Sentences with phrase «not teach both theories»

Of course not, but we don't teach theories that don't have strong scientific backing.

Why not teach both theories and think of them in the context of what they are; theories, with potentially more theories to evolve in the future..

If I decide that I won't repair motors and won't teach theory any longer because I don't believe in it, I daresay I won't retain my position for more than a few days.

Not exact matches

This course teaches leadership not just by reading theory, but actually putting the theory into practice.

In the real world, this is simply not true» Guy Spier «A whole body of academic work formed the foundation upon which generations of students at the country's major business schools were taught about Modern Portfolio Theory, Efficient Market Theory and Beta.

We should also not be teaching naturalistic ideas along side provable and observable theories just because they are derive from a naturalistic viewpoint.

Lawrence, You started by asking a foolish question about why not teach religious origins theories in science class?

but not taught as fact and right after science class where they learn Darwin's theory of evolution, watch videos on the big bang theory, have a field trip where they meet up with an archeologist to uncover one of our ancestors remains that weren't as evolved, learn how old the earth truely is etc.....

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.»

-LRB-... Still not sure how the Big Bang «THEORY» even became a theory, other than somebody desperately trying to find an alternative to creation, but it should NEVER be taught as a fact, but rather as a THTHEORY» even became a theory, other than somebody desperately trying to find an alternative to creation, but it should NEVER be taught as a fact, but rather as a THtheory, other than somebody desperately trying to find an alternative to creation, but it should NEVER be taught as a fact, but rather as a THEORYTHEORY).

The lives of the saints do not present us with a new theory of virtue, but a new way of teaching, a new strategy that builds on the tradition of examples, but enriches it by unfolding a pattern of holiness over the course of a lifetime.

And for the record teaching evolution is teaching a theory and does not necessarily contradict the concept of creationism.

The theory is not uncontroversial even among Muslims, many of whom believe that teaching anything other than the «substitution» model is tantamount to heresy.

hey G, I am acquainted with your theory there... it is called Preterism... it is the standard interpretation of Revelation given by liberals... I walked away from that belief and the church I was raised in when I found out what they are teaching... Nope, the book of revelation is not a «code» for the events of the day at the time of the fall of Jerusalem.

The biblical teaching, after all, was not aimed at one or another of the various theories developed in the history of modern science but at the cosmological understandings of origins found among surrounding peoples.

By saying there is no room for «personal salvation» in your understanding of Jesus» teaching and then claiming that personal salvation gets us to the topic of atonement theory — what was it that you were wanting to say if not making a link between atonement theory and salvation?

Rollie, I too have issues with atonement theory but I don't see the link you are making with Jesus» teaching on salvation with that.

I was in my early twenties when I first encountered a fossil record that didn't match what I'd been taught in Sunday school about the «myth» of evolutionary theory.

For one thing Evolution is not proven... It is still considered a theory... It should be removed because it is not science but only a theory... Evolution is the stupidest thing taught today and should be removed...

Whether that means not participating in an organized religion but still studying its teachings, proposing a new mathematical theory to explain the origin of the universe that can't easily be tested experimentally, taking the notion of a personal God and trying to have an actual personal, and not a corporate, herd - instinct, everyone - else - is - doing - it, relationship?

Ironically, while Biblicists claim to take the Bible with utmost seriousness for what it obviously teaches, their theory about the Bible drives them to try to make it something it evidently is not... Regardless of the actual Bible that God has given his church, biblicists want a Bible that is different.

We should further learn from the same Constitution that the Church really does not teach a two - tier theory of her members, according to which some would trot along the common road, hoping nevertheless to arrive at God, while the others, priests and religious, constituting as it were the aristocracy, walk in more exalted paths.

The Christian must normally adopt an analogous attitude in theory and practice in regard to teachings and moral precepts of the Church which are put forward authoritatively by the Church, even if not as irrevocable dogma.

Yeah but they want to teach the controversy... you know, how the earth might be only 10,000 years old (no it isn't) and that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together (no they didn't) and that evolution has no evidence (yes it does) or that there was a global flood (no there wasn't) or that the earth might be flat or the center of the universe or a million other wrong headed theories that fly in the face of the evidence.

Evolution is still just a theory, yet taught everyday as being proven when it has not.

Ahh nerve 9, but they do nt just say they are theories, they are taught in our schools as facts.

One is that most teaching and learning theories are based on the research and theory of modern psychology, which has not been focused primarily on complex forms of communication and reception.

It has been close to two hundred years that we have been teaching the theory of evolution in our universities, yet still almost 50 % of America don't believe in it or believe God is involved.

There were many ways to live, not simply one, the spiritual theory taught, all of them good, some of them better than others from one moment to the next.

Now, as to the matter of teaching creationism in schools, I don't think it's a particularly good idea however, I also think that Darwinism needs to be taught as a theory and that children need to be taught about the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

Evolution was not correctly taught if you believe that it is a belief or a mere theory in the colloquial sense, that it unnecessarily complicates the world, and that understanding how organisms change over time is not crucial for environmental policy, agriculture and biomedical research.

I think it's fine to show problems with evolutionary theory, HOWEVER, we can not teach creationism.

Religion teaches people to be content with not exploring theory.

let's teach them a flawed theory and not a science backed up biblical approach.

You can try and teach me the theory of creationism... oh wait it does not quality as a theory.

How long did it take humans to believe the world wasnt flat, the center of the universe orbited by the sun even when hard facts (not trillionth of partial scientific theorys but easily observable truths) becuase the teaching of religion contradicted them?

And now they are being taught Queer theory; that gender either doesn't exist, or has nothing to do with biology, or is «fluid».

Please remember, that the Catholic Church has come out saying that Darwin's theories do not go against the teachings of the Bible.

I am not as high profile as you but if I were, it would be like me telling you not to teach your kids about evolution or the big bang theory.

When we view the domination of the university by academic disciplines based on modern metaphysics, and the domination of the world by policies that derive from the theories taught there, it is hard not to become deeply discouraged.

I don't believe that children should have their educations compromised by being taught a theory that distorts facts to artificially create room for god.

And the RCC teaches that evolution is not a valid theory for humans.

But this is not entirely satisfying, for the theory of development is itself predicated on the fact that the creeds of the Christian religion, however much they seek to declare the teaching of Scripture faithfully, employ language and even concepts absent from Scripture.

Although a moderate theory of evolution is not objected to by the teaching Church at the present time, it does not follow that the theological question is thereby settled and that the whole matter henceforward is a purely scientific one.

From another quite different point of view, too, the reconciliation which was accomplished by Humani Generis between a moderate theory of evolution and the teaching of faith, can only be regarded as a beginning and not as an end.

For it must be noted that the Church's magisterium as such can not and does not seek to attribute to itself any real competence to decide on the degree of intrinsic scientific probability of a theory in cases where it does not at least provisionally declare the theory to be contrary to the teaching of Revelation.

Thus, a teaching regarding the primacy of Christ must not limit itself to a hypothetical stance that, despite its importance, runs the risk of reducing Christ to a final cause or to a unifying theory.

The theory of evolution does not conflict with the teachings of the Bible as long as the teachings are correctly interpreted.

Its an unprovable concept, and therefore it should not be taught in science classes, which aim to study those things that have been proven by scientific theory.

You want to teach a single religion's creation story as scientific theory, and you think that's not going down that road?