disrespect for the truth of the Bible, by giving preference to scientific theories, such as the Catholic church accepting evolution.

chance, Evolution is universally accepted — there is a mountain of proof for it: DNA, geographical distribution, tree of life, more complex organisms are more recent, etc..

As for me, I think I was thinking of 98 % because that is the figure for the number of professional scientists that accept evolution.

Now, the secularists, naturalistic evolutionists and Marxists do accept the evolution of reason, but I am afraid they do not know how to look for the right phenomenon which points to the direction reason is being transformed.

You likely deny evolution and global warming for no other reason than it makes you uncomfortable and hold science to the impossibly high standard of having to explain every conceivable mystery about the natural World before you will accept it, but some moron at a pulpit doing magic hand signals of a Sundaymorning is enough to convince you he is communicating with some sky - god and turning grocery store bread and wine into flesh and blood.

It provides the foundation for the now widely accepted hypothesis that human development can be viewed in terms of biocultural evolution.

For many Christians to accept evolution and reject creation hits at things much deeper than the question of origin.

For Hartshorne the question was never whether to accept evolution but only how to conceive of God's relation to a world where evolution occurs.

It seems to me that writers like Peter Enns are saying that I should not forsake the Bible but that I should accept evolution or it's inferred that I should allow for its plausibility..

On the other, that accepting a place for evolution in the development of homo sapiens is tantamount to atheism and fies in the face of Scripture.

I maintained that, contrary to the commonly expressed or tacitly accepted view, the era of active evolution did not end with the appearance of the human zoological type: for by virtue of his acquirement of the gift of individual reflection Man displays the extraordinary quality of being able to totalize himself collectively upon himself, thus extending on a planetary scale the fundamental vital process which causes matter, under Certain conditions, to organize itself in elements which are ever more complex physically, and psychologically ever more centrated.

In Roman Catholicism, for example, one goes from the official condemnation of the «modernists» in an early part of this century to what might be appropriately described as the dominant position today, found in Pope Pius XII's Human generis (1950), which, concerning the relation between evolution and creation, accepts evolution yet insists on the special, «second» creation of the human soul.

This takes the widely accepted fact that the strength of basic forces of the universe, as measured by fundamental physical constants, are exactly right, and «fine - tuned», for a development upon the Big Bang which produced planets like ours, fit for the evolution of life.

You begrudgingly accept evolution (about a century after Darwin proved it and after accepting Genesis as literally true for about 2,000 years) and that Adam and Eve was totally made up, but then conveniently ignore that fact that your justification for Jesus dying on the cross (to save us from Original Sin) has therefore been eviscerated.

In Darwin on Trial, 3 Philip E. Johnson, a professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and an expert on the use of evidence in legal proceedings, examine the evidentiary basis for the currently accepted interpretation of biological evolution, «the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis.»

There is no reason that a Christian can not maintain a belief in God and accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is God's method for creating life.

Even the sick catholic church accepts evolution as FACT, why should it be so difficult for the Talibangelicals.

Related to the litmus test comments — How about this litmus test: if you don't accept evolution as the only rational explanation for the diversity of life on Earth you can not run for office.

They merely accept the urban myth of evolution without checking out the facts for themselves.

Certainly he declares some «unease» at «pursuing the implications that accepting biological evolution entails for Christian beliefs and doctrines» (p ix).

For those who believe accepting evolution and being Christian are mutually exclusive, please go to: http://biologos.org/

However, I accept evolution, don't think the Bible is strictly «inerrant» (I'm in the «inspired but not literally word - for - word accurate» camp), and am not even remotely on board with the standard Adventist end - of - time beliefs.

According to Jim Peebles of Princeton University, Lemaitre's framework for cosmology is still relevant today because it «consider [s] scenarios for the evolution of structure that start at high redshift with initial conditions that do not seem unduly conjured, evolve accordingto accepted laws of physics, and end up looking more or less like the universe we observe.»

By the same token, the evidence of a national will to bring in proportional representation is one thing — but it will be more willingly accepted, especially by a Conservative government that shows little appetite for reform, if this change to the British Constitution comes through evolution rather than revolution.

The study, said to be the first in - depth analysis on the acceptance of evolution in this region, has been accepted for publication in the journal Evolution: Education and evolution in this region, has been accepted for publication in the journal Evolution: Education and Evolution: Education and Outreach.

Rennie: Or for that matter, any number of theologians who are obviously devoted in their various faiths and also accept that evolution actually happened and that the mechanisms of natural selection and the further extensions of that, that modern biology has developed, all are there.

The widely accepted model for evolution of the atmosphere states that O2 levels did not appreciably rise until about 2.4 billion years ago.

In the cases, just this last couple of elections, where stem cell politics, for example, has been played out in the electoral process, stem cell research is [has] done better than the winning candidates for offices; and I think, apart from that, I think that we do have a serious problem in general education of the sciences and that accounts for the reluctance of a large segment of the population to accept the principles of evolution and think that there is still a debate about it, which there isn't — and that's a problem we need to solve, — but I still think there is an incredible constituency for science in this country.

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.

Neanderthals shared Europe with a mysterious member of our genus that may represent an entirely new species of human, suggests a paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Human Evolution.

For example, 87 percent of scientists say that humans and other living things evolved over time and that evolution is a result of natural processes such as natural selection; only 32 percent of the public accepts this as true.

The evolution of the British Parson Jack Russell Terrier will undoubtedly see the conformational and character changes created by show - ring ideals and accepted kennel club inbreeding practices, until this strain of terrier eventually meets a fate similar to the Fox Terrier, developing into something quite different from the sound working terrier that has been in existence for a long time.

This was manifest as a refusal to accept for example, the theory of evolution, the existence of global warming, much less of the role of humans in this process, the value of vaccines or of embryonic stem cell research.

Interestingly, a 2010 poll showed that only 10 % of Australians did not believe in evolution, suggesting that a significant portion of those Australians who accept a Biblical account of the origin of humans accept a somewhat more scientific account for the origin of other species - or that they are very confused.

It took a while for evolution to be accepted — and longer still for natural selection to be accepted as the principal process.

Consider this: the Theory of Darwinism, (and also Mendel's Theory for that matter) or the explanation for the evolution of the species, is accepted in America and in Britain but is not generally accepted in Europe.

«Accept the evolution and there are tremendous opportunities for success,» he says, adding that thanks to following through on this adage, HomeLife is now poised for «world - wide expansion.»