Sentences with phrase «of everything in science»

«If intelligent design is injected into the classroom by political means, it will be the first step towards a complete politicization of everything in science,» says Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God, who testified for the Dover plaintiffs.

Not exact matches

In Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything, journalist Joshua Foer recounts the history of humanity's understanding of memory and the techniques devised to augment it.

In reality, earth science goes far beyond direct climate change research — and includes everything from the health of oceans to the threat of devastating solar storms in the upper atmospherIn reality, earth science goes far beyond direct climate change research — and includes everything from the health of oceans to the threat of devastating solar storms in the upper atmospherin the upper atmosphere.

Modern science is the cornerstone of your belief system, as ancient writings that I consider to be God given, holy inspired and very relevant to modern times (as well as every society that ever was and will be) is the cornerstone of my belief system, because everything about this book has been accurate in every way, unlike modern science.

Mr. Hawking wins easy battles against uneducated (in science) religious persons, but taking his statement on perspective, He is based on assumptions with serious underlying problems, basically everything from mathematics, to the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, and the lack of proof and evidence for string theories, he is launching a very aggressive statement, probably his last effort on life to counter the anthropomorphic ideas of God, and this is very common in all scientists.

``... as ancient writings that I consider to be God given, holy inspired and very relevant to modern times (as well as every society that ever was and will be) is the cornerstone of my belief system, because everything about this book has been accurate in every way, unlike modern science.»

Atheists: I know many there are many people that practice religion just by fanaticism, I've seen many people in my opinion stupid (excuse the word) praying to saints hopping to solve their problems by repeating pre-made sentences over and over, but there are others different, I don't think Religion and Science need to be opposites, I believe in God, I'm Catholic and I have many reasons to believe in him, I don't think however that we should pray instead of looking for the cause and applying a solution, Atheists think they are smart because they focus on Science and technology instead of putting their faith in a God, I don't think God will solve our problems, i think he gave us the means to solve them by ourselves that's were God is, also I think that God created everything but not as a Magical thing but stablishing certain rules like Physics and Quimics etc. he's not an idiot and he knew how to make it so everything was on balance, he's the Scientist of Scientist the Mathematic of Mathematics, the Physician of Physicians, from the tiny little fact that a mosquito, an insect species needs to feed from blood from a completely different species, who created the mosquitos that way?

Atheist align with science, which can not YET explain everything in the universe, but a great deal of it.

@Graham Moore, Sorry, but in addition to everything the science has learned you also add a infinitely complex being that exists outside of known reality.

Just as God in the mind of some, can't be proven to have created everything, (unless you are willing to take in account what was written in the bible) neither has evolution been proven by science.

One of the most exciting releases of 2008, Dear Science, finds one of the most creative acts in music continuing their remarkable process of trying everything and succeeding brilliantly.

the audacity of pride and science to be able to explain everything in the known (and apparently unknown) universe.

God created science - along with everything else in our plane of existence.

I believe in science and as the humans evolve there are more answers to the origin of everything.

There was, indeed, a sense that the natural sciences were completing their task of explaining everything in terms of their model.

If it is true that the creator constantly supports, preserves, and renews His world, if everything new that appears in the world has come and continuously comes from His plan for creation and from His creative power, then in some way it has to come into contact with the reality that forms the object of the sciences.»

When political science students were challenged about being Republicans, they were not thereby disenfranchised from voting; when economics students were challenged on the merits of capitalism, they were not thereby excluded from purchasing notebooks, But when students were told that everything they had learned about their religion before entering this class was wrong, did we know — or care — if their capacity to function religiously in a mature fashion was diminished?

This in turn creates a lifestyle of simply not thinking, not only about religion, but about everything that's around them: including differing viewpoints and so frequently, science.

Rather the «science» we often count on in everything supports the reality of a Creator.

Rather than understand science you choose to believe that a magical man in the sky is in control of everything.

actually there is no free will, because we humans is part of god, our conciousness is his.therefore everything we do has a purpose only beyond our immediate comprehension or understanding.the problem lies in our concept or belief of the absoluteness of the philosophy of science, which by itself is part of gods evolutionary process, atheists has this mentality, but since they are part of the process so its gods will through us.

In the meantime, until Science explains where everything came from, it is clueless, and believers can not be expected to prove the existence of God empirically!

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.

In His way, not the way of the internet atheists who imagine science is on their side and proves everything they need to know.

How would a person living in a desert know these things without actually someone telling him this?!!! And who is that someone?!!! No one at that time knew anything about big bang theory?!! The actual translation of the arabic word رتقا is it was like a fabric that got torn apart?!!! Isn't that big bang?!! And the other part that was proven too is that everything alive needs water to live?!!! How did they know that then?!!! Islam and science support each other and science only getting to prove things now which was mentioned 1500 years ago in the Quran!!!

[14] In man we find the end - point of this ascent of being, an ascent which suffused all the individual laws of the sciences into one Unity - Law of everything; the end - point in man was mathematically determined in this one equation of beinIn man we find the end - point of this ascent of being, an ascent which suffused all the individual laws of the sciences into one Unity - Law of everything; the end - point in man was mathematically determined in this one equation of beinin man was mathematically determined in this one equation of beinin this one equation of being.

