Some interesting quotes from scientists on religious matters

From COSMOS, BIOS, THEOS: SCIENTISTS REFLECT ON SCIENCE, GOD, AND THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE, LIFE, AND HOMO SAPIENS, edited by Henry Margenau and Roy Varghese (Open Court, 1992). Margenau was Eugene
Higgins Professor Emeritus of Physics and Natural Philosophy at Yale University, author of over 200 research articles and 14 books, including SCIENTIFIC INDETERMINISM AND HUMAN FREEDOM (1968) and THE MIRACLE OF EXISTENCE (1984).

The main part of the book consists of interviews with 60 leading scientists (including 24 Nobel Prize winners), where they answer the following six questions:

1. What do you think should be the relationship
between religion and science?

2. What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level and--if you see the need--on a metaphysical level?

3. What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and--if you see the need--on a metaphysical level?

4. What is your view of the origin of Homo sapiens?

5. How should science--and the scientist--approach origin questions, specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?

6. Many prominent scientists--including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck--have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?

The answers are very interesting and varied. All the scientists are very prominent people in their fields. Not all are religious believers, but many are. Here's some quotes, but the book itself is worth reading as a whole:

Geoffrey Chew, Dean of the Physical Sciences, Univ. of
California, Berkeley--"Appeal to God may be needed to answer the origin question: 'Why should a quantum universe evolving toward a semiclassical limit be consistent?' I doubt that consistency will be
established through mathematics."

John Erik Fornaess, Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University:
"I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies."

B. D. Josephson, (Nobel Prize winner) Professor of Physics,
Cambridge University: "I don't see any conflict. There are
conflicts between the views of many scientists on religion, but I think there need be no ultimate conflict. Science may be capable of extension in a way that is compatible with the tenets of religion."

Vera Kistiakowsky, Professor of Physics, Massachussets Institute of
Technology: "I am sastisfied with the existence of an unknowable
source of divine order and purpose."

William Little, Professor of Physics, Stanford University: "I
... might go along with some form of 'intelligence' associated
with matter, energy and the universe."

Robert A. Naumann, Professor of Chemistry and Physics, Princeton
University: "The existence of the universe requires me to conclude
that God exists."

Edward Nelson, Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University:
"One of my earliest memories is a feeling of great surprise that there is anything. It still strikes me as amazing, and for me this is the fundamental religious emotion. I believe in, pray to, and worship God."

Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize winner for Physics), VP of Research at AT & T Bell Laboratories: "...astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan. Thus the observations of modern science seem to lead to the same conclusions as centuries-old intuition."

Arthur Schawlow (Nobel prize winner), Professor of Physics at Stanford University: "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious ... I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Wolfgang Smith, Professor of Mathematics at Oregon State, member of faculty at MIT and UCLA: "...nothing is more evident, more certain, than the existence or reality of God."

Charles Townes, (Nobel Prize winner) Professor of Physics at University of California, Berkeley: "I believe in the concept of God and in his existence."

Shoichi Yoshikawa, Professor of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton
University: "I think that God originated the universe and life."

Christian Anfinsen (Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry), Professor
of Biology at John Hopkins University: "I think that only an
idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place."

Steven Bernasek, Professor of Chemistry, Princeton University:
"God's existence is apparent to me in everything around me, especially in my work as a scientist."

Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biology and Research Virologist at UC Berkeley: "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."

George Snell (Nobel Prize winner for Physiology/Medicine), Senior Staff Scientist at the Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor:
"science can tell us essentially nothing as to the nature of consciouness."

Henry Margenau (Emeritus Professor of Physics, Yale) writes: "There exists a widespread view that science and religion in general are incompatible. Let me therefore point out, first of all, that this belief may have been true half a century ago but has lost its validity now as may be seen by one anyone who reads the philosophical writings of the most distinguished and creative physicists of the last five decades. I am referring here to men like Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg,
Schrodinger, Dirac, Wigner, and many others." Later Margenau adds: "Homo sapiens is physically an evolutionary follower of the two-legged ape... But God endowed man with a soul."

with scientists who publicly claim that there is a god. One must only look to scientists of old to see that if you do NOT contribute your scientific findings to the exsistence of God, you are run out on a rope. I have always felt that scientists claim there to be a god so that their findings will find a more universal acceptance.

