Sentences with phrase «scientific knowledge does»

Why has Ban Ki - moon not answered the 134 skeptical climate experts who told him in their Nov. 24, 2012 open letter: «current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

I disagree, lack of scientific knowledge does not increase the argument for an intelligent designer, that's a false dichotomy fallacy.

I'm not saying all changes are absolutely necessary nor that there aren't some deceptive practices in book publishing, but scientific knowledge does advance and needs to be reflected in the textbooks.

There was the beginnings of math and there was natural observation but scientific knowledge didn't explode until the scientific method was refined.

Not exact matches

You're talking about the type of «evolution» that we always knew existed and to make matters worse you're bragging about the advancements made by INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS which still don't even come close to the complication of macro evolution but still required thousands of years of scientific advancement and knowledge and a team of researchers with high iq's working aroudn the clock with microscopes.

Dalahäst So, your church is very liberal then, and doesn't teach that the Bible supersedes any scientific knowledge?

And with your knowledge of scientific understanding you should easily know that the «we don't know for sure» position is the one taken by the scientific community regarding the issue.

Regarding our present scientific knowledge regarding the origin of the universe, or if there is an actual origin, the answer is «we don't know».

Until then, I have my First Amendment right to express my knowledge that religious belief does not scientific theory make.

You should be asking why religion uses scientific advances and knowledge all the time (electricity, chemicals, etc) and why science doesn't use any of religion's «advances.»

Like everything else, Jesus (and the bible) did zero to increase scientific knowledge.

«Culture is «a study of perfection» which «moves by the force, not merely or primarily of the scientific passion for public knowledge, but also of the moral and social passion for doing good.»

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.)

Later the idea gained ground that we can not «speak of nature apart from human perception in the historical development of knowledge», that all knowledge is «a creative interaction between the known and the knower» and that therefore there is no System of scientific knowledge or of technology which does not have the subjective purposes and faith - presuppositions of humans built into it.

Do you go to the bible for scientific knowledge?

I do not mean that they had a knowledge of scientific evolution but that they looked upon reality as a process of growth.

@neoritter, How exactly does the scientific method apply to a «spritual» problem or «previous knowledge» for that matter?

As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

Your lack of knowledge of scientific principles doesn't surprise me at all, and helps proves Mr. Nye's point.

Nevertheless, because it was located within an academic department, it did little more than argue with others in that department against dualism and in favor of the relevance of scientific knowledge.

Seriously, we do and will need a good amount of service personnel, so keeping their level of knowledge below the belt of a fine scientific education is okay, too,

you don't think that so called scientific results are skewered... or that the primitive machines that we use to discover our universe are woefully incapable of plumbing the depths of knowledge that an all wise creator has put in place... science is like some guys throwing dice and hoping it comes up sevens on consecutive throws... get over yourself

But yes, some people do share sound scientific knowledge on this blog.

When he explains to them, however, that the story (myth) does affirm belief that God created the «heavens and earth and all that in them is,» but does not require belief that he did it in six twenty - four - hour days, they are set free to correlate their religious beliefs with their scientific knowledge.

Nye — a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, «Bill Nye the Science Guy» — said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and «when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back.»

I don't have to prove scientific mythology because it's what science does, it fills in the gaps of knowledge.

For like Whitehead and Dewey, Kadushin understood that the concept of organic thinking offered an approach to logic and the foundations of knowledge that was an alternative to the perversions of the sort of blind faith in natural science that had come to dominate the intellectual cultures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; an alternative that did not attempt to devalue science or replace it with a nonrational mysticism, but which did attempt to place scientific thought into a broader cultural context in which other forms of cultural expression such as religious and legal reasoning could play important and non-subservient roles.

The magisterium does not judge on the basis of scientific knowledge.

Some abandoned traditional religion altogether, only to find that scientific knowledge of the natural world does not in itself provide answers to the meaning and purpose of life.

