Welcome to our Law and Education quote collection. Many of the quotes in our collections have been verified for accuracy, but not all have been verified. Thus, we present our quote-collections as a starting point for research, and suggest you verify any individual quote before using it.
If you have information about problems or inaccuracies in any quotes, we welcome corrections. Please send them to us at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
“The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science and to freedom of religion.” (Jay D. Wexler [Professor of Law, Boston University Law School and leading anti-ID legal scholar], “Kitzmiller and the ‘Is it Science?’ Question,” First Amendment Law Review, 90, 93 (2006).)
"[T]he National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, and the American Civil Liberties Union have insisted that any departure from a strictly Darwinian approach to the issue constitutes an attack on science itself, and even an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into the public school science curriculum." (David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, and Mark Edward DeForrest, "Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?" Utah Law Review, Vol. 2000, No. 1, page 40 (2000).)
"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of ... descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, .. and changing environments." (Statement of the National Association of Biology Teachers, (1995).)
"Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology - professors and textbook writers included - have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it ... College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit of knowledge. Education becomes a fraud." (George Kocan, "Evolution isn't Faith But Theory," Chicago Tribune, (Monday, April 21, 1980).)
"In other words, it's natural selection or a Creator. This is why prominent Darwinists like G. G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature--and hence a Designer. " (George S. Johnston, "The Genesis Controversy," Crisis, page 17 (May, 1989).)
"The fairness question is still faulty because it mixes apples with oranges. A federal judge has ruled creation science to be 'not science' but a religious concept. Therefore, presenting both sides does not mean including various scientific theories but rather including religious ideas or at least nonscientific ideas, along side scientific theories in science instruction." (Brian and Sandra Alters, Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Creation/evolution Controversy, (Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2001).) Note: The case referred to is McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982), which has been highly criticized: See "Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?" by David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, and Mark Edward DeForrest (Utah Law Review, 2000:39). Available as the journal article and also at http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf)
---."Creationists must first change the construct of the scientific community; then science instructors will teach intelligent design because it's part of the construct. Until that day, instructors cannot honestly teach it as science."
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
"Today, professional evolution thrives. But the old religion survives and thrives right alongside it. Evolution now has its mystical visionary, its Saint John of the Cross. Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson tells us that we now have an 'alternative mythology' to defeat traditional religion. 'Its narrative form is the epic: the evolution of the universe from the big bang of fifteen million years ago through the origin of the elements and celestial bodies to the beginnings of life on earth.'"(Michael Ruse [Professor of Philosophy and Zoology at the University of Guelph], "How Evolution Became a Religion: Creationists Correct?" National Post, (May 13, 2000).)
---."Faithful to the oldest tradition of evolutionary theorizing -- reading his morality and politics into his science and then reading it right back out again -- Mr. Wilson warns us that we have evolved in symbiotic relationship with the rest of living nature, and lest we cherish and preserve biodiversity we will all perish. Drawing on the dispensationalism of his Southern Baptist childhood, with the eloquence and moral fervour of Billy Graham, Mr. Wilson begs us to repent, to stand up and acknowledge our sins and to walk forward in the ways of evolution. We have but a short time, else moral darkness will fall on us all. The language of Stephen Jay Gould is hardly more tempered. We learn that evolution 'liberates the human spirit,' that for sheer excitement evolution 'beats any myth of human origins by light years,' and that we should 'praise this evolutionary nexus -- a far more stately mansion for the human soul than any pretty or parochial comfort ever conjured by our swollen neurology to obscure the source of physical being.'"
---."Mr. Gould ultimately rejects traditional readings of evolution for a more inspiring, liberating version: 'We must assume that consciousness would not have evolved on our planet if a cosmic catastrophe had not claimed the dinosaurs as victims. In an entirely literal sense, we owe our existence, as large and reasoning mammals, to our lucky stars.' If this is not to rival traditional Judaeo-Christian teaching -- with its central belief that we humans are not just random happenstances, but a major reason why God created heaven and earth -- I do not know what is."
---."But, let us be tolerant. If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business. Who would deny the value of Mr. Wilson's plea for biodiversity? Who would argue against Mr. Gould's hatred of racial and sexual prejudice, which he has used evolution to attack? The important point is that we should recognize when people are going beyond the strict science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking of their theory as an all-embracing world picture. All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned -- unrealized even."
---."For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution. The Creationists are wrong in their Creationism, but they are right in at least one of their criticisms. Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying ideology, may be worthy, but if we feel strongly, there are other times and places to preach that gospel to the world."
"(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself." (Gordon C. Mills, Malcolm Lancaster, and Walter L. Bradley, "Origin of Life & Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique," The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 55, No. 2, page 83 (February, 1993).)
