Sentences with phrase «of modern humans as»

The authors pinpointed the slender population size of the Neanderthals mixing with a huge group of modern humans as the likely factor behind the gene erosion.

Now, evolutionary geneticists have shown that our ancestors lost much of their genetic diversity in two dramatic bottlenecks that sharply squeezed down the population of modern humans as they moved out of Africa between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago.

Not exact matches

Paleoanthropologists have disproven the basic premise that the modern human digestive system is the same as that of early humans, but research also suggests that a diet of unprocessed, hormone - free meat sources coupled with fresh fruits and vegetables has clear benefits.

Of the people identified as victims of modern slavery in Britain last year, 139 were Polish nationals brought over for labor exploitation with West Midlands Police currently investigating 70 claims of human trafficking from PolanOf the people identified as victims of modern slavery in Britain last year, 139 were Polish nationals brought over for labor exploitation with West Midlands Police currently investigating 70 claims of human trafficking from Polanof modern slavery in Britain last year, 139 were Polish nationals brought over for labor exploitation with West Midlands Police currently investigating 70 claims of human trafficking from Polanof human trafficking from Poland.

I agree with your post, Mr. Stephens — insofar as I believe that a cobbled - together patchwork of Bronze Age myths that sanction slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, and child murder should not be arbitrarily invoked as the sole determinate for notions of morality in the modern world.

Ancient religions should welcome the political achievements of modernity while calling modernity to open its windows and doors to a world of transcendent truth and love: ``... the great achievements of the modern age» the recognition and guarantee of freedom of conscience, of human rights, of the freedom of science and hence of a free society» should be confirmed and developed while keeping reason and freedom open to their transcendent foundation, so as to ensure that these achievements are not undone....

It does not describe said individuals and their posterity, ancient or modern, as of less worth, or value as human beings than any other group.

Richard G. Klein, Nicholas Wade and Spencer Wells, among others, have postulated that modern humans did not leave Africa and successfully colonize the rest of the world until as recently as 60,000 — 50,000 years B.P., pushing back the dates for subsequent population splits as well.

One understanding of human nature common to the modern era sees man as standing both above and outside nature (after Descartes, as a sort disembodied rational being), and nature itself as raw material — sometimes more pliable, sometimes less — for furthering human ambition (an instrumentalist post — Francis Bacon view of nature as a reality not simply to be understood but to be «conquered» and used to satisfy human desires).

Indeed, one could argue, following the historian Christopher Shannon, that the agenda of modern cultural criticism, relentlessly intent as it has been upon «the destabilization of received social meanings,» has served only to further the social trends it deplores, including the reduction of an ever - widening range of human activities and relations to the status of commodities and instruments, rather than ends in themselves.

While a definition of faith as subjectivity — i.e., authentic human existence culminates in faith — could be real in Kierkegaard's time, it can no longer be so at a time when the death of God has become so fully incarnate in the modern consciousness.

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

I see humans read the Bible as if it were written originally by modern day americans using modern day English... one has to remember that the Bible was written from a Jewish culture of 2000 plus years ago..

The real content of many so - called modern difficulties are as old as the eternal hills, as old as human pride, as hoary as the «non serviam» which was uttered by the first man and has been re-echoed since down the centuries.

(R. M. MacIver: The Modern State, pp. 103 - 104) It was the glory of Roman jurists in the early centuries A.D. that they first conceived the jus gentium, the natural law of all peoples, as incorporating the duties and rights which belonged to human beings everywhere.

Just as Karol Wojtyla undertook a phenomenologically saturated analysis of modern human experience, so must we try to dig deep for an understanding of what is happening under the surface of the events of our own time.

Jesus expresses no conception of a human ideal, no thought of a development of human capacities, no idea of something valuable in man as such, no conception of the spirit in the modern sense.

Heidegger's presentation of the possibilities of human existence suggests that they are applicable to man as such, and not, say, only to modern European man.

Vatican II's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World explicitly disapproved of mutilation and torture as offensive to human dignity.

If you hold that no human death came before sinfulness, then it depends on what you call human (there is a gradation of forms leading up to the modern human skeleton in the fossil record, as well as the overwhelming genetic evidence that we arose through an evolutionary process) and what you consider sin (i.e. when did we become accountable to God for our actions?).

The problem may not be with rights per se, whose articulation is invaluable to our conception of modern republicanism (and may even help more fully articulate what is true about Christian morality), but with an interpretation that takes rights as the whole of moral discourse and therefore, understands the abstract Lockean individual to be a comprehensive account of the human person.

Still, such theorists also continue, as did Kant himself, the modern natural law tradition, at least in the following way: The duties prescribed by nonteleological liberalism are defined in terms of rights that are prior to any inclusive good; that is, these rights are separated from, and respect for them overrides, any inclusive telos humans might pursue.

Although fully familiar with the enormous power of modern science, medicine and technology, he held high Christian love as the answer to human needs in the broadest sense: «If you have Christian love,» he declared to a stunned audience, «you have motive for existence, a guide for action, a reason for courage, an imperative necessity for intellectual honesty.»

The comprehensive purpose exiled from modern moral and political thought is reasserted as the purpose of human rights.

Jenkins, on the other hand, describes appreciatively theological schools, from the Orthodox doctrine of theosis to Teilhard de Chardin to the modern «creation spirituality» movement, which one way or another allow humans to share with God in the evolution of the world to a glorious transformation ¯ although, as Jenkins points out, there's a danger that that could veer off into anthropocentric management.

