Sentences with phrase «in regards to science»

It's not that this is a unique tale in regards to science fiction, but the way they present it made me care for the people in my party and about the fate of NLA.

Interstellar was interesting in regards to the science, but i didn't think McConaughey had much an emotional range to his character, just found his character lacked depth.

The Bible can be wrong in regards to science or history, and still be perfectly true.

You are comparing things that I see as two different categorys.One is using a record recorded in the bible, for determining creationism, (or what caused the «big bang» as some believe) in regards to science, and what can be proven, in that respect.

The more limited a sphere of knowledge is, and the more peripheral its philosophical significance in relation to man, the less directly, therefore, it concerns man himself and what essentially defines his own existence, the more readily of course the teaching of the faith can be viewed as a mere norma negativa in regard to that science.

In regard to science and engineering positions, underrepresented minorities include women, so separating the two is divisive and nonproductive.

Now, the National Science Teachers Association and the STEM Education Coalition have sent a letter to the Education Department saying it is misinterpreting the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the federal K - 12 education law that replaced No Child Left Behind, in regard to science and school accountability plans.

«I thought of Alex's interest in a queer, of - color, and intersectional feminism in regard to science - fiction, and I thought it would be funny in a way to end with a world in which women had been obliterated.»

Maybe there is uncertain elements regarding blogs in terms of value in regard to science.

Not exact matches

«We do not have enough data on the surface, e.g. most interesting place regarding geology and composition to know where to put down a lander to return the best science,» Clark told Business Insider in an email.

The companies include Chevron Corp., ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips Co., BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Peabody Energy Corp. «The American people deserve answers from the fossil fuel corporations about their actions to massively deceive the public in regards to climate science,» Lieu and Welch wrote in a letter to their House colleagues asking for their support.

Both are instances of ignorance in logical reasoning and understanding of science especially in regards to human nature.

southerneyes44, you wrote «Germany doesn't teach about him» in regards to Hitler That's a ludicrous assertion as is «Theories in science change with the newspaper.»

In science there are no absolutes, only degrees of certainty with regard to that which is known.

Science, or «natural» philosophy (remember that we still handout advanced degrees in the sciences as a PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy) provides material answers to the cosmological questions, but does not answer questions regarding purpose or death, which many (including apparently Ms. Libresco) find difficult.

«And to focus more precisely on the issue of «scientific evidence,» the sciences, ordered by their nature and method to an analysis of empirically verifiable objects and states of affairs within the universe, can not even in principle address questions regarding God, who is not a being in the world, but rather the reason why the finite realm exists at all.......

It would be like having your science teacher explain in detail what we have discovered in regards to evolution and been able to test and repeat but then ends with «Even though this is what we have observed time and again and has been peer reviewed and see no reason it should work in any other way, we just don't know how science worked 10,000 years ago.

Instead, the Church too often seems to front a position of defensiveness regarding science, a defensiveness that is not lost on the younger generation of Catholics pursuing careers in biology, physics and chemistry, to say nothing of medicine.

Collins is very keen in his book to explain how a number of other viewpoints with regard to the faith - science debate are untenable.

I always attributed this disconnect to my general frustrations with modern evangelicalism — that it's been hijacked by the Republican Party, that it's in a perpetual state of defensiveness and «wartime» posturing, that it has closed itself off to science and independent thought, that it has lost sight of the message of Jesus regarding the Kingdom of God, that it has become commercialized and shallow — all the things we «emergers» like to write books and articles about.

Whitehead notes in this regard that «the field of a special science is confined to one genus of facts, in the sense that no statements are made respecting facts which lie outside that genus» (PR 9/14).

But their position is seriously misread if it is not understood that in Christian Science, Jesus is regarded as the figure through whom, supremely and uniquely, God's nature was manifested to humanity.

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.

In striking contrast are those who regard advances in natural science primarily as a deepening of insight into the wonders of God's creation, as an opportunity, therefore, to understand better the intricacies of the natural order that allow the purposes of that creation to be realizeIn striking contrast are those who regard advances in natural science primarily as a deepening of insight into the wonders of God's creation, as an opportunity, therefore, to understand better the intricacies of the natural order that allow the purposes of that creation to be realizein natural science primarily as a deepening of insight into the wonders of God's creation, as an opportunity, therefore, to understand better the intricacies of the natural order that allow the purposes of that creation to be realized.

Each chapter discusses an aspect of the one theme that the central purpose of all education — whether in homes, schools, churches, business organizations, community agencies, or the mass media, and whatever the area of learning, whether science, art, health, or international relations — should be the transformation of persons from the life of self - centered desire to that of devoted service of the excellent, and at the same time the creation of a democratic commonwealth established in justice and fraternal regard rather than in expediency.

Have the natural sciences really nothing to offer in regard to those qualities?

