Sentences with phrase «theory about evolution»

They saw the project as an opportunity to explore a new theory about evolution.

Scientists struggle to reach across a disciplinary divide to test a new theory about the evolution of religion

Barr takes the Cardinal to task for the wholesale criticism of «neo-Darwinism», arguing that in fact neo-Darwinism is a scientific theory about evolution, and not a philosophical world - view.

The theory ABOUT evolution most widely accepted is an updating of Charles Darwin's hypothesis that all of today's species descended from common ancestors due to natural selection based on best current fitness for constantly changing environmental circmmstances.

«Austronesian cultures offer an ideal sample to test theories about the evolution of religions in pre-modern societies, because they were mostly isolated from modern world religions, and their indigenous supernatural beliefs and practices were well documented,» he says.

So the team wondered whether current theories about the evolution of the universe allow for the growth of a massive structure like El Gordo in less than 7 billion years.

Because these findings were unexpected in light of the prevailing theories about the evolution of aging, we may have to rethink theories on why aging occurs.»

Theories about the evolution of the universe make specific predictions about the extent of these temperature patterns.

Not exact matches

When asked if you know about the theory of evolution you refuse to consider the thought.

And what about that weird period where lamarckian evolution was the reigning scientific theory of it's day?

Making a judgement about a faith, be it Christianity or Islam, on the basis of a few extremists has about the same logical errancy as saying evolution is false because Hitler's murderous race purification rampage was fueled by his study of Darwin's theory, a truth written by Hitler himself.

Can you be sure & certain about the «Theory» of evolution?

How about teaching different theories on our creation beside the unproven theory of evolution?

You need to read a bit about the theory of evolution.

Evolution is not a theory about the how the universe was created.

you certainly don't know much about the theory of evolution if that's really what you think it says.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about God.

When someone tells me that «evolution is only a theory» I ask them about their opinion on the theory of gravity (generally I tell them that I totally agree!

While there may be inaccuracies or things missing from the theory of evolution, the things that we know about it demonstrate to a high likelihood that the theory is an accurate model of the origin of species.

I also agree that it is not a book of science, the way I see it, the Bible is a way for us to learn about God and one of the ways He uses to talk to us, and to be honest, I don't really pay attention to the evolution theory or any other theories, if it really happened or not (or if it keeps on happening), is fine by me, I respect those who believe them to be true.

You are talking about abiogenesis, which is not contained in the theory of evolution.

Science has taught us extraordinary truths about this universe — from what composes matter (atomic physics), to the great variety and forms of life (evolution) to medicine (germ theory of disease).

and the next man goes on about fancy words in the theory of evolution, still not touching the fact that evolution is a shaky theory at best.

The reason I speak out about this issue is not because I am passionately committed to the theory of evolution; it's because I am passionately committed to the fact that it's not worth leaving the faith over!

Science was created by God to observe and gain knowledge about Gods creation... Evolution like I said is still only a theory still unproven and still looks silly in the eyes of science

TheCapitalist As I stated a few pages back, creationists lie all the time about evolution, and I don't think they could have been so thorough with their misrepresentation of evolution unless they had the correct understanding of the theory from which to work with.

do nt try to be superior, because science about evolution still full of story telling according man theory but still far from true.

He's griping about science being taught that's supposedly out of date and he is way out of date on evolution theory.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.

What is it about our stories that should be taken seriously by those who advance theories of moral behavior as a product of evolution, or those who regard consciousness and selfhood as congeries of computational patterns constructed by neurons?

Evolution is a bankrupt theory whose time is just about up.

Creationists» beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as «just one theory,» they often embrace other fields of science and technology.

It's not evolutionary «THEORY» with no proof... Read a little about science, there is proof about evolution all around us... And to «This Again»?

If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?

The theory of evolution has stood the test of many hypotheses and is the best explanation for all that we have learned about the details of the world that science has exposed.

My point was that when students are learning about evolution, other theories should be brought into that discussion.

Heather, if you had a single clue about the theory of evolution — you'd never have posted that (semi) thought.

Slowly but surely numbers of clergymen swung about to accept and support the theory of evolution.

I do not see anyone other than you even talk about big bang theory and now you accuse someone else of not knowing it from evolution.

The recent work of German sociologist Jurgen Habermas, in which questions about the formal characteristics of social systems in general and the dynamics of the lifeworld are the focus, exhibits a clear preference for deductive theory of a prescriptive sort.13 Habermas has drawn eclectically from modernization theory and Marxism to create what he calls a reconstructive model of cultural evolution.

I am not as high profile as you but if I were, it would be like me telling you not to teach your kids about evolution or the big bang theory.

I also feel that, even though I am confident about evolution as it stands now, I have great confidence that even more revealing theories will arise that better explain our origins that are not out in the universe, but within us and our natural surrounding, but in a natural and non-spiritual way.

The movement was largely a reaction to Darwin's theory of evolution and questions that modern science raised about biblical authority.

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.

Some school boards have very modestly suggested that students should know that evolution is not the only theory about the origin and development of life.

(«Theories of evolution [that], in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.»)

The nineteenth century saw heated debates, in response to Darwin's theory of evolution and the beginnings of historical criticism of the Bible, about whether the scripture was verbally inerrant.

These observations reminded me of a frustrating conversation I had with some friends a few weeks ago about the theory of evolution.

Now think about going back in time 5 thousand years and explaining 21st century evolution theories.

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.