Theodosius Dobzhansky Quotes

I oppose any belief that contradicts experimental evidence as determined by the methods of science. All beliefs not in such contradiction may be considered as faith. Whether faith in a particular belief is beneficial or not is another matter.

If I want to understand the laws of physics I have to first believe what I read about physics. I have to have faith in what I read.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.

I have great hope and faith, but it's a humanistic faith based in facts; you have to believe that facts exist. We can all arrive at the same facts if we engage in the process of experimentation, observation, and verification, which can solve more of the world's major problems than a debate over whether God does or doesn't exist.

Generally, TED speakers are believers in the scientific method.

Without a commitment to science and rationality in its proper domain, there can be no solution to the problems that engulf us. Still, the Yahoos never rest.

If we are too friendly to nice, decent bishops, we run the risk of buying into the fiction that there's something virtuous about believing things because of faith rather than because of evidence. We run the risk of betraying scientific enlightenment.

The scientist is a lover of truth for the very love of truth itself, wherever it may lead.

The man of science is a poor philosopher.

Science has to be understood in its broadest sense, as a method for comprehending all observable reality, and not merely as an instrument for acquiring specialized knowledge.

I don't think the scientific method and the science fictional method are really analogous. The thing about them is that neither is really practiced very much, at least not consciously. But the fact that they are methodical does relate them.

Traditional science is all about finding shortcuts.

I'm a bit of a freak for evidence-based analysis. I strongly believe in data.

I really believe in science. It is a faith. It is a reverence akin to religion. But as we always say, it's different from religion in that, as near as we can tell, it exists outside of us. It has an objective quality, the process of science.

Science is nothing, but trained and organized common sense.

Science, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term 'doubting Thomas' well illustrates the difference.

The world presents enough problems if you believe it to be a world of law and order; do not add to them by believing it to be a world of miracles.

I love science, and I believe in it. I have a faith that science can solve problems and make the world a better place.

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'

It is science, and not religion, which has taught men that things are complex and difficult to understand.

The reason I spend so much of my time doing science is that the whole point of science is to help people resolve conflicting claims by saying: 'Show me the data.'

But man has still another powerful resource: natural science with its strictly objective methods.

Blind faith, no matter how passionately expressed, will not suffice. Science for its part will test relentlessly every assumption about the human condition.

Too often today, we do not rely on faith so much as on our own ability to reason and solve problems.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.