Sentences with phrase «in view of the science»

Different administrators have come to different conclusions about how best to apply the law in view of the science, and many of their decisions have been challenged in court, sometimes successfully, for either going too far or not far enough.

As contrasted with the modern worldview which is sustained more by habit than conviction and which has promoted ecological despoliation, militarism, anti-feminism and disciplinary fragmentation, the postmodern worldview is postmechanistic and ecological in its view of nature, postreductionist in its view of science, postanthropocentric in its view of ethics and economics, postdiscipline in relation to knowledge and postpatriarchal and postsexist in relation to society.

Not exact matches

«It's part travelogue, part hard data, and part sociology of science, resulting in a deep and multifaceted view of the state of the world.

Mr. Ham is something of an extremist in his views, and advocating a form of creationism that, if true, would seem to mean that God has deceived us by creating a universe that doesn't align with at least some of the causal relationships science has identified.

Does anyone else see the humor in the creationists debating their point of view over the Internet (invented by science), filmed on cameras (based on science) in a hall lit by electricity (harnessed by science).

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.

- But the difference is, Science eventually comes to its senses in the face of TESTABLE EVIDENCE and changes it's views; the thought of changing away from religious dogma is abhorrant to almost all faiths, and change in practices often take much time.

Science totally encapsulated in an Evolutionary point of view is ridiculous.

They find it offensive that people like you discuss their endeavors, which required years of education, research and effort, in the same breath as the wild and baseless allegations of religion (at least as science views it).

The conclusion just reached suggests that supposedly value - free political science has had value commitments in spite of itself, at least to the extent that it affirms happiness to be a private matter.5 In addition, I am persuaded that political science explicitly based upon a preferential view of self - interest always implicitly invokes an objective criterion of happinesin spite of itself, at least to the extent that it affirms happiness to be a private matter.5 In addition, I am persuaded that political science explicitly based upon a preferential view of self - interest always implicitly invokes an objective criterion of happinesIn addition, I am persuaded that political science explicitly based upon a preferential view of self - interest always implicitly invokes an objective criterion of happiness.

Faith as addressing issues beyond the scope of rationality: In this view, faith is seen as covering issues that science and rationality are inherently incapable of addressing, but that are nevertheless entirely real.

The Folly of Scientism Austin L Hughes, a professor of biology at the University of South Carolina, has written a perceptive, thought - provoking article in The New Atlantis magazine, concurring with my own view of current philosophical trends in popular scientific presentations.2 One of these trends is «scientism», the view that science is the only source of truth and reality.

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.

(4) Descriptions of evolutionary mechanisms also share in the mechanistic and materialistic biases of science — which easily becomes translated into materialism as a world view.

Vannevar Bush, for example, a former president of MIT and director of the government's Office of Scientific Research and Development during the war, published an influential article in the Atlantic Monthly which «offered an amazingly prescient view of the effect of science on the world economy and of computers in daily life.»

If you think that this is just a clergyman's view, listen to Dr. Prichett when he was president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology: «Science is grounded in faith, just as is religion.»

Those who believe that miracles are refuted by modern science may view them symbolically rather than literally, saying, for example, that the stilling of the storm (Mark 4:35 - 41) shows that God is with the believer in the storms of life.

Or we'd fight about what type of science we should be following in our atheistic views.

Our view has been that both science and religion are rooted in experience but that each is based in a different region of the perceptive process.

I have discovered that most atheists claim sole authority over the realms of science and reason and promote a view that belief in a creator is incompatible with them.

If Christianity is to show the relevance of its doctrine of love to contemporary man it must make clear that in sex as in science the Christian view of the world is not confined to first century concepts.

Such a reactionary response fails to factor in the inexact science of polling and what may simply be a more nuanced view of pluralism among religious people.

In this context we should like to warn against the snobbery of certain circles who imagine that natural science, technology and social planning have nothing to do with culture, which in their view can only be created by individualistic eliteIn this context we should like to warn against the snobbery of certain circles who imagine that natural science, technology and social planning have nothing to do with culture, which in their view can only be created by individualistic elitein their view can only be created by individualistic elites.

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.

Process thought is usually defined in one of three ways: (1) as any view of reality that is dynamic and relational and based on the findings of modern science, (2) identified with «the Chicago School,» the University of Chicago Divinity School, both in its earlier phase of applying evolutionary theory to historical research, seeing religion as a dynamic movement that reconstitutes itself in response to felt needs, as well as its later philosophical phase, and (3) synonymous with the philosophy of Whitehead and Hartshorne.

Your view is also one that science can not establish as correct, since science can not speak to the absence of divine action in an observed phenomenon.

Richard Dawkins, in his celebrated book, The Selfish Gene, exemplifies the same position.3 And a similar reduction of biology to a molecular science may be found in the writings of E.O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Jacques Monod and numerous other highly respected scientific writers.4 In Chance and Necessity, for example, Monod gives one of the most forceful renditions of the view that biochemical analysis is «obviously» the sole avenue to understanding the secret of life.5 Decades ago Jacques Loeb had already set forth the program of inquiry still emulated today by many biologistin his celebrated book, The Selfish Gene, exemplifies the same position.3 And a similar reduction of biology to a molecular science may be found in the writings of E.O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Jacques Monod and numerous other highly respected scientific writers.4 In Chance and Necessity, for example, Monod gives one of the most forceful renditions of the view that biochemical analysis is «obviously» the sole avenue to understanding the secret of life.5 Decades ago Jacques Loeb had already set forth the program of inquiry still emulated today by many biologistin the writings of E.O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Jacques Monod and numerous other highly respected scientific writers.4 In Chance and Necessity, for example, Monod gives one of the most forceful renditions of the view that biochemical analysis is «obviously» the sole avenue to understanding the secret of life.5 Decades ago Jacques Loeb had already set forth the program of inquiry still emulated today by many biologistIn Chance and Necessity, for example, Monod gives one of the most forceful renditions of the view that biochemical analysis is «obviously» the sole avenue to understanding the secret of life.5 Decades ago Jacques Loeb had already set forth the program of inquiry still emulated today by many biologists:

Has the false notion of an adversarial relationship between science and religion caused such division in subscribed beliefs that one can no longer view science and the belief in a superior intellect as a harmonious precept?