I appreciate that St Thomas didn't get everything right - no mere human being ever could; I also agree that a theological synthesis in the light of modern science is desirable.

Christianity, and in fact any religion that believes in a personal god / creator, has two fundamental flaws that have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with logic, which incidentally forms the foundation for the only universal / objective truths of reality (putting aside the Cartesian dualism problem).

Science and metaphysics too, providing the latter is viewed as a natural mode of cognition and is not unconsciously supplemented by theological knowledge about God's saving action in the history of redemption, can each from their own angle quite well think of God as the transcendent ground of all reality, of its existence and of its becoming, as the primordial reality comprising everything, supporting everything, but precisely for that reason can not regard him as a partial factor and component in the reality with which we are confronted, nor as a member of its causal series.

The task of science was to explain everything in terms of the motions of these atoms.

Multiverse theory (now quite mainstream science) challenges the idea that the Big Bang was in fact the beginning of everything; then again, thermodynamics and the Borde - Vilenkin - Guth theorem suggest that there must have been some beginning of everything only a finite time ago.

Traditions of every kind, hoarded and manifested in gesture and language, in schools, libraries, museums, bodies of law and religion, philosophy and science — everything that accumulates, arranges itself, recurs and adds to itself, becoming the collective memory of the human race — all this we may see as no more than an outer garment, an epiphenomenon precariously superimposed upon all the other edifices of Nature (the only truly organic ones, as it may appear): but it is precisely this optical illusion which we have to overcome if our realism is to reach to the heart of the matter.

A pernicious feature of Christian discourse in our day is its tentativeness, the corrosive assumption that everything we teach and practice is to be subject to correction by appeals to putative evidence, whether from science, history, or the religious experience of others.

In a universe where science ends by analyzing everything and taking everything apart, it simply expresses a particular characteristic applicable to every kind of body, like its mass, volume or any other dimension.

Modern science, in the form of quantum theory, has shown us that nearly everything about our universe's reality is illusion.

They do not know that at this very moment scientific thinkers have abandoned that older mechanical picture of nature and have come to see, even to insist, that science does not exhaustively describe the whole range of experience nor everything in the world of nature.

Satan attacks me in my thoughts day and night and he makesit so i can barely eat i pray to the lord and he consoles me god is REAL i used to e a drug dealer the most violent and disruptive of men and one night i came under attack from satan and felt like satan was makeing me into someone im not putting thoughts in my head of death suicide and sexual immorality then i read the wqordof god and everything felt better when i read the Book «The Advocate» spiritual warfare is real and god can save you from satans tourment do nt let Satan claim the rights to your soul i had trouble believing in god for years my mind worked in science and fact but the fact is that God is real and living and when you leave this earth you Will face Judgement

According to Dennett, these Martian anthropologists would then discover that human behavior in fact displays no such intersubjectivity of its own either: Everything the Martians see in the way humans act can be explained by the standard norms of their science, and since they are missing that extra mental stuff, why assume humans have it either?

jarhead333 I don't like all of his opinions, but the science in every Dawkins book I've ever read checked out, and 10 years ago when I first became skeptical I checked EVERYTHING with a fine - toothed comb.

Finally, note that Whitehead's three major metaphysical books — Science and the Modern World, Process and Reality, and Adventures of Ideas — do not, even when taken together, succeed in communicating everything that Whitehead was trying to convey in his Harvard lectures.

Modern science: Looks like the beginning of our universe was a huge explosion where everything came from a single point in space time.

Vico's fantasia abhors partial vision, and the great mathematician and astronomer Henri Poincare is on his side when he observes in his Last Essays that in questions of ethics science alone can not suffice because it «can see only one part of man, or, if you prefer, it sees everything but it sees everything from the same angle.»

WORLD: Sorry once again, but science does not know everything or the quantum part would be figured out in finite terms rather than probabilities that's sound like we spent millions of dollars to get answers like «but teacher I was almost right, let me try some more»... and pre-big bang theories would be figured out and not quite as fantastical and humorous as they sound to average person.

And further, the so - called laws of science are at best nothing but a statement of the observed general sequences of behavior in those areas of the Creation with which they are concerned; they are, so to say, «statistical averages,» and they do not cover everything.

When those using science to understand the universe sketch an outline of the history of everything, it is not a guess; it is based in empirical evidence.

It must also be the expectation of Science, for everything in the universe is held within the Unity - Law of Control and Direction... The being of man comes just as rigidly under the Law of relativity unto finality, but man is not relative only to matter, man is relative to God.

In the world of Science, what would be the point of research, if there would be no possibilty of definition — if everything was known — if there was no way to know --

Enough of this bullsh!t where you want to criticize everything except your religion and then go take advantage of all the breakthroughs in medical science and technology..

Science does not explain everything yet — so a smart man would not make statements in absolutes when the shining principle of his logic requires the measurement of absolutes, facts, and figures that are yet far from complete.

The question was «science can explain» not «science can explain everything» 1) We will never know the position of every bit of matter so knowing everything is not possible — the current theories match observations well enough for the answer to be yes 2) Again knowing everything about every individual step in the creation of life is not possible but current theories match... 3) here do know pretty much everything.