Sentences with phrase «in creation science»

Not exact matches

The pair (Zeki, who is older, was studying computer science; Haroon, economics) designed websites for family and friends in their spare time, and quickly realized a website - creation tool would be a lot more efficient.

The study, just published in Science, showed that the creation of what the researchers are calling microtumors can help predict drug effectiveness in cancer patients better than the current standard method of testing the drugs on rodents.

Respondents favored this city for its diverse job creation, including in service sector jobs, and science -, technology -, engineering - and mathematics - related employment.

The Creative Destruction Lab is a seed stage program for massively scalable science - based ventures that launched from the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management in 2012 with a goal of $ 50 million in equity value creation in five years.

Winston - Salem, NC — October 7, 2015 — Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center today announced the creation of a Technology Development Program, a $ 15 million program to develop the ideas, discoveries and inventions of the faculty and staff of the Medical Center into life science technologies having the potential to benefit patients in the community and worldwide.

The successful commercialization of cutting - edge science achieved through the program has led to creation of over $ 2 billion in equity value.

Through establishing deep, operational partnerships with all of our portfolio companies, we focus on building scalable business foundations rooted in operational expertise, data science, analytics, full funnel digital marketing and the creation of compelling value propositions.

Nye's premises is all wrong about children believing in creation are behind in the world of Science, thus the idea should be abolished.

In other words, he is willing to accept science when believing otherwise would bring him direct physical harm, he is willing to «believe» whatever it takes so he can get other folks to help him create a J - O - B and a salary from his «Creation Museum».

A 17 - year - old California girl won $ 100,000 in a national science competition for her creation of a nanoparticle that can target and kill cancer cells.

Under the radar, the «establishment» in university science departments has been finding ways to get rid of professors who have any belief in the creation / Biblical viewpoint.

The purpose of the volume, according Harold Attridge, is to explore «the ongoing controversy in the United States about the relationship between science and religion, particularly evolutionary biology and traditional readings of the biblical creation story.»

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.

«Creation» seems to magically conform to whatever seems closest to it, not so much in mainstream science, but anything some reputable scientist might have said that might serve to give the idea a bit of cover.

Nye like many in the science community venture into unfamiliar ground when comparing the Genesis account of creation with evolution.

For me I see evolution the same as you see God not enough proof to say I believe it and see God as how all things started, in my view evolution of man can be true just that it has not been proven where God I can see because there is no other logical explanation for how the matter in the universe came to be from nothing, a higher power for now can be the only possible answer if science was to prove the creation of the universe in some other way I would not deny that truth.

I remember watching his science videos in elementary school but now whenever I see him on the news talking about science it seems like he is politicizing science (when it comes to climate change) and promoting evolution as the only option to the creation of the world to try and discredit the religious community.

But apparently you are too weak in your faith to think that God is brilliant enough to use science as a way of creation.

Faith in creation to Christians is the same belief that Science will eventually find all of the answers to these questions.

[6] Although many young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development of creation science, an endeavor that holds that the events as - sociated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modeled through an interpretation of the scientific method, the consensus among scientists is that creation science is unscientific in both conception and methodology.

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.

Some of you believers want to give creation science the same level of acceptance as evolution in OUR schools.

Once we accept that the language of Genesis is symbolic, then there is no difficulty in holding both what it really teaches about creation and what we have learned from modern science.

(9) The researching and teaching of evolution has had a secular bias as well, since science has been carried on largely in a secular context as a secular enterprise, in relation to which religious affirmations (such as creation) are seen as quaint and superfluous.

«The creation story is taught in science and there is no evidence that pupils learn scientific theories about the origin of the Earth.»

The discoveries of modern science are real advances in the knowing of God's creation and so have an impact upon theology.

De Chardin made two important points: firstly that the science of man seems to come out decisively in favour of monophyletism and secondly that any decision for or against monogenism must ultimately elude science in view of the depth of time that has elapsed since the creation of man.

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,.

While mainline publishers of religious books and church - school curricula have been virtually silent on the subject, there are currently in print more than 350 books challenging evolutionary science and advocating a «creation science» based on six 24 - hour days of creation, a «young - earth» dating, and a worldwide «flood geology.»

If it is true that the creator constantly supports, preserves, and renews His world, if everything new that appears in the world has come and continuously comes from His plan for creation and from His creative power, then in some way it has to come into contact with the reality that forms the object of the sciences.»

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 number of universities and colleges in the United States with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

The number of universities and colleges in Europe with a creation science department: ZERO.

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 Goin 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 Goin 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 Goin 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 Goin 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 GoIn 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

The number of universities and colleges in Australia and Asia with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

In the opinion of this writer Moltmann is correct to insist on the importance of a theological perspective when considering science, and on the need to ponder the intrinsic unity and beauty of all of creation, but it is surely the lack of a coherent metaphysics of science that has led to the increasing gap between modern scientific thought and Christian theology.

What we ought to be able to discover in this world picture, once the incredible science is gone, is a conception of the universe in which, under what are for us weird and frequently utterly impossible images, the whole creation is seen as dependent upon a loving and active God who is its ultimate meaning and its ground of being.

Theology, my opinion is that it is the same as science, merely an observation of creation, worded into a way that fits in to the confines of our minds, Our minds work on logic via calculation and when God works outside of that it is seen as a miracle.

Admittedly the best attempts to read the signs of design in creation remain human hypotheses, subject to criticism and revision, but without divine design there would be neither analogous intelligence nor analogous science.

However, this «new reformation», he believes, will incorporate the early Christian insights but will provide for them a new philosophical context in the light of science, philosophy, and other modern ways of seeing the creation and the relationship of God to that creation.

Its doctrine of creation and faith in the dependability of God contributed to the rise of modern science, as Whitehead has persuasively shown.9 Yet the scientific method had to make its way against a heavy weight of ecclesiastical opposition.

When an autonomous nature and an infinite space dawned in the Renaissance, the world was no longer manifest as the creation, and with the subsequent triumph of modern science, contingency in the medieval sense has disappeared from view.

and Justin Topp with «If you could discuss one topic and one topic alone in a course on science and religion (other than evolution vs / and creation), what would you choose and why?»

You don't have to go very far down that road before you start thinking about creation science or scientific creationism, or get involved in school board squabbles about whether Genesis should be taught alongside of evolution in high school biology courses.

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 author argues that only on the basis of the Christian dogmas of Creation and Incarnation could science have emerged in the Western world.

As for the area of creation and science, has not reason compelled us to abandon the referential meaning of the biblical texts in Genesis and forced us to treat them in a theological and even mythological way?

After attending the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego and Dallas Theological Seminary, he served as youth minister at a large Baptist church in San Diego and taught science at the affiliated Christian high school.

Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye to a debate, even while Ken Ham continues to run from me and my proposal that he «come out» and «come clean» regarding his positions relating to my argument that so many of his followers rail against but which quite properly is able to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young - earth creation - science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.