They are so error - prone, even from a technocratic point of view, at least in part because they are actually engaged in a non-technocratic enterprise that is pervasively ideological, in the same way that Soviet science was ideological.

Think of how you would view witchcraft as a retarding influence on society and how you would long for the day when the shining light of science and reason would illuminate your village and the majority of the population would abandon their belief in witches, pixies and elves.

My own view of all of this, as a practicing social scientist interested in the relationship between religious faith and empirical science, is that the general perspective taken by Evans - Pritchard, Douglas, and the Turners is not only entirely reasonable but close to the best account we might give.

Induction has been accused of many shortcomings, but the common denominator of the various criticisms leveled against it, from Popper to Kuhn to Feyerabend, is that belief in induction is responsible for a naive empiricism which views science as based on uninterpreted observation and direct verification of theories by the «facts.»

So have you surveyed all 80 % of americans who believe in God and their views on science.

Thus, the complaint that some people use Christian Science in order to attain secular ends of health, wealth or success is a wholly valid one from the point of view of Christian Science itself.

Darwin stated in his Autobiography that there is no more design to be found in nature than in the course which the wind blows, and the National Association of Biology Teachers and the National Science Association have decided to align themselves with his view that evolution is purposeless.

For example, in standard contemporary philosophy of science causation is characterized in terms of law - exhibiting sequences in the order of events, whereas more traditional and common sense views often conceive of causation in terms of a generative and governing force or power.

Because Troeltsch, at the beginning of this century, was keenly aware of many trends that became apparent to most observers only at its end: the collapse of Eurocentrism; the perceived relativity of all historical events and knowledge (including scientific knowledge); an awareness that Christianity is relative to its Western, largely European history and environment; the emergence of a profound global pluralism; the central role of practice in theology; the growing impact of the social sciences on our view of the world and of ourselves; and dramatic changes in the role of religious institutions and religious thought.

Whitehead, another mathematician - physicist - philosopher, had a similar view Thus our theological scheme is no longer as seriously at odds with science or the philosophy of science as it was in the days of classical or Newtonian physics.

2 The other principal factors, as far as I can judge, are Zeno's arguments (PR 68-70/106 -08), and the tendency in modern science to view nature in terms of quanta (SMW, Ch.

This does not solve the Christian's problem of attaining an integrated world view, for the religion that arises in contemporary science may be in tension with aspects of Christian belief.

The sequence in the emergence of creatures in the biblical creation story and in the view of contemporary science, including the issue of evolution, is not discussed.

Only a small minority (5 %) of the national academy of sciences believes in a personal prayer answering god — the «Born Again» Christian world view is an antiquated backward way of thinking that only serves to hold back the progress of this country and the world.

Modern science in general has found that a priori views of what is possible, far from being helpful in its development, are handicaps.

if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist if you think the indifferent support your side, you might be an atheist if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheisof crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheview has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheisof the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheView has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheisof the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheisof Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheisOf The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheisof definition, you might be an atheist.

In my view, there are at least six key factors which have caused and continue to affect a global transformation of consciousness: the revolution in communications, globalization of the economy, a growing awareness of the degradation of the environment, demographic shifts, the threat of nuclear destruction and the advent of the new sciencIn my view, there are at least six key factors which have caused and continue to affect a global transformation of consciousness: the revolution in communications, globalization of the economy, a growing awareness of the degradation of the environment, demographic shifts, the threat of nuclear destruction and the advent of the new sciencin communications, globalization of the economy, a growing awareness of the degradation of the environment, demographic shifts, the threat of nuclear destruction and the advent of the new science.

In other words, they have neither gone the way of experience - rich evangelicalism, nor have they offered an experience that relates honestly to people informed by science and a humanistic world - view in their own liveIn other words, they have neither gone the way of experience - rich evangelicalism, nor have they offered an experience that relates honestly to people informed by science and a humanistic world - view in their own livein their own lives.

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.

The irony of ID / creationist attempts to invoke science to (erroneously) support their purely religious views is that they require the practice of science to be fundamentally flawed (evidenced in the repeated cases wherein ID / creationism proponents argue for a redefining of «science» to include untestable propositions).

Of course there are also many religious people not in the national academy of sciences that also hold this vieOf course there are also many religious people not in the national academy of sciences that also hold this vieof sciences that also hold this view.

«44 This statement exhibits an mischaracterization of Bergson so extreme it defies words; if ever there was a more persistent opponent of Descartes» conception of natural science than Bergson, I do not know who it might be — with the possible exception of Bergson's process blood brothers — Peirce, Dewey, James, Whitehead and Hartshorne.45 In Lowe's defense it might be said that the eight or ten books that do the most to establish just how non-Cartesian, and indeed revolutionary Bergson's view of science was were all published after Understanding Whitehead.