Neil Turok Quotes

Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always been than it is to say that matter has always been?

God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.

The split between religion and science is relatively new. Isaac Newton, who first worked out the laws by which gravity held the planets and even the stars in their traces, was sufficiently impressed by the scale and regularity of the universe to ascribe it all to God.

I don't even really know what the big bang is, and so when people want to go through and say, 'Well, I believe that the universe started by God starting it,' that's fine by me.

God created the world; the laws of nature were created by God. True science tries to find out what God put in the world. The trouble is where scientists speculate about theology and they don't know what they're talking about because they weren't there. They can't speculate about the origins of life because they weren't there.

Except for a God who sits down after the universe begins, all other gods conflict with the assumptions of science.

Evolution and creationism both require faith. It's just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.

The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.

My view is that science only has something to say about a very particular notion of God, which goes by the name of 'god of the gaps'.

Religion and science look at reality differently.

I think science is about the search for God; it just comes at it from a different angle than religion.

While a case can be made for intelligent design, I can't figure out why some Christians are so thrilled about that possibility. First of all, it doesn't prove there's a God. If anything, intelligent design lends support to some form of pantheism that defines God as immanent within nature.

I believe that God made this wonderful universe and all that exists.

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe.

Intellectually, now, I believe that it is a complete vanity to say positively there is no God.

I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.

I also think we need to maintain distinctions - the doctrine of creation is different from a scientific cosmology, and we should resist the temptation, which sometimes scientists give in to, to try to assimilate the concepts of theology to the concepts of science.

Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God.

I did an album a long time ago called 'Replicas,' which was entirely science-fiction driven, or science-fantasy. Since then it's been a song here, a song there. It's not really a constant theme. I've written far more about my problems with religion, with God and all that.

I don't think that the total creation took place in six days as we now measure time. If we can confirm, say, the Big Bang theory, that doesn't at all cause me to question my faith that God created the Big Bang.

It a heresy to deny that the stars are brought out by God from his treasure-house and hung in the sky every evening; any other view is false to the Catholic faith.

Gods are fragile things, they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth.

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.

Although God believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true.