Scientists need their findings to be accepted by the academy of their peers. Joe SixPack is not reading scientific journals, nor has any scientist's belief in God helped Joe accept well-evidenced scientific conclusions about things like global warming, evolution, and a host of other issues.

I am skeptical of the claim that the majority of the claims of scientists who believe in god are deliberate frauds designed specifically to enhance their credibility with the "public." It takes a lot more faith to believe that than it does to just take their statements at face value and simply disagree with them if you do.

I think a much more reasonable argument is to say, hey - we see here the limits of human evloution, that even our best and brightest have not yet outgrown the the need to believe. Perhaps one day we will.

If you want to bully people into believing god fine. But appeals to authority have no place in a reasoned discussion.

It seems more like an attempt counter the argument that science and religion are incompatible using expert testimony. The fact that these experts are "authorities" does not invalidate the argument, but in this case bolsters it.

Science is merely a method of exposing what is false in order to reveal what is true. Science makes no claims about being incompatible with religion. At one time science and religion were closely bound. The Church was the primary proponent of science. Until science began disclosing problems with the official Church position.

Science has no problem with religion as long as religion has no problem with science. And as you know there are a miriad of religions out there. Some have problems with science and some don't. And belief in a god is not religion in and of itself. It is merely a belief. And science has absolute no issues with individuals believing things.

Sheesh!

Atheists often try to bully religious believers into thinking that religious belief is incompatible with scientific rationality. The reasonable thing to do, therefore, is consult with leading exemplars of scientific rationality (i.e. leading scientists). And it appears, just from the survey evidence, that a non-insignificant number of them find no such incompatibility.

So why should a religious believer, acting rationally, take the atheist bullying seriously?

We don't own the scientific method. Some use it as a stick. Your issue seems to be with them. Not with science or those that simply use it as a tool.

"Not all scientists are atheists"? You're right either way, of course, but the latter seems more relevant at first glance.

science is concerned with hypothesis, theories, and laws. religion is concerned with beliefs and faith. the issue is not whether a person can be a scientist and have religious beliefs, the issue is whether a person who comes to conclusions (regarding science) using beliefs and faith is a scientist.

if science encounters a quandry, is it a legitimate answer to the quandry for science to state "well, i guess god made it that way" and stop asking questions, to just decide that everything regarding the quandry has been sufficiently answered?

Hard to combine the two when you're thinking differently about both. (see my post 10)

So what? Does this prove something in your mind? A scientists belief in god and faith is no more meaningful or relevant than anyone elses.

Athiest bullies? Not saying they don't exist, but they are a rarity. It's not atheists I see on a practically daily basis trying to forcibly cram their beliefs down everyone's throat.

The logical fallacy is NOT making an appeal to authority. The logical fallacy is making an ILLICIT appeal to authority. In other words the logical fallacy is making an appeal to an authority that actually is not any kind of authority relevant to the issue at hand.

In other words, it is absolutely logically sound to defend an argument about global warning by appealing to SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY. It is an legitimate appeal in this case: they are experts on the subject. That doesn't necessarily make the argument valid, but hopefully you understand the difference between sound and valid.

On the other hand, defending an argument about global warming defended by appealing to the authority of local pastor may in fact be an illicit appeal - your pastor is likely not a legitimate authority on the science of global warming or any other science. If it isn't, it is an illegitimate appeal.

It is "iffy" in this case whether or the opinion of scientists on the subject of God is an illegitimate appeal to authority. I think you could make a case for why scientists would be a legitimate authority to share their opinion on the subject of the workings of the world. On the other hand, you could make an argument that science simply cannot contribute anything relevant to discussions of faith, so the opinions of scientists would not be authoritative in a defense argument for the existence of god.

Sel

Therefore it is an innapropriate or illicit appeal to authority. Why not use quotes from plumbers about god? Their belief in god is just as valid as any scientists. Why should the fact that many scientists have a belief in god or adhere to some sort of faith be any more relevant or meaningful than anyone elses? Faith is NOT the realm of science, never was, nor should it ever be.

