The Battle over evolution is only one skirmish in a much larger war. ~ Richard Dawkins 2.50
I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist. ~ Richard Sternberg 7.28
I have little doubt that I would have tenure now if I hadn't done any professional work on Intelligent Design. ~ Guillermo Gonzalez 14.14
It's a funny thing that questions that aren't properly answered don't go away. ~ Paul Nelson 22.17
Evolution is a kind of funny word -- it depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed -- that there's been change over time. If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection', that's textbook definition of neo Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. ~ Paul Nelson 22.44
When I was in Cambridge one of my supervisors often advised us to 'beware the sound of one hand clapping' which is a way of saying if there is an argument on one side, there is bound to be an argument on the other. And what I've found in studying the structure of the argument in the Origin of Species is that for every evidence based argument for one of Darwin's two key propositions there is an evidence based counter argument. ~ Stephen Meyer 26.35
Before you can ask 'Is Darwinian theory correct or not?', You have to ask the preliminary question 'Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?'. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is 'Man, that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke.' Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology. ~ David Berlinski 29.33
'Evolution' is a slippery word. I would say 'Minor changes within species happen', but Darwin didn't write a book called 'How Existing Species Change Over Time'. He wrote a book called 'The Origin of Species'. He purported to show how the same process leads to new species, in fact, every species. And the evidence for that grand claim is, in my opinion, almost totally lacking. ~ Jonathan Wells 31.29
Once you're thick in Science, you can question the paradigm. But if you want to get grants, if you want to be elected to high positions, if you want to get awards as a promoter of public education of Science, you can't question the paradigm. ~ Larry Witham 45.09
I interviewed dozens and dozens of scientists and, when they're amongst each other or talking to a journalist who they trust, they'll speak about 'It's incredibly complex' or 'Molecular Biology is in a crisis', but, publicly, they can't say that. ~ Larry Witham 45.52
If you give any credence to [Intelligent Design] -- whatsoever -- which means 'just writing about it', you are just finished as a journalist. ~ Pamela Winnick 51.06
Court cases don't decide anything. If you look at the Scopes trial, who won that trial? It wasn't the evolutionists. The Tennessee law was upheld (barring evolution) and yet in the popular imagination Scopes is the hero. Inherit the Wind the movie which is really bogus history based on the Scopes trial has carried the day. These issues go much deeper than any decision by a judge. ~ William Dembski 53.04
If you have two distinguished scientists, and, in fact, you can arrange many more on each side (as you know) say exactly opposite things, that's telling me that the conflict is not between 'Science' and 'belief in God' -- otherwise you'd expect all scientists to be atheists. But it's a worldview conflict and it's between scientists who have different worldviews. ~ John Lennox 56.44
You've got two competing explanations of the evidence. One says 'design'. One says 'undirected processes'. Both of them have larger philosophical or religious or anti religious implications. So you can't say that one of those two theories is scientific and the other is unscientific simply because they both have implications. Both have implications. ~ Stephen Meyer 57.04
People who tell you that 'Science tells you everything you need to know about the world' or 'Science tells you that religion is all wrong' or 'Science tells you there is no God', those people aren't telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons. ~ John Polkinghorne 57.22
What is being presented to the public is 'First, comes the science, and then comes the worldview'. I would want to argue that that may not be the case. That it may actually be the other way around -- that the worldview comes first and is influencing the interpretation of science. ~ John Lennox 57.37
Admitting our biases is the best way towards rational discussion which I would welcome. ~ John Lennox 58.46
But it starts by giving up an active Deity, then it gives up the hope that there's any life after death. When you give those two up, the rest of it follows fairly easily. You give up the hope that there's an immanent morality. And, finally, there's no human free will. If you believe in evolution, you can't hope for there being any free will. There's no hope whatsoever of there being any deep meaning in life: We live, we die, we're absolutely gone when we die. ~ William Provine 1.00.32
Matthew Arnold put his hands on it when he spoke about the 'withdrawal of faith'. There is a connection between a society that has, at least, a minimal commitment to certain kinds of transcendental values and what human beings permit themselves to do one to the other. ~ David Berlinski 1.05.18
Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it, certainly, a necessary one. ~ David Berlinski 1.06.19
The Nazis, they relied on Darwin and German scientists. ~ Uta George 1.08.27
Hitler and many of the physicians that carried out this program were very fanatical Darwinists and particularly wanted to apply Darwinism to society. ~ Richard Weikart 1.11.05
I would ask her [Eugenie Scott] by what authority does she, and those like her, presume to declare what is and is not science. ~ Richard Sternberg 1.22.02
How did it start?
Richard Dawkins: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Ben Stein: And what was that?
Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone. 1.30.05
I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry or molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. ~ Richard Dawkins 1.31.11
What I'm asking for is the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads. ~ Richard Sternberg 1.34.39
Expelled on YouTube Expelled Exposed 2 Amazon Abiogenesis Clips 2 3 Evolution News FIRE The ID Update IMDb Indoctrinate U LeVake NCSE Exposed Petition The Privileged Planet Reviews 2 3 Slaughter of the Dissidents arn Uncommon Descent Unlocking the Mystery of Life
Douglas Axe David Berlinski Richard Dawkins William Dembski Daniel Dennett Michael Egnor John Lennox Stephen Meyer PZ Myers Paul Nelson William Provine Eugenie Scott Ben Stein Richard Weikart Jonathan Wells more
Evolutionism and atheism
What is the evidence?
Theory or fact?
Scientists and bias
Evolutionism and scripture
Are Creationists honest?