Sentences with phrase «not teach of science»

The bible will not teach of science.

Not exact matches

Gates dubs Mukherjee a «a quadruple threat,» as he not only takes care of patients, teaches medical students, and conducts research, but also pens Pulitzer Prize - winning science books.

You can't teach a marketing guru the equivalent of years of university data science training in his spare time.

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP)-- A small but growing number of science and math teachers aren't spending the summer at the beach or catching up on books, they're toiling at companies, practicing the principles they teach.

Well, from kindergarten on we often teach science as a body of information not relevant to anything going on in the world.

Science has a ton of assumptions and we need to make sure we are also teaching our kids that aspect, evolution (as it pertains to we came from apes) has many flaws and unanswered questions and shouldn't be taught as scientific fact!

This is typical of the folks that want religious ideas taught in school: theyndon't even know what science is.

When you ask certain Christians not to teach their religion as science you are asking them to give up an important part of their religion.

Hate to burst your little bubble, but this isn't a debate of the validity of your «ghost God», but whether creationism should be taught in science class.

The government, the Supreme Court actually, you know, the one made up of christians and jews but no atheists, said one religion could not be taught to the exclusion of others, and they said ID is not science, just religious creationism in disguise, so can not be taught as science.

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.....

Math and science, he said, are taught in the spirit of the humanities even if their questions seem not to be as existentially pressing.

Christians have voted to put their God's name on everyones money, add «Under God» to the flag salute, force schools to teach intelligent design with absolutely no scientific basis along side the sciences, voted to write their moral laws on the fronts of public courthouses and tax funded buildings, voted to ban certain people from living together, being intimate or raising children because their orientation didn't fit with their bible beliefs.

The prime proponents of ID are the fine folk at the Discovery Inst / itute who openly admit that they purpose is NOT to teach what they think is true, but rather to use ID as a «wedge to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies» and to separate science from it's allegiance to «atheistic naturalism».

I don't want to be the type of person that justifies slavery with something like what Jesus teaches or what science shows us.

@KatMat: your analogy would begin approaching realism if: — during the pledge of allegiance kids were forced to say «one nation under The Orioles» — our nation's currency said «In Dallas Cowboys We Trust» — if millions were slaughtered, tortured and burned to death because they weren't fans of The Pittsburgh Penguins — if NASCAR fans endlessly attempted to have Intelligent Car Driving taught beside Evolution in science class as a possible explanation for how mankind developed — if «the 5 D's» of Dodgeball (Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, Dodge) were constantly attempted to be made into law so everyone would live by the same ridiculous notions, even if those notions knowingly discriminate — if nutters constantly claimed America was founded on the principles of Darts, even though our country SPECIFICALLY calls for a separation between Darts and State because the founders knew the inherent dangers of Darts becoming government instead of staying in the realm of sport where it belongs

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.

Not only does Scripture teach a young earth, but there's plenty of science to back that up.

But his solution is not «more science and better science» as the Head of Physics at a school where I once taught averred during a staff meeting.

This second point means that openness to what sciences can teach us does not lead to acceptance of the way most scientists present their findings.

If we're not going to teach science, what's the point of education?

Second, that what is taught must not conflict with the accepted facts of science, or the pupil is bound to be in trouble as he senses the disparity.

If not then your science has failed, cause real science would teach you that it's not a natural thing for human being, maybe it is for the longevity of some animals and insects but for human.

The presentation of theology, that is the way in which the Church's teachings have been integrated with secular sciences, has not kept up with the discoveries of modern science.

actually you do nt have to prove the many deities or Gods that they really exist, because they really had existed in their times, They are part of the evolutionary process for us humans to transcend to higher consciousness.To simplify the analogy, when we were young and we are in the lower grade school, we were taught simple subjects not advance literatures but simple stories even mythicals, The same with religion, thousands of years ago when there was no science yet, primitive people had a religion, of course man made faiths to conform with their state of mind or intellect.But later atfter thousands of years we evolve into a more educated people and so new concept of God again was presented to them, another man made concept, and this go on and on, until a few thiousand years ago.monotheism, Judaism, christianity, islam, buddhism, etc also evolved, But with the accelerated evolution, these faith again is threatend with obsolesencs because of of scientific developments and education.In panthroteistic faith, the future religion needs to conform to evolutionary process, This proves that God is always there guiding the change.And it his will that made this a reality in history since the begining of the universe 13 billion years ago, and this will continue to exist until He will completely fulfill His will to infinity, Thats PANTHROTHEISM, the futue, man made religion under His guidance through scientifiic evoluition after the Bi Bang

«all teaching of evolution must go as there is no proof» First, science doesn't deal in «proof», except mathematics and logic.

You don't have to go very far down that road before you start thinking about creation science or scientific creationism, or get involved in school board squabbles about whether Genesis should be taught alongside of evolution in high school biology courses.

It's not the failure of our school systems to teach science, it's the failure of our parents to embrace it.

DO allow religious schools to opt out of the same national standards and core curriculum that you expect of everyone else, you can't expect us to teach our children science can you?

All these parents who insist on teaching «creationism» to their kids as «science», while downplaying (or completely / hiding denying) the tangible bona fide evidence of evolution... I sometimes have to wonder why they don't simply feed lead paint to their kids and get it over with.

Why not teach evidence - based explanation that is the fundamental basis for all of the biological sciences, especially if we are supposed to be teaching science.

We do not want all the bloodshed, teaching of pseudo science to children, the corruption of children's minds, government subsidies to those who claim to know the unknowable, elected leaders who consult with the supernatural in their decision - making, and the list just goes on and on.