When you are defending an argument about global warming and make an appeal to a prominent scientist, or to scientific authority, you are actually appealing to HIS WORK on the subject, or a compiled body of work, usually backed up by lots of evidence, not just say-so or unfounded belief. There's a difference, and that is NOT an appeal to authority, it is a reference to a body of work and evidence.

It seems many of the quotations reflect a belief in the god of the deists, for example,

I think that only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.

This kind of argument is usually (for physicists, anyway) based on the fact that the fundamental physical constants are tuned in such a way that allows structure to form and life to exist. Some of these facts are fairly compelling. Still, the existence of structure and life in no way suggests that any "god" that exists requires our worship.

A statement like, "I think that God originated the universe and life" is not an endorsement of the God of the major monotheistic religions, who is consistently involved in human affairs.

Here's what I think:

I would also love to believe in the world of Dune as a possibility in a manifold and parallel universe, in holographic dimensions, in nanotechnology and in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Actually I can name something on the order of about 10,000 worlds, forms of science, and mystical entities that I'd love to believe existed out there and wouldn't dismiss as an honest answer, but that "belief" is only on a rhetorical level.

If someone, especially a self described so-called "liberal", took that quote of mine out of context to prove to the world that even scientists might believe in intelligent design, I'd reach through the web and rip your heart out.

Intelligent Design is a pile of horseshit.

They know that there are unknowns that their theories can not explain. Its funny that there is a marked difference in philosophy between physicists and biologists. All scientists are not atheists - in fact many are not - myself included.

The meaningless dogma of organized religion has no place in science, but the awe and understanding of the physical world can lead a person to the belief in a higher power.

:)

What is irksome to me, is that the right winged fundies rigidly have to separate religion and science because their religion is inflexible to change. Learning is basically increasing your belief systems and altering your beliefs when new information warrants it.
Because fundamentalists cannot be flexible with their religion, they cannot intertwine science with their rigid religious viewpoints. Science is always evolving, many religions are not. Thus, they have to invalidate science to stay true to their religion.

If politicians and educators had similar views as these scientists, I think you could intertwine religion, science and education without offending the majority. It's too bad that rigid religious fervor has to continue to try to thwart science in this day and age.

Arthur Schawlow (Nobel prize winner), Professor of Physics at Stanford University: "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious ... I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

I like door #?...

Vera Kistiakowsky, Professor of Physics, Massachussets Institute of
Technology: "I am sastisfied with the existence of an unknowable
source of divine order and purpose."

And I say that as a relative of one of the people quoted in the book. It caused something of a minor scandal in the extended family.

Basically, all of the people quoted in the OP evade saying the obvious or have a problematic relationship with Ockham's Razor...and, knowing a good number of Nobel Prize winners, I can tell you that even at that level rationality and logic can be a problem.

It breaks down rather more as you might, after some thought, expect. Other surveys have 95+% of biologists registering themselves as atheists according to roughly those criteria, physicists and chemists and mathematicians and computer scientists in the eighties, engineering faculty in the sixties and seventies. Basically, the more intimate people are with the concept of evolution and educated about e.g. neurobiology the less the complexities of the physical world impress them as requiring theistic or supernatural explanation.

That leaves the origin of the material universe as a problem and the intricacies of human life as ones of another kind. Logically the first is forever unanswerable. (Unless we can at some level, in some small but sufficient way, make one of our own, all claims to have done it by any agency are simply assertions.) The second isn't adequately or properly answerable by the standard model of God, theism- and that's why a lot of these answers are weasely or ludicrous on their face, and what lies behind them is only disbelievable.

I think the book, and the citations from it, are really artifacts of the present age- and not much more. It proves that theism, the 19th century Western standard notion of God, is/was still the major idea spooking around as a substantial explanation in the imaginations of American scientists in ~1991. With the range of ages being roughly forty to eighty, the average responder was a sixtyish white man- make of that what you will. And from the paucity of responses- the authors sent the survey out to tens of thousands of facultyfolk nationwide- you are looking at a sample in that book (maybe 0.2% of the higher tier scientists) that is neither really fringe nor meaningfully normal. It's basically one standard deviation off from the median, toward the Believer side. A lot of people who weren't in a hurry to assert their disbelief in or utter disengagement from theism in a public didn't reply to it. Nor did the person who posted the OP cite any of the many assertions of atheism in the book, the quite ubiquitous sense that disconnection from supernaturalism was the fairer way of seeing things in the light of truth.

