Sentences with phrase «of accepting evolution»

Not exact matches

That to fight against one while accepting the other would stymie the technological evolution of the ecosystem.

And I do agree that evolution is (and should be) accepted fact, to the best of our current knowledge (even our state of knowledge evolves!).

Most creationists refuse to accept any form of evolution, even the possibility that evolution happened according to God's plan.

But your example of them saying the earth is 6000 years old but looks 3.5 billion is different from the Catholics accepting evolution.

But even if we were to accept the proposition of «guided» evolution, we're left with the question of who designed the designer which only leads to arguments of special pleading... I.e. a dead end.

Real scientists who work in the field of immunology accept evolution as a fact.

The theory of evolution is also embraced by many who claim to accept the Bible as the word of God.

There are even studies with pre-verbal children (haven't been socialized to religion yet) and other but non-human social animals that show that morality, if you accept that a sense of fairness and preferring «nice» over the opposite are proto - morals, then indeed it is evolution that makes it so.

That is why some people of religious faith do not accept the theory of evolution.

For example, I accept evolution as the best explanation of how we got here.

Some religions accept evolution as true and assume that god left it to run it course, with some» direction» of course.

When the nation of Cyprus has a higher percentage of people who can accept evolution, you as a nation have a problem.

DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation «your mind is too small to understand the greatness of science» or «evolution moves in mysterious ways» when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief.

It is one thing to accept Evolution, with its overwhelming evidence, as proof of God's work.

The rest of Nye's argument that believers in creation need to accept evolution because everyone else supposedly does is ludicrous.

The Science behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

You do of course realize that it is reasonable to believe in God and accept the big bang theory, evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth?

But the important part is obvious and you might gain something by accepting the challenge presented: get someone here to support your view of evolution... if you can...

The theory ABOUT evolution most widely accepted is an updating of Charles Darwin's hypothesis that all of today's species descended from common ancestors due to natural selection based on best current fitness for constantly changing environmental circmmstances.

Love your neighbor... unless he is gay or secular or Muslim or lesbian or Hindu or atheist or Wiccan or Mormon or accepts the truth of evolution or accepts the findings of science or questions the assertians of Christianity or, uh, well, the list is just too long.

Presumably you accept that DNA testing can identify an individual and their family tree — just one of the many proofs that evolution is a fact.

I do agree that all members of the Senate and House committees on Science should be asked whether they accept the big bang theory, evolution and a 4.5 billion year - old earth — or be disqualified.

In the case of evolution, I accept it entirely due to the rational experiments that have failed to disprove.

Today, the religions of Christendom display a similar disrespect for the truth of the Bible, by giving preference to scientific theories, such as the Catholic church accepting evolution.

chance, Evolution is universally accepted — there is a mountain of proof for it: DNA, geographical distribution, tree of life, more complex organisms are more recent, etc..

The church USED to shun evolution, however, these are all things now accepted in most churches --(among many other transitions that I haven't named here) because to refuse to adapt to a changing society is asinine and detrimental to the growth of the church.

They accept the either / or of evolution and creation, and they not only accept but insist on the thesis that evolutionary teaching logically and necessarily leads to naturalism, materialism, reductionism, positivism, secularism, atheism and humanism.

Evolution and Creation Dear Fr Editor, Evangelical Creationists, I believe, can not accept the theory of evolution because it appears to conflict with GEvolution and Creation Dear Fr Editor, Evangelical Creationists, I believe, can not accept the theory of evolution because it appears to conflict with Gevolution because it appears to conflict with Genesis 1.

I also hear from a lot of evangelicals who have begun attending Mainline Protestant churches precisely because they welcome LGBT people, accept scientific findings regarding climate change and evolution, practice traditional worship, preach from the lectionary, affirm women in ministry, etc., but these new attendees never hear the leadership of the church explain why this is the case.

«If you accept evolution, even a well - meaning, theistic evolution, this will eventually become pantheistic evolution, which in turn will become atheistic evolution» — as if this were a series of logical steps to inevitable conclusions.

You continually dodge the fact that your quotes are out of context, that you jump to invalid conclusions, and that the scientific community accept, no embrace, evolution as fact.

Pew reports that «in their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life and less prone to see Hollywood as threatening their moral values.

Unfortunately, a lot of young evangelicals grew up with the assumption that Christianity and evolution can not mix, that we have to choose between our faith in Jesus and accepted science.

My critique will be from within the context of evolution and dialectic, which both the Marxists and I accept.

Over eighty percent of the population accept evolution.

As for me, I think I was thinking of 98 % because that is the figure for the number of professional scientists that accept evolution.

Now, the secularists, naturalistic evolutionists and Marxists do accept the evolution of reason, but I am afraid they do not know how to look for the right phenomenon which points to the direction reason is being transformed.

We concede that not all who doubt the existence of a personal God do so because they accept the theory of evolution, whether the word be restricted to biology or enlarged to its cosmic significance, but we do say, and from experience know, that most modern agnosticism is bound up with those non-theistic philosophies of evolution that stream off from Hegel as their modern fountain - head.

It suggests that Professor Ayala accepts the idea of evolution by natural chance.

None of that belief was ever predicated on a specific interpretation of Genesis with respect to scientific details, and as such, accepting evolution as a mechanism by which God creates did not alter those beliefs.

The ideas of evolution and historical development in the distant past were barely accepted, before the current process of cultural and religious change gained momentum.

If the traditional formulations of God show him to be the Perfect Good, Absolute Truth and Supreme Being, since goodness, truth and being are positive values, then there should not be too great a difficulty in accepting a formulation of God's eternity as Absolute or Perfect Time, since time is now revealed to us as positive, thanks to the discovery of evolution.

The main problem I've seen with people accepting evolution (aside from plain old religious grounds) is a lack of concept of the vast amounts of time over which these things happened.

Now those who accept the evolutionary perspective are generally agreed that the universe is one single process and that there are stages in the process: the evolution of matter, next the emergence of the first unicellular organisms, then a process of further evolution of life toward vegetative and animal life, and from this latter phase emerged man.

If the early church could hold together communities made up of Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, men and women, circumcised and uncircumcised, tax collectors and zealots, prostitutes and Pharisees, kosher believers and non-kosher believers, those who ate food sacrificed to idols and those who refused, I guess this evolution - accepting, hell - questioning, liberal - leaning feminist can worship Jesus alongside a Tea Party complementarian who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and that Ghandi and Anne Frank are in hell.

science is not everything, the problem is when the critical and objective philosophy of science is accepted as absolute in reality.God is beyond logic at this point of our consciousness, The process of gods will manfistation is evolution which accepts all variables in the process, the input could be not what scienctists wants.Thats why faith or religion is part of reality.

If you've already read The Language of God, consider checking out A Fine - Tuned Universe by Alister McGrath, Coming to Peace With Science by Darrel Falk, Saving Darwin by Karl Giberson, or I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution by Denis Lamoureux.

You likely deny evolution and global warming for no other reason than it makes you uncomfortable and hold science to the impossibly high standard of having to explain every conceivable mystery about the natural World before you will accept it, but some moron at a pulpit doing magic hand signals of a Sundaymorning is enough to convince you he is communicating with some sky - god and turning grocery store bread and wine into flesh and blood.

Your formula is meant to be simplistic and «powerful», but your understanding of really large numbers is what is actually what is holding you back from accepting evolution as being true.

To put it simply, the concept of gods bares no merit at this current stage in the evolution of the human species and it would be a betterment to the species to have the concept removed from accepted delusional realities so prevalent in todays society.