"[A]s a matter-of-fact: creationism should be discriminated against.... No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed." (John W. Patterson [Professor of Science and Technology, Iowa State University], "Do Scientists and Educators Discriminate Unfairly Against Creationists?" Journal of the National Center for Science Education, page 19 (Fall, 1984).)
"(1) Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; (2) Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject." (Amendment 799 to S.1 introduced by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) to be part of the Better Education For Students and Teachers Act, and approved by a 91-8 vote of the U.S. Senate)
"[T]he language [of the amendment] itself, is completely consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them so they can talk about different concepts and do it intelligently with the best information that is before them." (Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachussetts) while discussing the amendment 799 to S.1 introduced by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) to be part of the Better Education For Students and Teachers Act)
"[This] amendment will lead to a more thoughtful treatment of this topic in the classroom. It is important that students be exposed not only to the theory of evolution, but also to the context in which it is viewed by many in our society." (Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia), while discussing the amendment 799 to S.1 introduced by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) to be part of the Better Education For Students and Teachers Act)
---."I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors? Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking. But I understand that they might not align with someone else's. That is the very point of this amendment--to support an airing of varying opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. If education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience."
"In August of 1999 the Kansas State School Board fired a shot heard 'round the world. Press reports began to surface that evolution would not longer be taught. The specter of a theocratic school board entering the class to ensure that no student would be taught the prevailing wisdom of biology was envisioned. Political cartoons and editorials were drafted by the hundreds. To hear the furor, one might think that the teachers would be charged with sorting through their students' texts with an Exacto knife carving out pictures of Darwin." (Senator Brownback (R -Kansas), while discussing the amendment 799 to S.1 introduced by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) to be part of the Better Education For Students and Teachers Act, Congressional Record--Senate, (June 13, 2001).)
---."However, the prevailing impression, as is often the case, was not quite accurate. Here are the facts about what happened in Kansas. The school board did not ban the teaching of evolution. They did not forbid the mention of Darwin in the classroom. They didn't even remove all mention of evolution from the State assessment test. Rather, the school board voted against including questions on macro-evolution--the theory that new species can evolve from existing species over time--from the State assessment. The assessment did include questions on micro-evolution--the observed change over time within an existing species."
---."Why did they do this? Why go so far as to decipher between micro and macro-evolution on the State exam? How would that serve the theocratic school board's purpose that we read so much about? Well, the truth is . . . there was no theocratic end to the actions of the school board. In fact, their vote was cast based on the most basic scientific principal that science is about what we observe, not what we assume. The great and bold statement that the Kansas School Board made was simply that we observe micro-evolution and therefore it is scientific fact; and that it is impossible to observe macro-evolution, it is scientific assumption."
---."The response to this relatively minor and eminently scientific move by the Kansas school board was shocking. The actions and intentions of the school board were routinely misrepresented in the global press. Many in the global scientific community, who presumably knew the facts, spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas. College admissions boards, who most certainly knew the facts, threatened Kansas students. The State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the State universities were threatened based on the actions of school board. All of these effects caused by a school board trying to decipher between scientific fact and scientific assumption. The response to the actions of the board, appeared to many as a response to the commission of heresy."
---."For this reason, I am very pleased that my friend from Pennsylvania offered this amendment. He clarifies the opinion of the Senate that the debate of scientific fact versus scientific assumption is an important debate to embrace. I plan to support the amendment and urge my colleagues to join me."
"I do not know any country where, in general, less independence of mind and genuine freedom of discussion reign than in America." (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, from the section entitled "On the Power that the Majority in America Exercises Over Thought," translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, pages 243-245 (Chicago and London: University Press, 2000).)
"The teaching of science as enquiry would also include a fair treatment of the doubts and incompleteness of science and indicate the possibility that through the advance of enquiry scientific knowledge can change." (Biology Teachers' Handbook, page 41 (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963).)
"I encourage [students] to be skeptical--as long as their skepticism is based on logic and evidence... Questions are what drives science, not answers... Take nothing for granted, I counsel my students: that is what makes a scientist." (Michigan State physiology professor Robert S. Root-Bernstein, "Darwin's Rib," Discover, pages 38-41 (September 1995).)
"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation." (Professor Jerome Lejeune, internationally recognised geneticist, from a French recording at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985, (Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco).)
"Well, Mr. Kristol, evolution (as theory) is indeed 'a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses,' and I and my colleagues teach it as such." (Stephen Jay Gould [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, page 65 (January, 1987).)
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They've discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory." (Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, pages 7, 8, 89 (Master Books, 1988).)
