Sentences with phrase «with accepting evolution»

Obviously the Catholic Church compromised with accepting evolution as fact since it is irrefutable.

Not exact matches

But even if we were to accept the proposition of «guided» evolution, we're left with the question of who designed the designer which only leads to arguments of special pleading... I.e. a dead end.

There are even studies with pre-verbal children (haven't been socialized to religion yet) and other but non-human social animals that show that morality, if you accept that a sense of fairness and preferring «nice» over the opposite are proto - morals, then indeed it is evolution that makes it so.

Some religions accept evolution as true and assume that god left it to run it course, with some» direction» of course.

It is one thing to accept Evolution, with its overwhelming evidence, as proof of God's work.

Evolution and Creation Dear Fr Editor, Evangelical Creationists, I believe, can not accept the theory of evolution because it appears to conflict with GEvolution and Creation Dear Fr Editor, Evangelical Creationists, I believe, can not accept the theory of evolution because it appears to conflict with Gevolution because it appears to conflict with Genesis 1.

Unfortunately, a lot of young evangelicals grew up with the assumption that Christianity and evolution can not mix, that we have to choose between our faith in Jesus and accepted science.

If you plan to accept evolution in any way (theistic, deistic, etc.), you will have to accept that death existed before sin, which is rather difficult to reconcile with Scripture.

We concede that not all who doubt the existence of a personal God do so because they accept the theory of evolution, whether the word be restricted to biology or enlarged to its cosmic significance, but we do say, and from experience know, that most modern agnosticism is bound up with those non-theistic philosophies of evolution that stream off from Hegel as their modern fountain - head.

None of that belief was ever predicated on a specific interpretation of Genesis with respect to scientific details, and as such, accepting evolution as a mechanism by which God creates did not alter those beliefs.

The main problem I've seen with people accepting evolution (aside from plain old religious grounds) is a lack of concept of the vast amounts of time over which these things happened.

If you've already read The Language of God, consider checking out A Fine - Tuned Universe by Alister McGrath, Coming to Peace With Science by Darrel Falk, Saving Darwin by Karl Giberson, or I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution by Denis Lamoureux.

You likely deny evolution and global warming for no other reason than it makes you uncomfortable and hold science to the impossibly high standard of having to explain every conceivable mystery about the natural World before you will accept it, but some moron at a pulpit doing magic hand signals of a Sundaymorning is enough to convince you he is communicating with some sky - god and turning grocery store bread and wine into flesh and blood.

You don't accept evolution, but you never mention the alterntive with any details of how it works.

Strange that you believe in the evolution of Animals and Mankind but do not want to accept the Evilution of Religions... and that's why we remained separated becoming more divided... with each others and among our selves growing in to too many branches every generation evolves...?!

Lastly, the reference to devout Christians who accept evolution was in response to your comment about brainwashing with materialism and evolutionism, i.e.:

By the end of the 19th century the scholars of Protestant liberalism had fully accepted the humanistic origins of the Bible, come to terms with the scientific notion of biological evolution, and were completely confident that the essential core of Christian doctrine could be salvaged intact and re-expressed in terms relevant to the modern age.

If Chad and others argue that naturalistic evolution must be dismissed because we don't know exactly what happened with gene mutation and transmission frequencies during particular periods of rapid change, then how can we accept a replacement argument in which we don't even know what happens at all?

She accepts that Evolution seams to have strong merit with regards to the archeological record.

:] Although I had a quite heavy debate with some folks over here on evolution, big bang, and stuff that ended up in issues on homosexuality: liberal Christians = accepting evolution = accepting big bang = accepting gays = no grace = highway to hell.

I maintained that, contrary to the commonly expressed or tacitly accepted view, the era of active evolution did not end with the appearance of the human zoological type: for by virtue of his acquirement of the gift of individual reflection Man displays the extraordinary quality of being able to totalize himself collectively upon himself, thus extending on a planetary scale the fundamental vital process which causes matter, under Certain conditions, to organize itself in elements which are ever more complex physically, and psychologically ever more centrated.

