Jon Jones Quotes

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

Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.

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

Deep down, creationists realize they will never win factual arguments with science. This is why they have construed their own science-like universe, known as Intelligent Design, and eagerly jump on every tidbit of information that seems to go their way.

Scientists and creationists are always at odds, of course.

'Intelligent Design,' the relabeled, repackaged form of American creationism, has always had a problem. It just can't seem to produce any evidence.

You have to know evolution to understand the natural world. And that cannot be a threat to people of faith. There's a serious problem if you are forced by your faith to reject the most well-supported theory in all of science.

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.

Anti-Evolution League

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)

Evolution is fundamentally hostile to religion.

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

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

It's always a tough call deciding whether, as a scientist, you should argue publicly with the creationists. It's a dilemma that I encounter frequently in another subject area: Does it make sense to bandy words with someone from the UFO community?

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.

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is 'The Book of British Birds,' and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

I'd love to meet Darwin. He caused such controversy over whether God created the earth in six days or whether we evolved over time. I'd love to discuss that with him - what a fantastic conversation!

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

There are many very educated people who are religious, but they're not creationists.

Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone. In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students. They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations.

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.

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

The worst censors are those prohibiting criticism of the theory of evolution in the classroom.

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'.