The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science.

If modernist naturalism were true there would be no objective truth outside of science. In that case right and wrong would be a matter of cultural preference or political power and the power already available to modernists ideologies would be overwhelming.

The assumption that nature is all there is and that nature has been governed by the same rules at all times and places makes it possible for natural science to be confident that it can explain such things as how life began.

In short it is not that evolutionary naturalists have been less brazen than the scientific creationists in holding science hostage but rather that they have been infinitely more effective in getting away with it.

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

It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered from observations science had made that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection.

It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural.

It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover from observations science has made that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on.

From my earliest acquaintance with the science of political economy it has been evident to my mind that capital was the product of labor and that therefore in its best analysis there could be no natural conflict between capital and labor.

There's a new science out called orthomolecular medicine. You correct the chemical imbalance with amino acids and vitamins and minerals that are naturally in the body.