Sentences with phrase «so much scientific»

If, as D. C. Phillips has put it, constructivism is not so much a scientific theory as a «secular religion,» then critical pedagogy is an especially militant sect.

There is so much scientific evidence about our brain chemistry.

«There are few representatives of these early branches in vertebrate evolution that are still around today,» Coates said, which is why so much scientific attention has been paid to lampreys.

Not so much the scientific principles of ornithology, but just seeing the birds and identifying them and knowing where they were, and what kind of nest they had, and what songs they sang.

Around that time, though, I discovered a downside to having so much scientific fun: Solving difficult problems takes time, and my publication record wasn't strong enough, according to my pretenure review.

So, in short, this «evidence» that proves Christianity isn't so much scientific evidence as it is idealistic / philosophical / rhetorical resonance that may or may not occur when an individual encounters the Christian idea of Jesus and the death / resurrection story.

Not exact matches

This wasn't so much an art project as a scientific experiment.

Hadfield's return couldn't happen «too soon,» according to the article, since he was wasting so much time conducting public relations for himself and space agencies in general, rather than actual scientific research:

So thinking of a particular shift within the system as «anti-capitalist» makes about as much sense as thinking that the discrediting of a particular scientist or the fall of a particular scientific theory amounts to the downfall of science, as a whole.

What's so sad is his willingness to completely ignore the reams of scientific evidence, data, knowledge, inference, etc. that very much describes what was going on thousands or millions of years ago.

It is not exactly «atheism» that is the default position so much as that there is no need to appeal to divine agency in a scientific account of nature.

A singular universe is a scientific lie brought about thru mixed and still yet young educated rationalisms... Our Cosmos is littered full of celestial universes... So much so it will take us practically forever to map out our universally contained cosmos with much certainty... Our Cosmos being filled with all manner of celestial universes is but one Cosmos within a vast sea of multifaceted cosmological universes.So much so it will take us practically forever to map out our universally contained cosmos with much certainty... Our Cosmos being filled with all manner of celestial universes is but one Cosmos within a vast sea of multifaceted cosmological universes.so it will take us practically forever to map out our universally contained cosmos with much certainty... Our Cosmos being filled with all manner of celestial universes is but one Cosmos within a vast sea of multifaceted cosmological universes...

Your answer is much less reasonable than any scientific answer that has been given so far.

Thomas was not so much a doubter as he was an empiricist; that is, he was something of a scientific man.

It matters not so much HOW the universe was created (although the first version creation in Genesis is interestingly similar in some ways to the modern scientific view, going from light — the big bang — to simple then more increasingly complex life, but I digress) what matter is that it was created by a loving God.

t's not so much an assault on Christianity as an adherence to historical facts and scientific facts and... well... just basically facts.

In fact, there have been a large number of scientists throughout history who have made major scientific discoveries that have shaped so much of our knowledge, and they worked out of desire to learn the truth about the origin and nature of God's creation.

Scientists don't so much persecute creationists as deem them irrelevent (the who concept of the scientific method contradicts creationism).

Jeshua, if that were the case then religious authorities wouldn't spend so much time trying to control information, trying to pass off their beliefs as scientific, or attempting to misinform the public on genuine scientific explanations that happen to contradict those beliefs.

Your scientist that you so much want to believe are biased and are not recognized by the REAL scientific community.

That scene follows immediately the one in which a Catholic father informs his dozens of children that he has to sell them for scientific experimentation because «God has blessed us so much, I can't afford to feed you all».

So there was no research because what would you research this decision was a emotional decision based on pure emotions and not much if any scientific data.

We know so much more than people of the past — not only scientific knowledge about the physical world, but also historical knowledge about our cultural origins.

Third, scientific reflection (in the form of observation and much speculation) on the nature of time itself also has profound implications on how man conceives of his reality as a succession of events (how man connects events in his reality)- interpreted as the passage of time - and whether those events are intrinsically connected, and, if so, whether or not such a connection is changeable.

@Chick - a-dee, «I'm trying to ponder why we as a species have rejected knowledge acquired in forms other that literal and scientific — so much so that we ignore our intuition, instinct and mysticism.»

Amongst philosophers and logicians, particularly amongst those who have given special attention to scientific problems, many names could be mentioned, including that great thinker, L. T. Hobhouse, whom I like to mention first because I owe so much to his writings.

