Sentences with phrase «less science knowledge»

Among those with more science knowledge, 79 % say scientists generally agree that humans have evolved over time, compared with 54 % among those with less science knowledge.

Those with more science knowledge are especially likely to see bioengineered artificial organs for human transplant as an appropriate use of medical advances (85 % compared with 65 % of those with less science knowledge).

Not exact matches

You just have to take the time to think about it long enough to see that these ancient written texts were written by humans with less knowledge about science than we have now.

But your knowledge of science is so much less than so many Catholic Priests such as Gregor Mendel (1822 - 1884) the father of modern genetics, Georges Lemaître (1894 - 1966) the person who proposed the Big Bang Theory and Stanley Jaki Born in Hungary, he earned doctorates in Systematic Theology and Nuclear Physics, is fluent in five languages, and has authored 30 books.

It is difficult to be a disciple of Jesus and contemplate Scripture without engaging in the things involved with the science of knowledge of God; even less possible is it to be instructed without being engaged in education.

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.

Even when a man says that science led him to God, it was probably less a reasoned conclusion from the abstract symbols of technical knowledge than a total response to an experience of beauty, order, and reverence.

My final conclusion is that there is real satisfaction in a philosophy which can bring under a common viewpoint the vast body of secondary but verifiable knowledge of the external world which constitutes science, with its necessarily deterministic and probabilistic interpretations, and the primary but private knowledge which each of us has of his own stream of consciousness, more or less continually directed toward the finding of an acceptable course through the difficulties of the external world by means of voluntary actions.

The Universe, known and unknown, is possibly not the most used definition of God, at least in the western world... but it is the Pantheistic version that jives so much more with science and is not a misappropriation of the smaller definitions of God, merely an unfamiliar definition to those with less knowledge of various more advanced religious and philosophic thought, within and outside those religions... The idea of Pantheism also thoughtfully considers why there is, rather than ridiculing, such a wide range of philosophical and ritual beliefs from a scientific perspective... without having to classify large groups of people, as senseless idiots from one end or destined for hell from the other.

As long as you embrace these nutcases whose goal it is to throw out scientific research and knowledge altogether in favor of the BIBLE as a science textbook, the less likely you will EVER see the inside of the Oval Office again.

A new study by a team of researchers from the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission's science and knowledge service, sheds light on another, less well - known aspect of how these ecosystems, and forests in particular, can protect our planet against global warming.

For Republicans, the more knowledge they have about climate science the less likely they are to accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming (whereas Democrats» confidence goes up).

Instead of encouraging the brain drain, top world academics, funders, and researchers should collaborate to build scientific infrastructure in the less resilient regions not only to improve their self - ability to conduct, access, and use the best science but also to ensure that they can contribute to global scientific debates while developing local solutions with cost - effective, participatory, and sustainable strategies (including the reconnaissance and use of indigenous knowledge in some cases).

Meanwhile, we have good evidence indicating that schools today are reasonably — if imperfectly — effective at teaching kids the less - glamorous knowledge and skills — e.g., in math, science, and history — that we associate with «traditional» education.

Although considerable literature describes the science content knowledge of preservice teachers, less is written on how such information is expressed through creative thinking, development, and construction.

Although, FWIW, my take was from the POV that Nurse appears to have acquired his «knowledge» — both of climate science and of skeptics — from no less a tutor than the world - renowned «expert» (and erstwhile RS employee), Bob < fast - fingered obsessive whiner par excellence > Ward!

Rather than a «mea culpa», as in «oops I was being silly never mind» you back - pedal and pretend to have been sensible, staking out a new, less obviously silly position, but still one utterly detached from the hard - won knowledge of science (in this case meteorology).

Our findings show that people with more science knowledge are more inclined than those with less knowledge to consider scientists as largely in agreement about the topic of evolution, for example.

The climate alarmists have exploited the public's understandable lack of knowledge concerning climate science to argue that the developed countries (but usually not less developed countries) should give up some or preferably all fossil fuel use in order to avoid alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

Climate science seems to governed by the self - satisfied dictum: «The less we know, the more certain we can be of our knowledge.»

When this demanded trust is then argued to justify painful policies — sold as mitigation, no less — and even more concentration of power, just how much knowledge of the science being sold do you need to smell the miasma surrounding that science?

But it should be emphasized that, although his points on the anti-intellectualism of creation science and lousy civics knowledge are sound, when he surrounds that with misdirection and literally unsupportable talking points about the global warming issue, his message looks less like one of genuine concern and more like a subtle excuse to validate global warming propaganda.

This hypothesis has yet to be validated by empirical data based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation and has not yet successfully withstood any attempts at falsification, so (unlike your example of «evolution») remains an uncorroborated hypothesis, rather than «reliable scientific knowledge» (or, even less, «settled science», despite what Gavin has stated in the past).

The most recent report was published in 2014 and represents «the most comprehensive and authoritative synthesis of knowledge about global climate - change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability ever generated,» according to a statement by President Obama's science advisor when the report was published less than four years ago.

And what this shows, according to Kahan, is that people's views on climate change are shaped less by their knowledge of the science than by their sense of group identity.

Why do so many scientists from various fields, who may have less knowledge of the details of climate science than a layman like myself has, sign onto all these petitions and letters supporting the science?