---."It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
"In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes of science." (Eugenie Scott, quoted by Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, page 23 (Oxford University Press, 2002).)
"Many faculty fear that they will have to teach less content if they teach critical thinking, and I have argued that this trade-off is illusory -- as imaginary as the unicorn's horn." (Craig Nelson, professor of biology at Indiana University, as quoted in "IU biologist wins 'Professor of the Year' award from the Carnegie Foundation," (2000).)
"Evolution is fundamental to the teaching of good biology and geology, and the vertebrate fossil record is an excellent set of examples of the patterns and processes of evolution through time. We therefore urge the teaching of evolution as the only possible reflection of our science. Any attempt to compromise the patterns and processes of evolution in science education, to treat them as less than robust explanations, or to admit 'alternative' explanations not relying upon sound evolutionary observations and theory, misrepresents the state of our science and does a disservice to the public. Textbooks and other instructional materials should not indulge in such misrepresentation, educators should shun such materials for classroom use, and teachers should not be harassed or impeded from teaching vertebrate evolution as it is understood by its practitioners." (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology website statement "On Evolution," located at http://vertpaleo.org/The-Society/About-the-Society.aspx (updated 2013).)
"Education, you know, means broadening, advancing; and if you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought, be one individual. I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory." (John T. Scopes [accused of teaching evolution in 1925, which violated Tennessee House Bill #185, the "Butler Act"], in Wendell R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance, Vol. 1, page 9 (Thomas Nelson Inc, 1991).)
"Education that consists of learning things and not the meaning of things is like feeding on the husks and not the corn." (Mark Twain)
"Government in our democracy ... state and federal, must be neutral in matters of religious theory.... It may not aid, foster, or promote one religious theory as against another." (Justice Abe Fortas, comment in connection with U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down Arkansas anti-evolution law.)
"Discussions of evolution came to an end primarily because it was obvious that no progress was being made....When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given place to agnosticism.... Biological science has returned to its rightful place, investigation of the structure and properties of the concrete and visible world. We cannot see how the differentiation into species came about. Variation of many kinds, often considerable, we daily witness, but no origin of species.... I have put before you very frankly the considerations which have made us agnostic as to the actual mode and processes of evolution. When such confessions are made the enemies of science see their chance.... Let us then proclaim in precise and unmistakable language that our faith in evolution is unshaken." (William Bateson [late founder of the science of Genetics, first Professor of Genetics, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," in an address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science, Vol. LV, page 55 (December 28, 1921), in L. T. More, The Dogma of Evolution, page 28 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1925).)
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school.'" (Dr. Colin Patterson [Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], in keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, (November 5, 1981).)
"'Religious advocacy is what's forbidden, but acknowledging that there are religious controversies and objections around evolution is another thing,' said Glenn Branch, the center's deputy director. 'It would be perfectly acceptable for there to be a discussion of the fact that there are religious objections to evolution.'" (Jeremy Manier, quoting Glenn Branch, "Science Test, Teachers can walk a creative middle road," Chicago Tribune, located at http://http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-11-27/news/0511270258_1_creationism-intelligent-design-evolution (November 27, 2005).)
"The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the president's comments irresponsible and said that 'When it comes to evolution, there is only one school of scientific thought, and that is evolution occurred and is still occurring.' Lynn added that '[W]hen it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class.'" (Elisabeth Bumiller, "Furor Erupts Over Bush's Remarks on Intelligent Design," [Original New York Times article quoted in San Francisco Chronicle] located at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/03/MNGFOE1VHN1.DTL (Wednesday, August 3, 2005).)
“Is Dickie Loeb to blame because... of the infinite forces that were at work producing him ages before he was born? Is he to blame because his machine is imperfect?” (Clarence Darrow, arguing in the Leopold-Loeb murder trial, 1924, one year before the Scopes Trial).
“In the question-and-answer period that followed Beckwith’s presentation, Florida State University philosophy and zoology professor Michael Ruse said that while he applauded the judge’s ruling he wondered if what the judge perceived as a lack of forthrightness by the school board contributed to his ruling. 'The Dover case,' he said, 'would not represent "the final word' on the subject.'” (Marilyn Stewart, "Faith factors don’t negate Intelligent Design, prof says," Baptist Press located at www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?Id=22645(February 13, 2006).)
"'They're trying to get teachers to tell the kids lies about science,' said Patricia Princehouse, who teaches evolutionary biology and the history of science at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 'Critical analysis is just another name for creationism.'" (Stephanie Simon, “Ohio Drops Demand That Evolution Be Challenged,” Los Angeles Times, located at http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-evolution15feb15,0,7865709.story?coll=la-news-learning (February 15, 2006).)