If evolution hits a rock, people can postulate and guess and use the evidence to come up with theories, It it holds under scrutiny it can be accepted until something comes along that is better.

But accepting or rejecting evolution has nothing to do with god belief — it has to do with knowledge attained..

Cardinal Pell began to answer, saying that evolution can not explain everything, when the presenter interrupted with the question, «Do you accept that we are descended from apes?»

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.

A timeline describes the declension from the biblicism of Martin Luther and John Calvin to the thought of Descartes, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Darwin and Charles Hodge (he may be an archconservative to most Presbyterians, but his acceptance of Darwinism lands him in the hall of shame here) to a certain Charles Templeton, who once traveled with Billy Graham but unfortunately accepted evolution and ended up writing the atheist tract Farewell to God.

Many of the speakers, including many of the scientists, starting with the very opening paper by Cambridge palaeobiologist Simon Conway - Morris, were keen to emphasise above all that whilst accepting fully the rectitude of the science of the biological theory of evolution (mutation with natural selection), yet a «totality of explanation it is not» (Conway - Morris's words).

However, I accept evolution, don't think the Bible is strictly «inerrant» (I'm in the «inspired but not literally word - for - word accurate» camp), and am not even remotely on board with the standard Adventist end - of - time beliefs.

According to Jim Peebles of Princeton University, Lemaitre's framework for cosmology is still relevant today because it «consider [s] scenarios for the evolution of structure that start at high redshift with initial conditions that do not seem unduly conjured, evolve accordingto accepted laws of physics, and end up looking more or less like the universe we observe.»

What we see is evolution, a theory that there is problems with that is accepted as fact, to the exclusion of all else.

Their proposal, which is at odds with the currently most widely accepted theory in the scientific community, provides new insight into this key process during genome evolution and the origins of species.

The study also finds that Tea Party supporters with higher levels of education are less likely to trust scientists or accept scientific consensus on topics like evolution or climate change, which runs opposite to the positive effect education has on trust in science among Independents and Democrats.

In the introduction of the book, which ScienceInsider has reviewed, de Mattei criticizes scientists for failing to accept that the theory of evolution isn't supported by evidence and for ideologically denying any metaphysical truth, starting with the existence of a God that created the Universe.

Neanderthals shared Europe with a mysterious member of our genus that may represent an entirely new species of human, suggests a paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Human Evolution.

Lubenow's book is the best general creationist expose of human evolution so far published, although I disagree strongly with his willingness to accept the KNM - ER 1470 skull (classified as Homo habilis) as probably human.

It was pretty groundbreaking stuff at the time, because rather than the prevailing, societally accepted view, which believed that man was at the apex of all things, Darwin put forth this idea that each species followed its own independent course of evolution, but with repeating structures and patterns, common solutions to biological problems appearing again and again.

However, unlike the case of gravity, we have no competing theories of the evolution of our climate with anything approaching the explanatory power of the generally accepted theory.

This evolution, and the joining of innovations like horizontal drilling with long - accepted practices like hydraulic fracturing, is moving America toward energy independence.

I hear from liberals who claim to believe in evolution but don't actually accept that a history of random variation and natural selection is of relevance in thinking about human behavior: as with Scopes, the only part of evolution they believe is that it contradicts the Bible.

Besides just the fact that ethics rules are always catching up with things like technology and other evolutions of the practice, I work in a state bar court that does not accept electronic filing and won't even accept a fax signature, even though the California court rules allow it.

On first reading, starting with The Donovan Report and the evolution of unfair dismissal, it seems as if they are about to attack the exclusion zone itself, but then it becomes clear that they are in fact accepting it, but reconsidering whether these cases come within it on their facts.

Anne Ireland, broker at Century 21 Market Realty in Truro, N.S., says, «I believe the changes reflected with competition law and the access of MLS (means) that Realtors will need to embrace the evolution of our industry and accept private sellers as an opportunity rather than a threat.