"I pity the man who says there isn't a Supreme Being…every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
Albert Einstein

Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God." And, concerning his research, he was merely "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Johann Kepler - physical astronomy

"There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."
Francis Bacon - scientific method

"How can anyone lose who chooses to become a Christian? If, when he dies, then turns out to be not God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing-in fact, he has been happier in life than his nonbelieving friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell!"
Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician and founder of hydrostatics and hydrodynamics

"No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change"
James Clerk Maxwell, statistical thermodynamics

"The works created by God at first and by Him conserved to this day in the same state and condition in which they were first made" From his writings, "The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation" John Ray, Father of English Natural History and one of the founding members of the Royal Society, Leading authority in his day of botany and zoology. "We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever."
Sir Isaac Newton

"The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances…For faith in the divinity and work of Christ is the gift of God, and the evidence of this faith is obedience to the commandment of Christ."
Michael Faraday, physicist

"… is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed." "…order is manifestly maintained in the universe…the entire machinery, complicated as it is, works smoothly and harmoniously…the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God."
James Prescott Joule, thermodynamics

"… that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author."
Charles Babbage, mathematician, computer pioneer

"All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths come from on high and contained in the sacred writings."
Sir John Herschel, astronomer

"The nearer I approach to the end of my pilgrimage, the clearer is the evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, the grandeur and sublimity of God's remedy for fallen man are more appreciated, and the future is illumined with hope and joy."
Samuel F. B. Morris, inventor

"The grand old Book of God still stands; and this old earth, the more its leaves are turned over and pondered, the more it will sustain and illustrate the sacred Word."
James Dana, geologist

"The more I know, the more does my faith approach that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all, I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman." "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator…Science brings men nearer to God."
Louis Pasteur, medicine

"Life has always arisen from life. We see it being transmitted and never being produced." "What law is there, which could force the Creator to form unnecessarily useless organisms just to fill gaps in a scale?"
Georges Cuvier, paleontology

"Without Him, I understand nothing; without Him, all is darkness…Every period has its manias. I regard Atheism as a mania. It is the malady of the age. You could take my skin from me more easily than my faith in God."
Henri Fabre, biologist

"With regard to the origin of life, science…positively affirms creative power… Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us…the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."
Lord Kelvin William Thompson

"I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."
Joseph Lister, surgeon

"I think the widespread impression of the agnosticism of scientific men is largely due to the attitude taken up by a few of the great populizers of sciences, like Tyndall and Huxley. It has been my experience that the disbelieve in the revelation that God has given in the life and work, death and resurrection of our Savior is more prevalent among what I may call the camp followers of science than amongst those to whom scientific work is the business of their lives."
Alexander MacAlister, Professor of Anatomy, Cambridge

"The world around us, far more intricate than any watch, filled with checks and balances of a hundred varieties marvelous beyond even the imagination of the most skilled scientific investigator, this beautiful and intricate creation, bears the signature of its Creator, graven in its works."
Charles Steine, organic chemist

"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it…Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people."
Paul Lemoine, President of the Geological Society of France and Director of the Natural History Museum in France, early 1900s

"Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality be hind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Dr. Wernher von Braun, rocket scientist

"…There is no suggestion in the Bible that God created over long periods of time, there is only one model of creation in the Bible: God does it all in six days."
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, biologist, Director of the Georesearch Institute, Loma Linda, California

"I am firmly convinced that there is far more scientific evidence supporting a recent, six-day creation and global flood than there is an old earth and evolution."
Dr. Keith H. Wanser, physicist

"If you define science as repeatable, reliable, observational fact, it's obvious that evolution doesn't really qualify as science. People make these huge jumps; they see these tiny changes happening today, and so they conclude that all life forms have arisen from chemicals by a continuous process over millions of years. That's not science, that's a belief."
Dr. Brian Stone, B.Sc., Ph.D., is Professor and Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Western Australia

"The implications of the science of thermodynamics were instrumental in convincing this author that long periods of time are not only unnecessary, but also lethal to the theories of gradual and natural development of intelligent design."
Dr. Jeremy L. Walter, Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University

