Quotes About Science

How many genetic engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Eleven—one to do the work, and the other ten to figure out why it doesn't have a double helix." "What's the definition of a virgin genetic engineer? A nerd with too many pocket protectors.

Science is analytical, descriptive, informative. Man does not live by bread alone, but by science he attempts to do so. Hence the deadliness of all that is purely scientific.

There can be problems with measuring rehydroxylation

In art, as in science, reductionism does not trivialize our perception - of color, light, and perspective - but allows us to see each of these components in a new way.

I'm going to be in technology for a long time.

There is a collision course between the greed and rationalizations of the West and the force of nature; science and the planet are the casualties.

If we remove the idea of a supernatural God who is free to act in miraculous ways, we fall into the slough of despond inhabited by the scientistic naturalists. We essentially remove God himself from the Bible.

We need to be brave enough to dissect a frog now and then, to see what's inside.

True faith is not a leap in the dark; it's a leap into the light.* We shouldn't be afraid of the facts. If God is God, he is the God of reality and facts and science and history.

A church that does not keep step with modern scientific knowledge is doomed.

The idea that people of faith cling to God to avoid science has been replaced with the idea that atheists cling to their invented God-of-the-gaps idea to avoid the real God who created the universe that science is discovering, and whose existence is increasingly undeniable because of those very discoveries.

Just ten years ago, probably the most prominent atheist of the twentieth century, Antony Flew, concluded that a God must have designed the universe.

The God of the Bible was Lord over everything, over every scientific discovery. He was Lord over not just what we did not know, but over what we knew and were discovering through science

To postulate a trillion-trillion other universes, rather than one God, in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality.

As of now, fifteen years into the twenty-first century, we know of so many conditions that are absolutely necessary for a planet to support life that not only is it extremely improbable that any other planets can support life, it's extremely improbable that our planet should support life.

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Miracles are not in contradiction to nature. They are only in contradiction with what we know of nature.—SAINT AUGUSTINE

many atheistic scientists insist there is never any reason to speculate beyond the universe of matter and energy, because there is nothing beyond that. They insist that the universe is all that is. The problem is that they cannot by any means prove this scientifically, so for them to make this claim at all is itself "unscientific." Ironically, in doing so, such scientists are themselves reaching beyond the world of science.

If we can accept a single singularity of the Big Bang, on what basis can we reasonably claim no other such singularities are possible?

Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot imagine a scientist without that profound faith.

You can speak of the ethical foundations of science, but you cannot speak of the scientific foundations of ethics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. If this is true, how is it possible that all the energy and matter in our universe were created in the Big Bang?

My central premise is that although the reductionist approaches of scientists and artists are not identical in their aims—scientists use reductionism to solve a complex problem and artists use it to elicit a new perceptual and emotional response in the beholder—they are analogous. For example

Eric R. Kandel