Sentences with phrase «than scientific fact»

Clarifying the institutional dynamics of the CCCM can aid our understanding of how anthropogenic climate change has been turned into a controversy rather than a scientific fact in the U.S.

In recent years, however, this science has been increasingly tailored to reflect political goals rather than scientific fact.

Its amazing to me that power of suggestion holds more water than scientific fact.

So the tendency to link weather to joint problems may be based on people's preconceived notions, rather than scientific facts.

Not exact matches

But to every rule there is an exception, and glad I was to be called out (and called up) by the founder and CEO of one mobile - health company whose entire premise is based on scientific research with repeatable results — the exact study, in fact, I had used as my example of what works better than a health app.

A better policy focus on those areas has a better chance to dramatically alter poverty than the new math being peddled as scientific fact.

«Although jade eggs are slightly different than traditional kegels, goop is up front about the fact that there are no scientific studies proving or disproving the effectiveness of a jade egg,» a rep said in a statement.

Why this should be so — why the success of the Jewish minority should be so particularly resented by other peoples — is a complicated question which is rendered more complicated by the fact that anthropologists are now generally agreed that the Jews are not a race in any scientific sense of the term — no more of a race, for example, than the Germans.

For too many people, it's simply better to just deny scientific fact and play ignorant than address logically some serious questions regarding the validity of human scientific achievement.

Please cite actual «scientific» facts that do more than * point * to god's existence.

Its also a scientific fact that there were more than 18,000 animals during the time that you claim that Noah built his arc.

= > There is knowledge other than what is current consensus of scientific facts (they change as we have a history of science).

In fact, many in the scientific community believe that the increasing march of the average level of human intelligence (I.Q.) is just one reason that we have more non-believers now, than at any other time in history.

Knowledge is far more than facts subject to scientific method.

Any good story is far more powerful to change lives and direct history than the most provable scientific or theological fact.

There have been many such changes, 8 so significant, in fact, that one wonders if Darwin must not be regarded, even by the biologists themselves, more as a precursor of developments leading to present - day evolutionary thinking rather than as a continuing historical source of our scientific understanding of man.

everything in the universe evolves, not only life forms but also memes, Religion is a meme so it also change in conformity to its era or time of its conception as faith.Because in pre scientific times thousands of years ago, the scientific method of approach or philosophy has not existed yet, myth or merely story telling is considered facts, The first religion called animism more than 10,000 years ago believed that spirits or god exists in trees, rivers, mountains, boulders or in any places people at that time considered holy.hundreds of them, then when the Greeks and Romans came, it was reduced to 12, they called it polytheism, when the Jews arrived, it was further reduced to 1, monotheism.its derivatives, Christianity And Islam and later hundreds of denominations that includes Mormonism and Protestants flourished up to today.So in short this religions evolved in accordance to the scientific knowledge of the age or era they existed.If you graph the growth of knowledge, it shows a sharp increase in the last 500 years, forcing the dominant religions at that time to reinterprete their dogmas, today this traditional religions are becoming obsolete and has to evolve to survive.But first they have to unify against atheism.in the dialectical process of change, Theism in one hand and the opposing force atheism in the other, will resolve into a result or synthesis.The process shall be highlighted in the internet in the near future.

I have no issue with believing God created life and then there was evolution, which was guided by God if you are religious, I just have huge issue with ignoring scientific fact that there is this thing called evolution and that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.

In fact, if God had created all life on this planet we'd be facing far more questions than the few remaining ones in the scientific theory.

Isn't a bit just as zealous as a creationist that tells you creationism is fact, to force an absolutely unproven theory, with zero physical evidence as scientific fact, rather than a wild theory that many scientist desperately hold onto?

If you want to believe that joke as scientific fact go ahead.Scietific «facts» are nothing more than guesswork on the part bunch of educated morons looking for more free grant money so they don't have to get a real job.

Facts like the snows that have covered Mount Kilimanjaro for thousands of years are melting Scientific proof may not be as «warm and fuzzy» feeling as political rhetoric is, but it's better to base our beliefs and actions on objective reality than on self - serving political dogma.

The critique of historical criticism's limit the standard one: it is reductionistic, it claims to subordinate the text to scientific methods when in fact it has philosophical presumptions, and it tends to read the biblical text as a set of fragments rather than as a unified whole.

It is a curious fact that while the general culture of contemporary theologians is still markedly literary, rather than scientific, they seem to forget the many lessons concerning the human situation to be learnt from tragedy, whether ancient or modern.

Nature is in fact always much richer and more complex than our imaginative and mathematical models, and we unduly shrivel our understanding of the cosmos if we equate it in a simple way with our scientific schemes.

As a matter of fact, more and more, little by little, scientific discoveries point to a God than not.

And so because they're committed to a super-young-earth model of Creation, the AIG folks end up dismissing a ton of actual scientific and historical evidence (like the fact that we have more than 4,937 years of after - Flood history) that's really a deal - breaker for anyone who really wants to sit down and think this through.

