The idea of literalism in the Bible is a very new phenomenon. In many ways, it's a product of the scientific revolution.
A universe with a creator would be a totally different kind of universe, scientifically speaking, than one without.
However, it required some years before the scientific community in general accepted that flexibility and disorder are very relevant molecular properties also in other systems.
I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.
To address questions of scientific responsibility does not necessarily imply that one needs technical competence in a particular field (e.g. biology) to evaluate certain technical matters.
It's also a reasonable scientific program to look at the dynamics of the standard model and to try to prove from that dynamics that it is computationally capable.
Researchers should always consider ethical concerns on scientific research and disclose their data to the public. Scientists also need to discuss issues surrounding their research with those who are concerned.
Now, an embryo may seem like some scientific or laboratory term, but, in fact, the embryo contains the unique information that defines a person.
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
The Bible is full of dubious scientific impossibilities, from Jonah living inside a whale, to the sun standing still in the sky for Joshua.
The influence of animal or vegetable life on matter is infinitely beyond the range of any scientific inquiry hitherto entered on.
I believe all complicated phenomena can be explained by simpler scientific principles.
Scientific experiments are expensive, and people are entitled to know about them if they want to. I think it is very difficult to convey ideas.
We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.
There are two objectionable types of believers: those who believe the incredible and those who believe that 'belief' must be discarded and replaced by 'the scientific method.
Let philosophy resolutely aim to be as scientific as possible, but let her not forget her strong kinship with literature.
You must learn to talk clearly. The jargon of scientific terminology which rolls off your tongues is mental garbage.
We often think that earth is the ground where our houses are built; but scientifically saying, space is the ground and earth is the house built on that ground!
There is a tremendous amount of support for the approach we have taken, which again is to base our decisions on risk analysis and thoughtful scientific process.
I have a particular passion and focus on Alzheimer's and diseases of dementia. There's just so much scientifically that we don't know, and we can know.
We need to have much clearer regulations on things like corporate funding of scientific research. Things need to be made explicit which are implicit.