"That life requires a certain minimum number of parts is well documented, and the only debate is how many millions of functionally integrated parts are necessary -not the fact that a minimum number must exist for life to live."
Dr. Jerry R. Bergman, Biologist

"The chance of a random shuffling of amino acids producing a workable set of enzymes' to be less than 1040,000, and the famous unrealistically optimistic Green Band equation gives the chance of finding life on another planet on the order of only one in 1030." And "…there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."
Sir Fred Hoyle

"Weeks of reading and studying this subject provided me with no logical mechanisms for evolutionary processes." "The Genesis record implies that this world is very young…that one should expect to see overwhelming evidence of design of everywhere, in both physical and biological systems, and that there is a coherency and similarity between all systems, suggesting a common designer. The first evidence is that all life and non-life processes obey the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, the present world had a beginning and is measurably going downhill…numerous pieces of evidence fit a young earth. To mention a few: the historical records, the population growth, the helium content in this world, the missing neutrinos from the sun, the oscillation period of the sun, the decline of the Earth's magnetic field, the limited number of supernovas, radioactive halos, the mitochondrial DNA pointing to one mother, and the increase in genetic diseases, etc."
Dr. John K. G. Kramer, Biochemist

"Complexity of the cell is now just too daunting to flippantly assert biochemical evolution to explain it, unless you close your mind and press on blindly and boldly…if cells could not originate naturally, than nothing else could." "We must contribute together to the safe and smooth operation of nature because it nurtures all of us. Is this not what the Creator meant when he told man to tend and keep the garden? This is the way of heaven-to give and to receive without worry-as taught by Jesus himself. Biodiversity is a powerful testimony about the Creator…"
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about the conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Dr. Robert Jastrow, Founder and Director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

"Its often said, and widely believed, that scientists on the whole are anti-religious or at least, are not interested in religion. I believed that for a long time too. But no longer…As I perceive it, the fact is the scientists, the physicists at least, who have been most active, most successful in developing the quantum theory and further innovations in physics, are very interested in religion. If you consider scientists of the type of high school teachers or grade school teachers or Carl Sagan, you find that, yes, there is a lack of interest . Quite a few of them are anti-religious But, if you take the outstanding physicists, the ones who have done the most to advance modern physics especially Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac (a Nobel prize winner) you find them all interested in religion. All these men were intensely interested in religion."
Dr. Henry Margenau, Professor of Physics for over 40 years and Yale University

"The appearance of conflict is a result of ignorance. We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique conscious being, a divine creation."
Sir John Eccles, Nobel Laureate, neurobiologist

Honorable mention: Edward Blythe, who discovered the concept of natural selection about a quarter of a century before Darwin, Blythe, a Christian and a creationist, only made of this concept what he could observe (generally touted as good science). That is, that natural selection is just one of the forces sorting existing varieties into different environments. However, Darwin made it 1"into the basis of a new religion-a religion without revelation! His theory gave people an excuse to discount the existence of God and, therefore, be accountable only to themselves."


Confessions of the Evolutionary Atheist Scientists…and Darwin


"To suppose that the eye, ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." And, "...Intermediate links?" Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory ." "Geological research…does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required."
Charles Darwin

Complexities of life could not "have arisen by pure chance." "It seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events."
Francis Crick - co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule

"When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick explosive in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions." "…in spite of the immense amount of paleontological material and the long series of intact rock sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing."
Professor Richard Goldschmidt, world renowned geneticist, quote from 1940 and originator of the "hopeful monster" theory

"Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following between the major groups it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types."
Dr. Austin Clark, biologist of the Smithsonian Institute

"This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists."
Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, paleontologist, Harvard University

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill may of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods of institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, the materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, geneticist

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." "Everybody knows the fossil record doesn't provide much evidence for gradualism; it is full of gaps and discontinuities. These gaps are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the record, but this not an adequate explanation…This remarkable stasis has generally been ignored. If it doesn't agree with your ideas you don't talk about it." "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils." "Can a reasonable story of continuous change be constructed for all macroevolutionary events ? My answer shall be no."
Dr. Steven Jay Gould