Sentences with phrase «rather than evolution»

It is an invention rather than a evolution: a hybrid portable console that people will be able to play on their TV before packing the system's tablet - like extra screen into a bag to continue playing on the bus.

As might be expected, it is an extension rather than an evolution of the franchise, with the narrative once more left lightweight to keep the focus on collecting and battling.

Of course, Windows 7 needs this extra power, being a «full» OS rather than an evolution of a simpler smartphone OS like Android Honeycomb.

As with the platform, the exterior design is definitely a revolution rather than an evolution.

Rather than an evolution, this film feels like a case of same old, same old — just yet another movie about repressed mutants.

A site devoted to scientific arguments to support intelligent design or Creation, rather than evolution

He spent time in exploration and mining industries before becoming involved with organizations that espouse creationism, rather than evolution.

The phenomenon shows fluctuations of populations rather than evolution, and even creationists have pointed this out (Kofahl and Segraves, The Creation Explanation, 1975).

Not exact matches

«It's organized crime so you're dealing with evolution, most of the time, rather than revolution,» says Somerville.

Serbinis considers his company's progress so far to be a natural evolution, rather than the proverbial «pivot.»

Because of the rapid evolution of legislation, I strongly suggest you seek the proper legal advice, rather than using a pre-made template that is readily found on the Internet or in books.

But rather than incentivize teaching innovation that would allow science educators to discuss religion and ethics --- for example, creationism in light of evolution and vice versa, or the scientific and ethical implications of stem cells and in vitro fertilization — many teachers are afraid to even mention these issues, despite their importance, for fear of losing their jobs.

I would claim my brain is the product of millions of years of evolution and natural selection rather than «came from nothing.»

Through human aided evolution (where we choose the mates, rather than the animal choose its mate).

Some Christians would rather avoid a science major than have to take a course (or a section of a course) studying evolution.

he has a very detailed chapter on your worm... I think if you read real science text books on evolution you will get the facts rather than just a rebuttal based on biblical stories.

There are various theories that have been postulated, such as evolution (whereby there is no unanimity even among evolutionist and is often stated as a fact rather than a speculative theory).

Rather than carefully distinguishing between evolution and evolutionism, and between science and scientism, the creationists concede everything from the start.

George just posted a very interesting (personal) appraisal o the evolution of young evangelicals, and rather than try to appreciate his view point, some are downright nasty — just because he mentions God and Jesus and Christianity in his essay.

I have much more respect for someone who owns up to that rather than trying to convince me and everyone else that there is evidence for creation, geologic evidence of a worldwide flood, scientists are part of a conspiracy, evolution is a faith etc. etc. etc..

The theory of evolution does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Rather than attacking with your talking points, fed to you by people adamantly opposed to evolution, why don't you sit down with a book by an expert who LIKES evolution and read their perspective?

Idiots like you really should have had evolution explained to them in clear and simple terms as children, rather than a bunch of nonsense.

Creationism will be taught in public school, most likely alongside evolution rather than instead of, but no guarantees.

His idea of a «new synthesis», proposed mainly in his book Catholicism: A New Synthesis and developed in his many theological and philosophical essays, was an attempt to grapple precisely with the issues we have spoken of: the post-Cartesian «turn to the subject» (that is: the loss of faith in the objectivity of knowledge and the subsequent exclusive concern of philosophy with the self and the subjective idea as the norm of «truth») and the philosophy of evolution with its implications for a dynamic rather than a static universe.

This effectiveness has been achieved chiefly through the growth of intelligence, and is most clearly manifest in the decisive change that has taken place in the method of evolution, which in man proceeds through reflective deliberation rather than through the unconscious processes of natural selection that prevailed in the pre-human era.

The «overwhelming evidence for naturalistic evolution» no longer overwhelms when the naturalistic worldview is itself called into question, and that worldview is as problematical as any other set of metaphysical assumptions when it is placed on the table for examination rather than being taken for granted as «the way we think today.»

If this was a product of a designer building all birds in a day rather than a product of evolution over the course of millions of years, why would they have those internal nasal structures with no external outlet for them?

Philosophy, rather than science, is the final battleground in the evolution debate, at least insofar as that debate becomes a struggle between naturalism and supernaturalism to have the final say on man's status.

Peirce seems to believe this, too, since he views agape as spreading among the creatures who participate in creative evolution, and he speaks of the genius as one who acts agapastically as an individual rather than as a community.

The notion of evolution harbors an ambiguity which moderns have finessed rather than faced.

In our view the evidence currently known points to a «both / and» situation (creation and evolution) rather than «either / or»: there was an initial creation, followed by a vast amount of evolution, geological and biological.»

these are creates that adapted to zero light, its like a blind man who develops very good hearing senses after being blind for so long, so there are so many examples of evolution all around us but everyone rather believe something very simple like oh yea god created all, rather than explain step by step how things came to be....

Science has also proven that, rather than being «created» fully - formed, humans are the product of an ongoing process of evolution that took place over millions of years.

Bergson is cited several times in a sympathetic but nonessential fashion, in connection with such concepts as «intuition, «canalization,» and «spatialization,» all of which refer to the characteristics of thought and experience, rather than to evolution or to Bergson's wider evolutionary cosmology.

6 While some variation of the «vitalist» hypothesis appears necessary in historical perspective, the recent findings of Nobel - laureate chemist Ilya Prigogine regarding the tendency toward self - organization and greater complexity in dissipative chemical structures shows that the evolution of complexity is itself compatible with, rather than contrary to the general physical principles of thermodynamics.

I assume you have inaccurately applied biological evolution into your world view that morality has evolved as a means of survival rather than being set by God.

For instance, Habermas pays more explicit attention to economic development and to the state, credits the social sciences with a more prominent role in cultural evolution, and stresses secular procedures as elements of legitimation rather than emphasizing sacred or religious values.

@Brian, Science has been victorious in the sense that all the evidence supports evolution rather than a 7 day creation story.

What I am calling the evolutionary model works best if we think of the evolution of the eco-system rather than of the evolutionary emergence of a new species.

The biology teacher, Scopes, whose trial for teaching evolution played so dramatic a role, was an active Methodist supported by fellow church members rather than an anti-Christian scientist.

If you are going to cling to evolution, you should look at it closely firsthand rather than just accepting what you are told.

Most biologists agree that convergence is a common occurrence; but Conway Morris goes further, believing that evolution converges on the best possible solution, rather than on the best random solution.

Christians must come to welcome - rather than fear - the ideas of evolution.

For instance, one admits that in much of evolution (probably all above the bacteria), evolutionary changes involve enormous numbers of genes, rather than a selection of one or two particular genes (although that occurs in a few instances, possibly, for instance, in industrial melanism).

Christians to deny evolution by natural selection, or to assert against all evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old rather than four and a half billion years, I can not imagine anyone being counted among the goats at the Last Judgment because when faced with what they sincerely believed to be a choice between God and Darwin, they chose God.

If one approaches the problems of evolution with a similar readiness to accept that the process may essentially involve very numerous components, one again comes out with a set of questions which are characteristically Whiteheadian rather than present - day orthodox.

Bryan shrewdly described evolution as a hypothesis — «millions of guesses strung together» — rather than proven theory.

I'd been convinced that young earth creationism (absent of any evolution at all) was a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith and the only truly biblical position... so rather than simply questioning my approach to science, I questioned my entire faith in God.

Contrary to the theory of evolution, the Bible teaches that God separately created distinct kinds of organisms, and that the similarities between these organisms point to a common Creator rather than a common origin.