George Gilder Quotes

The scientific argument advanced for intelligent design at the Dover trial, those arguments collapsed, scientifically and intellectually.

This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy.

There is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

The new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it intelligent design.

I don't want to be too harsh, but there's very little evidence for 'intelligent design' or any sort of creator.

Precisely because intelligent design does not turn the study of biological origins into a Bible-science controversy, intelligent design is a position around which Christians of all stripes can unite.

Proponents of intelligent design don't accept that some of the very complex nanomachines that we have inside ourselves could have come about solely on the basis of natural selection.

Intelligent Design is a remarkably uncreative theory that abandons the search for understanding at the very point where it is most needed. If Intelligent Design is really a science, then the burden is on its scientists to discover the mechanisms used by the Intelligent Designer. (80)

It was an effort to include intelligent design and treat it as science, disparaging evolution along the way. That will not stand.

How can you look at the Texas legislature and still believe in intelligent design?

Intelligent design, unlike creationism, is a science in its own right and can stand on its own feet.

Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution.

There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.

As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism .

No wonder the creationists don't believe the darwinian account.

I am a believer in the evolutionary process, and yet I have sympathy for the friends of mine who are creationists. I don't find the positions incompatible.

By no definition of any modern scientist is intelligent design science, and it's a waste of our students' time to subject them to it.

If you define evolution as merely meaning change over time, then I don't see any problem with a person being a Christian and believing in evolution. But that's not how textbooks define evolution. They define evolution as being random and undirected without plan or purpose.

The information and the materials [of “Intelligent Design”] aren't scientific, it's not a compromise. You either include non-scientific materials or you don't. And in a science class, we don't include non-scientific, non-empirically based material.

Undirected natural processes like the Darwinian mechanism are incapable of generating the specified complexity that exists in biological organisms … the natural sciences need to leave room for design.

But I firmly believe that evolution be taught in the schools has the best witness of what modern science has taught us. To read the Bible literalistically about such issues disinvites us from using the best of recent scholarships

It is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

Pope Francis is not the first religious leader who has endorsed evolution and the Big Bang, but he is certainly one of the most influential.

Evolution is the key to avoiding the whole issue of God. When you challenge evolution, you're basically challenging someone on a spiritual level.