Thus man - the - knower apprehends man - qua - lower - than - himself and in doing so achieves knowledge of man - qua - lower - than - man, since all scientific theory is of things lower than man - the - knower.

It may have started out as a way to explain what people did not have the scientific knowledge to explain at one point in our history, but then it was learned by some that religion was useful in controlling the masses and bending them to their will for good or ill.

«Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.

In short, the optimum contribution that can be made by increasing scientific knowledge and technological prowess and by the power of political mechanisms will be forthcoming only when certain prior conditions are presupposed which at the moment do not exist.

In fact, we shall even argue that revelatory knowledge not only does not contradict or interfere with scientific knowledge, but that it actually promotes the autonomous pursuit of science along with other disciplines.

The Old and New Testaments do not contradict any present day scientific knowledge about the universe, proving that scripture did not come from men.

Revelation does not give us information that may be placed side by side with scientific knowledge.

If you really look into the foundations of mathematics, logic, and science, you will find that there are some startling theorems PROVING how formal knowledge is necessarily «incomplete»; this in itself does not «prove» the existence of a God, but it does prove (mathematically) that there are limits to formal and scientific knowledge.

But there are departments of scientific knowledge which do touch what I believe is our crucial problem, the problem of human behavior.

Brad You are sorely misinformed there was NO scientific studies, it is pretty common knowledge if you don't want to look it up you can look at my previous posts.

I do not in the least mean that we should disregard scientific knowledge or that we should somehow restrict or distrust it, but simply that we should realize our own inherent limitations.

Perhaps evidence more compelling than what I've read does exist... but regardless, we still have firm evidence, based on all prior scientific knowledge... that whatever the truth is, about «creation» and everything else... is it is all logical, following natural law, even if its natural law we don't yet know.

And, really, they don't all oppose scientific knowledge.

Nye - a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, «Bill Nye the Science Guy» - said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and «when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back.»

Although Bergson does call scientific knowledge «relative» and philosophical knowledge «absolute,» it will be my contention that it is fundamentally wrong to interpret this distinction in the Kantian spirit.

Here, if you like, is a man who, over a long period of time, has followed a certain scientific method and laboriously gained his results, who says to us: «Experience, with the help of reasoning, leads to this point; scientific knowledge begins here and ends there; such are my conclusions»; and the philosopher would have the right to answer: «Very well, leave it to me, and I'll show you what I can do with it!

I think I was put on this earth to make the world a better place — or help people to get more out of life — in a way that doesn't require any scientific knowledge.

The difference from where we were before and where we are today as a result of this relationship between FIAL, ourselves, and CSIRO, is the fact that we did not have to invest in scientific capabilities that would take a number of years to materialise and to bear fruit, and we had immediate access to an existing knowledge base that was at arm's reach for us.

This might help background knowledge, but it does not help scientific thinking.

Some barriers include the negative attitudes of women and their partners and family members, as well as health care professionals, toward breastfeeding, whereas the main reasons that women do not start or give up breastfeeding are reported to be poor family and social support, perceived milk insufficiency, breast problems, maternal or infant illness, and return to outside employment.2 Several strategies have been used to promote breastfeeding, such as setting standards for maternity services3, 4 (eg, the joint World Health Organization — United Nations Children's Fund [WHO - UNICEF] Baby Friendly Initiative), public education through media campaigns, and health professionals and peer - led initiatives to support individual mothers.5 — 9 Support from the infant's father through active participation in the breastfeeding decision, together with a positive attitude and knowledge about the benefits of breastfeeding, has been shown to have a strong influence on the initiation and duration of breastfeeding in observational studies, 2,10 but scientific evidence is not available as to whether training fathers to manage the most common lactation difficulties can enhance breastfeeding rates.

The multi-society letter called on the OMB to work with leaders of government agencies to back the use of the best scientific evidence in their decision - making and to see that federal agencies support scientists doing the work required to «produce the knowledge upon which the nation relies.»