Nobody can imitate me. You can always see impersonations of Katharine Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe. But not me. Because I've always drawn on myself only.
Truth as such is not a particularly important concept in naturalistic philosophy.
All the most prominent Darwinists proclaim naturalistic philosophy when they think it safe to do so.
We're not trying to prove the character of God through science. That's a bad idea. What I'm trying to do is clear away the misunderstandings, the debris that prevent people from accepting that God who wants to accept them.
The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created. " Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.
Most importantly, I agree that the truth of these matters should be determined by interpretation of scientific evidence - experiments, fossil studies and the like.
This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy.
I want to be remembered as someone who tried to bring the story of our ancestors to the broadest possible audience. I want to be remembered as a man who loved his race.
We miss the real by lack of attention, and create the unreal by excess of imagination.
The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood. He who will be proved right in the end appears to be wrong and harmful before it.
Consider. . . the university professor. What is his function? Simply to pass on to fresh generations of numskulls a body of so-called knowledge that is fragmentary, unimportant, and, in large part, untrue. His whole professional activity is circumscribed by the prejudices, vanities and avarices of his university trustees, i. e. , a committee of soap-boilers, nail manufacturers, bank-directors and politicians. The moment he offends these vermin he is undone. He cannot so much as think aloud without running a risk of having them fan his pantaloons.