William A. Dembski Quotes

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

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.

Intelligent design itself does not have any content.

Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God.

Even if evolution were true, it wouldn't disprove God. God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution. It's not even a daunting challenge to a belief in God. If you want something that complicates a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God's special creatures.

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

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.

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)

The writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand, however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution.

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

Religious reasons, which is no reason. I notice Skeptic had a review of Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Religious reasons amount to what Dennett terms "skyhooks." Do you believe in skyhooks? I don't.

Darwinian evolution is unscientific, unobservable, unbelievable, but understandable in a world that hates God.

It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner... Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.

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.

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.

Some theists in evolutionary science acquiesce to these tacit rules and retain a personal faith while accepting a thoroughly naturalistic picture of physical reality.

For me, I've always believed that there was a God. I've always believed that God created the heavens and earth - so, for me it's not a huge leap from there to intelligent design.

For all the creationists out there, Darwin's just an atheist. But he was actually agnostic.

The argument for intelligent design basically depends on saying, 'You haven't answered every question with evolution,'... Well, guess what? Science can't answer every question.

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.

Creationism means simply a belief in creation