The world in this formist argument is witnessed not so much in newspapers, scientific works, and eschatological vision as in literature and other symbolic structures.

A highly scientific Western world creates so much that is new and effective in medicine and technology that, on the one hand, more and more persons are injured and crippled by the use of that technology; on the other hand, more and more persons severely injured or born with physical abnormalities are saved to life through technology.

Why didn't we atheists realize all along that it was the PRAYERS that were healing people, not the scientific advancements of medicine which we put so much of our faith in.

[9] When this is so, then, it is in search, not so much of answers, but rather of a better understanding and appreciation of «the truth that scientific study of the ancient tradition of the Church is indispensable to success in comprehending the roots of differences and in discerning the centre of Christian theology,» [10] that we ought to approach the texts produced by the early church.

So because of the academic credibility that still remarkably adheres to scientific materialism I have chosen to devote much of the present book to a critique of it.

I mean his scientific books and papers that has brought him so much recognition means nothing to the villager because he does not have the substance to relate the the wonderful works of Hawkins.In the same token, the wonderful works and word of God will remain a myth to all those who lack the substance of faith.

That seems a rather modest payoff for so much ratiocination and scientific huffing and puffing.

The Universe, known and unknown, is possibly not the most used definition of God, at least in the western world... but it is the Pantheistic version that jives so much more with science and is not a misappropriation of the smaller definitions of God, merely an unfamiliar definition to those with less knowledge of various more advanced religious and philosophic thought, within and outside those religions... The idea of Pantheism also thoughtfully considers why there is, rather than ridiculing, such a wide range of philosophical and ritual beliefs from a scientific perspective... without having to classify large groups of people, as senseless idiots from one end or destined for hell from the other.

The genetic fallacy is not so much a fallacy common within the scientific community as it is of the community at large as it seeks to interpret science.

Even the socialized spiritual commoner seldom reads nor truly dares to soundly understand too much where scientific reasoning does so apply.

That same foundation is the basis of all scientific knowledge as it exists today and, for example, accounts for so much that is commonplace and patently correct e.g. electronics, medical and bio-sciences, etc..

So do some other people who have never studied pantheistic doctrines, but who have the feeling that a polysyllabic phrase sounds much more scientific and intellectual than a simple name like «God.»

Those who reacted in a purely defensive way to the presentation of Darwin's theories failed to grasp the truth of the new scientific discoveries and set their minds and hearts against the new discoveries, spending so much time and energy defending the indefensible that they failed to make truly relevant the deepest insights of the faith.

The particular brand of scientific humanism which affects so much of our thinking is either agnostic, in the less narrow sense of that term, or rigidly atheistic.

While there's nothing scientific about this other than my personal experience, but foods that have a variety of textures and some crunch are so much more satisfying that foods that are all just softness.

Yet, my personal approach to parenting is a mix that goes well beyond the bits and pieces of these books that I found helpful — among the bits and pieces that I feel don't apply to my family but certainly they may apply to another family — and include bits and pieces of how I was raised, the lessons learned reflecting on years of parenting already behind me, thoughts from friends and family members, my instincts, the reality of unavoidable challenges, scientific studies, blogs and websites, parenting classes and support groups, teleseminars, conferences, and so much more.

No amount of scientific exploration into the composition of breastmilk could grasp the variety of possible answers to the question, «why does my child breastfeed so much?»

What bothers me so much about the homebirth debate is that we have ample scientific evidence to show that homebirth is safe for low risk women.

And I also admit that I started to feel sort of silly about scouring all the scientific literature for health benefits (when there is so little research on this topic) because I realized that I didn't care that much what the research says.

So much debate and scientific research has sprung from that far - sighted, seminal work of genius, which has stood the test of time.

«The meeting is largely future - oriented, and focused not so much on law enforcement use, but on admissibility in court,» Steven Hyman, co-chair of the committee and director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute, wrote in an e-mail to Scientific American.

So with everything else in our economy, it's shrunk down from, it used to be the Scientific American 50, but now we're at the Scientific American 10, [it's] much more efficient.

There's a lack of interpersonal - skills training and evaluation in academia, which leaves many technical people believing that decisions about their future will be based upon their scientific credentials and not those «soft skills» I talk so much about in Tooling Up.

It may seem odd to base so much of one's scientific life on a single tool and then lobby against its application.