... yeah suzy and others... I just happen to realize that when monkey devolving didn't quite work out on paper it all changed to single cells and from the slime off of the worlds garbage can and so on... I just happen to know more than you think... In another ten or twenty years the science books will all have a new teaching... the Bible has been around and hasn't changed one word in over two thousnad years..

No I do not (and it's a fair point), but I do insult idiots who try to «sell» myth as science — it's truly insulting... and damaging to the youth of this country who are taught this absolute distortion of the truth

Science can teach us about paint, pulverized minerals, color, light, optics, and proportional harmony, but it can not explain the mystery of beauty on the finished canvas — how moral, societal, and transcendent truths can be revealed through the drama and execution of a piece of music or architecture.

This young woman is very confused and seems not to understand what science has taught us about the origins and evolution of life.

Does revelation have anything to teach us about the worth of our natural environment that we can not already find in the resources of science?

They believe that, as a result of the booming economy, a new management science not taught at business schools has arisen over the past decade: «managed mendacity.»

In a footnote to this passage, Pope John Paul referred to Galileo's letter of 1613 to Fr Benedetto Castelli, arguing that the two truths, of faith and of science, can never contradict each other, and to the teaching of Gaudium et Spes 36 which echoed Galileo in teaching that properly conducted research in any field will not be opposed to faith (provided that moral norms are respected) since «the reality of the world and of faith have their origin in the same God».

The Principle teaches that the rise of technology and science is a sign not only of inexorable progress but also of the dawning of the Kingdom.

A century later, we are living in the closing years of a pontificate that has, above all, taught Catholics not to be afraid» afraid of those who hate the Church so that we do not honestly contemplate the failings of our own past; afraid of the progress of science so that we needed to be reminded by the Pope «that faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.»

Descartes did not want to have to appear in front of a Church commission to defend his new science, which might seem suspect or undermining of Church teachings.

Is it possible and after reading about it i kept on thinking «i will sell to my soul for 20 carats get out shut up i will never ever sell my soul to you oh god please help me and this is continuing for a few days i am afraid that i have sold my sold to the devil have i please help and still i think god's way of allowing others to hate him us much worse even you know and can easily think think about much better punishments like rebirth after being punished for all the sins in life and i am feeling put on the sin of those who committed the unforgiviable sin (the early 0th century priests) imagine them burning in hell fire till now for 2000 years hopelessly screaming to god for help i can't belive the mercy of god are they forgiven even though commiting this sin keans going to hell for entinity thank you and congralutions i think the 7 year tribulation periodvis over in 18th century the great commect shooting and in 19th century the sun became dark for a day and moon was not visible on the earth but now satun has the domination over me those who don't belive in jesus crist i used to belive in him but now after knowing a lot in science it is getting harharder to belive in him even though i know that he exsists and i only belived in him not that he died for me in the cross and also not for eternal life and i still sin as much as i used to before but only a little reduced and i didn't accept satan as my master but what can i do because those who knowingly sin a lot and don't belive in jesus christ has to accept satan as their master because he only teaches us that even though he is evil he gives us complete freedom but thr followers of jesus and god only have freedom because they can sin only with in a limit and no more but recive their reward after their life in heaven but the followers of satun have to go to hell butbi don't want to go to hell and be ruled by the cruel tryant but still why didn't god destroy satun long way before and i think it was also Adam and eve's fault also they could have blamed satan and could have also get their punishment reduced but they didn't and today we are seeing the result

He contrasts this 44 percent with the mere 9 percent who believe in a «naturalistic evolutionary process not guided by God,» and goes on to say that «the philosophy [sic] of the 9 percent is now to be taught in the schools as unchallengeable truth» (again, incorrect — science is not presented as unchallengeable truth).

This subsection itself bears comparison with Chapter II of Science and the Modern World; again it is entirely congenial to Whitehead's approach, if indeed it is not his own statement of it, that is reflected in the openings of subsections» (a) Nature of number,»» (b) Fundamental concepts of geometry,» and» (c) Nature of applied mathematics The theme of starting with clear principles in mathematics has run throughout Whitehead's earlier work, particularly his lectures on the teaching of mathematics and his textbook.

The genuine results of the sciences can not, of course, contradict the teachings of Revelation, because truths which ultimately derive from the same fount of all reality and truth can not mutually cancel one another (Denzinger 738, 1634 ff., 1649, 1797 ff., 1947, 2023ff.

It is not possible, according to Catholic teaching, to avoid even the mere possibility of a conflict between sacred theology and science by delimiting beforehand and on principle the domain of reality to which the propositions asserted by each refer, in such a way that even the material object of each set of affirmations would be different from the start and as a consequence no contradiction at all would be possible (Denzinger 2109).

But the Christian scientist as such in his own sphere is bound as a matter of principle and method by the Church's magisterium as the higher and more comprehensive authority, in the sense that even as a scientist he may not affirm as established with certainty by his science something which would involve a definite contradiction of a doctrine taught officially by the Church as certain (Denzinger 1656, 1674 ff., 1681, 2085).

In the most recent form of this debate, the courts have ruled that Creation - Science is not science but the propagation of particular religious beliefs, and as such the mandatory requirement of it being taught in public schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the ConstiScience is not science but the propagation of particular religious beliefs, and as such the mandatory requirement of it being taught in public schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constiscience but the propagation of particular religious beliefs, and as such the mandatory requirement of it being taught in public schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

One important aspect of the Renaissance in Europe was that by freeing their learning from the scholastic system, by taking teaching and learning from the monopoly of the clergy and making it available to other classes, the way was opened to new knowledge and new sciences which secured for Europe progress which the Muslims did not, or would not, recognize.