Sentences with phrase «in creationist arguments»

As a result, the neo-Platonist tradition is becoming emboldened again, often encouraged by New Age spirituality (Goodwin's critics describe him as a New Age mystic); Aristotelianism is likewise making a comeback, particularly in creationist arguments for the validity of concepts such as purpose and design in biology.

Not exact matches

Still, it looked like his supporters were probably in the minority, and I mentioned to him that some scientists were grousing online he was validating the creationist argument by even showing up.

You have bought in to a huge red herring argument brought up by creationists.

Especially form a Creationist perspective, the entire Universe in its endless complexity and unfathomable grandeur — exists solely so that Human beings can exist (the fine tuning argument).

Ironically, the biggest supporters Creationists have in the «teach the controversy» argument are the Raelians who say that the Earth was seeded with life by extra-terrestrials.

«The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half - truths, lies, and straw - man arguments that the opponent can not possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

In this article Johnson provides what he calls a «rough description» of modern evolutionary biology, raises a series of arguments against evolution, and finally proposes a creationist view of the origin of species.

If you mean that we counter creationists arguments that evolution runs counter to the second law of thermodynamics by saying that that law only applies to heat transfer and randomness in a closed (gaseous) system, well, that is true.

Additionally, this ID / creationist argument fails in light of clear examples of common forms with discrete evolutionary lineages and accompanying discrete genetic const - itutions (e.g. new world v. old world vultures, etc).

I, even in the biology classroom, I want little Johnny to come with his best creationist arguments.

The outcome rests with the Texas State Board of Education, whose 15 members will decide in November whether to accept newly drafted biology textbooks, which may contain creationist arguments.

[Box 26] AAAS and Congress, lobbying, 1959 - 1987 Congress, 1986 Arctic, 1981 Legislative Branch, 1981 - 1984 Executive Branch, pre-1985 OMB Circular, 1983 Science Policy: A Working Glossary, 1978 Science Policy Task Force Congressional Research Service, 1986 Environmental Protection Agency House Committee on Science and Technology, 1986 Office of Management and Budget Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1982 Office of Technology Assessment, 1980 Senate State Department (2 Folders) AAAS Science, Engineering, and Diplomacy Fellows, Lunch and Orientation, 1983 Tax Bills, 1981 Edwards vs Aguilard, Louisiana Creationist Suit, 1986 Edwards vs Aguilard, NAS amicus brief Edwards vs Aguilard, People for the American Way amicus brief Edwards vs Aguilard, Supreme Court arguments Hutchinson vs. Proxmire, amicus brief, 1978 Southeastern College vs. Frances Davis, amicus brief, 1979 State Department, 1976 - 1984 Human Subjects Research, 1979 Controversy over Inhaber Article in Science, 1979 Three Mile Island, 1979 Federal appropriations, universities and pork barrel projects

The central argument used by the flagship creationist book on human evolution is so feeble that Answers in Genesis has disowned it - even though they enthusiastically promote that book.

I simply popped up my head making a silly creationist argument as a joke — in a way that I figured everyone would realize was a joke.

If I made the same argument that Creationists should not try to pick holes in Darwinian Evolutionary theory, would you think that was «silly» too?

The energy, time, and resources that some creationists put into this endeavor is astounding, resulting in a mountain of false claims, half - truths, misdirections, unsound arguments, and misinterpretations.

Once again you sidestep any examination of the criticisms to see whether or not they are warranted or even asking someone how they arrived at a given conclusion or what justification they have for a given premise and claim, based upon an argument from incredulity which is common, for example, in creationist literature to the effect of, «I can't believe that there is a natural explanation for the origin of the eye, therefore the origin of the eye must be supernatural.»