Under the guise of the scientific notion, I defy science to reproduce the human brain, create DNA that matches with another person, create a universe that has order, make humans with all the complexities all the same with identical DNA factors, and every human with the same finger prints as another, and when an atheistic scientist can do that, I will rethink my level of thoughts in regards to God.

With regard to science, development, thought, invention, ideals, aspirations, liberalism, reason, experience, and everything, everything, everything, we're all, without exception, still sitting in the first grade!

E.g., in regards to scientific support for evolution and rejection of creationism and the young earth dogma, in 1986, 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, signed an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism, which the brief described as embodying religious dogma.

We already know that FG wins the day in regards to entrance, and the Social Science views strengthen the FG view of rewards, since vindication or lack thereof has to do with honor / shame and reward / loss of reward at the JSOC.

Regarding science as a religion, I can see this use in the most general sense, but I know of no scientists who pray to their experiments.

Indeed, with regard to the historical development of philosophy and science we know it to be the case that it was the doctrine of the Fall, which is peculiar to the Judeo - Christian faith, which enabled the Christian culture to maintain an ontological distinction between matter and evil in the face of cultural opposition.

Unlike other theologians and philosophers, those who work in the area of religion and science regard «postmodern» studies as worthwhile only as a sign of modernity's maturing critical spilt, not as an alternative to modernity.

Atheists are vindicative fools and mongeringly foolish and their foolishness ways of perverse animosities does ever abound upon generalites of supposed freedoms to antagonize the proverbial enemies of relative generalisms regarding the all mighty sciences foundations in high and even higher minded placements!

Regarding condoms in Africa — your church's position flys in opposition to what actual science shows.

However, I wonder why Hancock appears to give the natural sciences a pass in this regard.

Why has science come to be regarded as the proper method for seeking the objective truth in the modern age?

For now on... I'm only listening to scientists about science, and only in regards to the discipline they have mastered.

We are concerned with the position of Catholic theology in regard to the scientific doctrine, opinion, hypothesis or theory of «hominisation», that is, of man's evolutionary origins, as far as these come within the scope and methods of the natural sciences.

It must also be stressed with regard to what science has to say, that we are not for the time being, and presumably never shall be, in a position to form a detailed picture of the inner and external situation in which the first man found himself.

12 Even on the assumption of a Vitalism of essentially higher principles of that kind, which raise the organic, as an intrinsically higher level of reality, above merely inorganic matter, and constitute biology as an independent science, and even if we regard the entelechy factor as simple and indivisible, there would only be an eductio e potentia materiae when a new living being came into existence, if we excluded creation in this case in the way it is exemplified in the human soul, though that is not very easy to prove, and at the same time rejected the not at all absurd supposition that in the generation of new life below the human level what happens is only the extension of the entelechial function of one and the same vital principle to a new position in space and time within inorganic matter.

With regard to these physical speculations, however, it is important to remember that they are based on the assumed constancy of present natural laws through all time (which may not actually be the case) and on the analysis only of the limited range of phenomena now forming the province of physics, in accordance with the limited set of concepts at present used in this science.

«The Magisterium of the Church, does not forbid that in the present state of the human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussion, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to

They are meant to designate the form or type to which Paul's theological thinking belongs, and, as regards the question of truth or value, they are as neutral as the word «formula» is in science or «syllogism» in logic.

The three characteristics which make the human individual a truly unique object in the eyes of Science, once we have made up our minds to regard Man not merely as a chance arrival but as an integral element of the physical world, are as follows:

In the historical sciences, we can not, as in the natural sciences, achieve the clarity of observation that will enable all observers to describe the same phenomenon in the same way, but we can enter into debate with one another with regard to our findings and so strive for a consensus that will take us all further forwarIn the historical sciences, we can not, as in the natural sciences, achieve the clarity of observation that will enable all observers to describe the same phenomenon in the same way, but we can enter into debate with one another with regard to our findings and so strive for a consensus that will take us all further forwarin the natural sciences, achieve the clarity of observation that will enable all observers to describe the same phenomenon in the same way, but we can enter into debate with one another with regard to our findings and so strive for a consensus that will take us all further forwarin the same way, but we can enter into debate with one another with regard to our findings and so strive for a consensus that will take us all further forward.

Generis: «For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God» [italics added].

Regarding religion staying in its domain, my observation is that many believers often call on science, or perceived weaknesses in science, to support their particular beliefs about things science touches on.

Nevertheless, questions regarding the limits of science and the limits of human nature are not themselves solely or even primarily scientific questions — in fact, science in general has proven remarkably tone deaf to the bioethical implications of its own innovation.

In the preface to Science and the Modern World, he expresses the same sentiment regarding the additions or expansions to the Lowell Lectures 0f 1925 — additions or expansions that were meant «to complete the thought 0f the book on a scale which could not be included within that lecture course» (SMW viii).