Quotes About Science

Science does this all the time. People who work at the cutting edge in, say, physics are constantly adjusting their big picture, sometimes modifying it quite radically

If we thought that because we now lived in the 'modern world' we were exempt–that our science and technology had now produced 'progress' that would eliminate all such things–we were obviously wrong. Just like those at the end of the nineteenth century who thought that Western society was now advancing smoothly towards the Kingdom of God. So, throughout Church history, Jesus' followers have usually avoided such lines of thought.

Instead of "thinking God's thoughts after him," science was now studying the world as though God didn't exist.

late modernity has tried to squeeze more and more areas of human discourse into the first type of "truth," making a "fact" out of everything and thereby trying to put everything into the kind of box which can be weighed, measured, and verified as if it were an experiment in the hard sciences like chemistry, or even an equation in mathematics. But this attempt has overreached itself, not least in areas like history and sociology.

science takes things apart to see how they work, but religion puts things together to see what they mean.

Science studies the repeatable; history studies the unrepeatable.

If we reject science, we reject the common man.

So I don't see the theme of the story as nature versus science. I see it as a conflict between demanding and understanding, between the kinds of labor that our society values or doesn't value, "innovators" versus "maintainers." It's

No one can tell the difference between a clone and a human. That's because there isn't any difference. The idea of clones being inferior is a filthy lie.

Simply hearing or reading of such things was never enough for Faraday. When assessing the work of others, he always had to repeat, and perhaps extend, their experiments. It became a lifelong habit—his way of establishing ownership over an idea.

Throw enough scientific gibberish at non-scientists and they always faltered.

strange attractor—do

For it is a fact that men must ejaculate in order to reproduce (although science may soon remove this necessity.) Women, on the other hand, do not need to achieve orgasm to reproduce. Men, therefore, have the clear advantage here, in that most of them find it very easy work to achieve sexual satisfaction.

All of science is largely formalized common sense.

The Christian religion, hand in hand with various philosophical outlooks, has motivated, sanctioned, and shaped large portions of the Western scientific heritage. Modern Christians ought to drink deeply at the well of historical precedent. If we do, we will never feel intimidated by positivists and others who deny that religion has any role in genuine scholarship. In the broad scope of history, that claim is itself a temporary aberration-a mere blip on the screen, already beginning to fade.

Most of the early modern scientists were Christians; they believed that matter was *not* preexisting, but had come from the hand of God. Thus, it had no power to resist His will but would obey he rules He had laid down- with mathematical precision.

neither materialism nor pantheism is up to the task of accounting for the origin of human beings.

On one hand, Kant thought science led to the conclusion that humans are elements in a vast machine operating by the laws of physics. On the other hand, he said, to salvage morality, we must act as if we were free. And to ratify our moral standards, we must act as if God existed. And because morality makes no sense unless justice prevails in the end, we must act as if there were an afterlife.

People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics." 37 In short, they apply their postmodern skepticism selectively

The Galileo saga is typically told as a conflict between science and religion. But in reality it was a conflict among Christians over the correct philosophy of nature. Was it Aristotle's quality or Galileo's quantity? Galileo's victory was the triumph of the idea that the nature is constructed on a mathematical blueprint.

The biological structure of our bodies is not some evolutionary accident.

Randall concludes, "When science seemed to take God out of the universe, men had to deify some natural force, like 'evolution.

why should we acquiesce in letting philosophical naturalists prescribe the definition of science itself? The only reason for restricting science to methodological naturalism is if we assume from the outset that philosophical naturalism is true—that nature is a closed system of cause and effect. But if it is not true, then restricting science to naturalistic theories is not a good strategy for getting at the truth.47

For the early scientists, the image of God was not a dry doctrine to which they gave merely cognitive assent. Nor was it a purely private "faith." They treated it as a public truth, the epistemological foundation for the entire scientific enterprise. Their goal, they said, was to think God's thoughts after him. 27 At the time of the scientific revolution, biblical epistemology was the guarantee that the human mind is equipped to gain genuine knowledge of the world.