«Scattered throughout these essays are self - affixed labels such as «we anti-representationists,» «we Western liberal intellectuals,» «we partisans of solidarity,» «we pragmatists,» «we new fuzzies,» «us shepherds of Being,» «we enlightened post-Kuhnians,» «we anti-essentialists,» «we moderns,» «we humans,» «we bourgeois liberals,» «we Deweyans,» «we pragmatic Wittgensteinean therapists.»

Modern understanding of human behavior and sociology recognizes morality as an emergent phenomenon.

Political Theology and Ethics (Fortress, 1984), and Walter Harrelson, who in The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (Fortress, 1980) embraced the Universal Declaration as a modern statement of biblical values.

The particularity of the American regime is counterpoised by its foundation in universal human rights, the modern articulation of our equality as beings created in the image of God.

Just as ridiculous is the post modern response of «they cant change» - which if true would mean that any addiction or sin would be unchangeable despite the facts humans change all the time and I am NOT speaking of through Christ.

The failures and vast human costs of modern «salvation myths» are now well known, as is the capacity of democratic capitalism to raise up the poor, protect human rights, and allow for unprecedented freedom of thought and action.

One might say that just as nuclear war has made of the whole planet a potential battlefield, thus raising new questions about war itself, so, too, has modern advertising made of the whole planet an actual constant marketplace, thus provoking radical changes in the practice and theory of human intercourse.

I don't consider myself «postmodern» or «emerging» but most of the postmodern / emerging philosophy and theology I have read is a reaction against a modern philosophy and theology which overemphasized «the many» (the human ability to figure things out on our own), and as a result, is not too humanistic, but is almost excessively spiritual.

Better than any other conservative theorist, Tocqueville appreciated both the comparative justice of modern democracy as well as the threat it poses to the higher excellences of human nature.

The first effect of the modern view of history and human existence upon New Testament study was, as we have seen, to focus attention upon the kerygma as the New Testament statement of Jesus» history and selfhood.

This situation is nowhere more clearly described in modern literature than in the novels of Franz Kafka: «His unexpressed, ever - present theme,» writes Buber, «is the remoteness of the judge, the remoteness of the lord of the castle, the hiddenness, the eclipse...» Kafka describes the human world as given over to the meaningless government of a slovenly bureaucracy without possibility of appeal: «From the hopelessly strange Being who gave this world into their impure hands, no message of comfort or promise penetrates to us.

Buber has demanded, as no other modern thinker, the hallowing of the everyday — the redemption of evil through the creation of human community in relation with God.

In our generation there is danger and hope — danger that these noncognitive accouterments will lose their aesthetic harmony and hypnotic power when integrated with the basic prehensions of science, and be reverted into impotent and empty symbols, jarring, ugly, and without force in final satisfactions: hope that the power of Jesus as lure will reassert itself in an aesthetic context devoid of supernaturalism, a context such that (the language now picks up echoes of van Buren) the vision of Jesus, the free man, free from authority, free from fear, «free to give himself to others, whoever they were «1 — such that this vision in its earthly, human purity will lure our aims to a harmonious concrescence, integrating scientific insight and moral vision and producing a modern, intensely fulfilling human satisfaction.

Fundamentalism rejects the human freedoms which have opened up in the aftermath of the western Enlightenment, and is committed to combat secular humanism and all other aspects of the modern world which it regards as injurious to the spiritual condition of humankind.

To him, this Kingdom was not located in another place called heaven or in a future millennium, but could best be described in modern terms as a level of consciousness in which one recognized the immanence of God in human life and the interconnected, interacting, interdependent nature of the entire human species.

The default options of modern anthropocentrism are to interpret human moral experience as the constructions either of the self or society.

Ancient literature, like modern fairy tales, is full of narratives in which gods and other supernatural beings disguise themselves as human beings, sometimes as the lowest of the low, and roam throughout the world to see how people will treat them.

If «nature» is taken as the modern word for creation, then human beings are part of nature, not outside it.

Darwin's theory of evolution, as understood by most of the modern scientific community, has nothing to say about the «gap» between humans and «lower» animals, because no such gap is recognized.

The problem with the original post is that it drips with all the uncertainty of modern textual criticism without any expressed regard for the active work of the Holy Spirit in the preservation and transmission of God's Word, nor His role as teacher and enlightener of the scriptures to the human heart.

The Confession of Christ as the meaning of the upthrust of human history and the crown of its scientific and cultural progress is contradicted by the modern division of history into Ancient, Medieval, and Modern pemodern division of history into Ancient, Medieval, and Modern peModern periods.

Gaudium et Spes chose to confront modern - day atheism by referring to Christ, not only as the centre, but as the fulfilment of what it means to be human.

Indeed, most cultures in human history have generated no such marvel as the modern scientific movement, and even in our own culture, scientifically oriented as it is supposed to be, most people accept the benefits of technology and use the vocabulary of science but do not in fact choose to abide by the disciplines that alone make scientific productivity possible.

Modern scientific disciplines such as biology, psychology and medical science have started to study the effects of empathy on the human mind and body, on our health and relationships.

Lewontin thus saw creationism as falsified not so much by any discoveries of modern science as by universal human experience, a thesis that does little to explain either why so absurd a notion has attracted so many adherents or why we should expect it to lose ground in the near future.