Vast numbers of people think that the fact of a relatively settled order of nature, along with the scientific interpretation of change and the description of the inner dynamics of human personality (and much else as well), has ruled out once and for all genuine novelty and made change nothing more than the reshuffling of bits of matter - in - motion.

But rather than reflecting on this fact he restricts himself to recording that purpose in nature was «set aside by the Scientific Revolution... and replaced by amechanistic view... [such that] events were... seen... as being driven along blindly.»

As a NeoPagan — Polytheist, I routinely offer my thought - prayers to a pantheon of Deities... I have NO physical / other scientifically quantifiable «proof», as such, that any deity actually exists but I am left with the supposition / fact that IF a Deity / deities exist, it is more - than - conceivable that for whatever reason (s), such a deity might choose to make themselves remote from scientific / other investigative efforts!

We have to find our own purposes in life, which are not derived directly from our scientific history... As atheists... we face up to the fact that... we must make the most of our short time on this planet and... make this planet as good as we possibly can and try to leave it a better place than we found it».

It is the universal rule of scientific induction that a hypothesis must explain more than one set of facts.

«We must face up to a world that has been made into one interdependent community, less by political or ideological ideas than by scientific and technological facts.»

They have begun to wake up to the fact that Western advice on dietary oils, which has led to the demonization of their traditional fats and oils like coconut oil, has been primarily political in nature, rather than scientific.

Your child will learn more than just scientific facts.

While it wasn't a scientific survey, it points to a willingness to see marriage as something other than «until death», which, in fact, it is not.

By assuming before any facts are known from the pathologist's death scene and toxicological report that any bedsharing baby was a victim of an accidental suffocation rather than from some congenital or natural cause, including SIDS unrelated to bedsharing, medical authorities not only commit a form of scientific fraud but they victimize the doomed infant's parents for a third time.

Next time you write an article why don't you add more than three to four actual scientific facts.

This book provides a breastfeeding - friendly, comprehensive look at the scientific research that surrounds cosleeping, including the possible protection from SIDS; and the benefits that many parents may not be away of, such as the fact that cosleepers are usually more independent than their cribbed peers.

Here is what you wrote — «Despite the fact that a Fall 2012 Cochrane Library Review (considered the gold standard of independent inquiry and scientific objectivity) reports that home birth is as safe or in many cases actually safer than hospital birth, the American obstetrical community continues to publicly oppose homebirth, citing safety concerns as their main argument.»

Despite the fact that a Fall 2012 Cochrane Library Review (considered the gold standard of independent inquiry and scientific objectivity) reports that home birth is as safe or in many cases actually safer than hospital birth, the American obstetrical community continues to publicly oppose homebirth, citing safety concerns as their main argument.

Engagement with members of Congress, for example, is most powerful when scientists transform scientific findings into real - life stories that use facts to demonstrate how a policy prescription will either hurt or improve the lives of constituents, the two said during the webinar, which drew more than 1,700 participants and nearly 300 questions.

«Above all, we wanted to know whether it is better to provide economic justifications, such as the positive effects of climate policy on technological innovation and the labour market, and personal aspects like protection of our health, rather than to focus on conveying scientific facts and the risks of climate change.»

Our goal is that presenting science to the public in an entertaining, system - based way, rather than bogging them down with a series of scattered facts, it will help more people understand it and feel that they can contribute to the scientific conversation.

But «the simple fact that each mission was providing a great scientific return didn't really impress very many people other than lunar scientists.»

If you intend to look for another industry job, then the ability to share scientific generalities on your project, your meeting abstracts, patents you've applied for, and your supervisor's name at your last company will be more important than the fact that you've published in the journal Biophysical Communications.

He likes nothing better than surfing journals the likes of Cereal Chemistry, Poultry Science, and The Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries.In fact, he's made a career of turning huge amounts of arcane food science, centuries of history and culture, and wonderfully oddball,just - for - the - heck - of - it facts into a good read for curious cooks and eaters.

In his review of the latter (Review, 5 May 1990), Paul Harvey wrote, «The very fact that these particular scientists (Bryan Clarke, Tom Kemp, Pat Bateson, Robin Dunbar, Bob Martin, et al.) felt moved to write in memory of Huxley says a lot for the legacy he left us which, I conclude, is more one of inspiration than of scientific achievement... Julian Huxley's published works have not stood the test of time; his vision of progress in evolution that led him to revere Teilhard de Chardin is one example.»

In fact, according to the report from the academies» National Research Council, there's no good evidence that students are any more likely to graduate from college with a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) degree or pursue a scientific career if they attend a specialty science and math school than a regular school.

But if we look further, the latest analyses show that between 2000 and 2008 more than 60 percent of scientific production in Spain was carried out in universities (2), despite the fact that their professors are ``... civil servants whose focus is on teaching rather than original research».