“Patricia Princehouse, an evolutionary biologist and historian of science who has led the charge against the lesson plan, said, 'Basically critical analysis is intelligent design relabeled, just as intelligent design was creationism relabeled.'” (Jodi Rudoren, "Ohio Expected to Rein In Class Linked to Intelligent Design," New York Times, located at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/education/14evolution.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 (February 14, 2006).)
“Because the religious underpinnings of ID were so clearly exposed in the Dover trial, ID is no longer a viable creationist strategy. The fallback creationist position will be to argue for 'balancing' the teaching of evolution with alleged 'evidence against evolution,' keeping the content of ID but avoiding the legally problematic intelligent agent. The leading ID think-tank, the Discovery Institute, is already promoting this view, which they call 'teach the controversy.' Relying on the public’s attraction to the fairness argument, they propose that students should be given 'all the evidence' and be able to 'decide for themselves.' Of course, the 'evidence' is erroneous science, and few would argue that students’ critical thinking skills are improved by teaching them incorrect information.” (Eugenie Scott, "Creationism and Evolution: It’s the American Way," Cell, Vol. 124, pages 449-451 (February 10, 2006).)
“A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1859).)
“[T]here is no scientific 'evidence against evolution' and there is no pedagogical value in teaching 'evidence against evolution.'" (Eugenie Scott, [Declaration in Hurst v. Newman case], "Problems with the Intersession Course,"Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Vol. 26, Issue 4, pages 6-9 (July-August, 2006).)
“[S]cientists should collect as much information about the nature of the problem as possible before drawing conclusions. Chemistry is subtle, and chemists can be tricked into believing results that are not true. The best defense against being deceived is to be thoroughly familiar with the scientific literature, to get as much data as possible, and to try to reproduce results a number of times. There are no unnecessary experiments. It is better to perform an irrelevant experiment than not to perform the experiment and then later discover that the results would have been very important.” (William A. Howard, "A Consideration of the Potassium-Argon Radiometric Method for Dating Minerals," Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 83 (4), page 546, located at http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu//Journal/Issues/2006/Apr/abs546.html (April 1, 2006).)
---.“When teaching chemistry, I introduce my students to a number of theories, such as Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory, Valence Bond Theory, Molecular Orbital Theory, Crystal Field Theory, and more! These theories are well-established and supported by a great deal of experimental evidence. Nevertheless, I encourage my students to question the experimental support and to think of new experiments that could potentially falsify the theories. This activity is extremely important for producing first rate scientists. The students are well aware that these theories are not 'controversial,' and that we question these ideas simply as an intellectual exercise.”
"'But I don't think that that attitude of mine should control the high school curriculum,' he said, adding, 'my own personal motivation is irrelevant, just as the motivations of religious people should not affect high school curricula: Science should be taught not in order to support religion and not in order to destroy religion--science should be taught simply ignoring religion.'" (Steven Weinberg, ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html)
“People ask me, Why pour so much energy into protecting science education? Why not fight for literacy generally or any of a thousand other educational issues? I have two answers. One is easy: I know about evolution, so it makes sense that I would work on what I know best. The second is harder to grasp. And that is that freedom of religion is the bedrock foundation of liberty in this country. If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to religious views their parents don't hold, if we allow them to spout outright lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have left? If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about anything.” (Patricia Princehouse, [in acceptance speech for Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award from the Playboy Foundation for her efforts to preserve science education in Ohio public schools], located at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060529/princehouse)
“Biologists unanimously agree that evolution occurred in the past and is still occurring today.” (Teresa Audesirk, Gerald Audesirk, Bruce E. Byers, Life on Earth, page 263 (2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 2000).)
“Leshner will not debate opponents of evolution in person, and he will not debate them in a science class, because the science association believes that such events convey a false sense to the public that there really exists a scientific controversy over evolution.” (Shankar Vedantam, “Eden and Evolution: Religious critics of evolution are wrong about its flaws. But are they right that it threatens belief in a loving God?” Washington Post, WO8 (Sunday, February 5, 2006).)
”The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. As I hope that you can see, these precepts and beliefs, grounded in my liberal arts education, guide me each day as a federal trial judge.” (Judge John E. Jones III, [Dickinson College Commencement Address], located at http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html (May 19-21, 2006).)
“When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus.” (Simon Conway Morris, “Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,” Cell, Vol. 100, pages 1-11 (Jan. 7, 2000).)
"'During [Eric Rothschild's] opening address, he put a computer-generated slide up on the screen and it was a shot of some primates,' Jones said. 'Just as I'm trying to get myself settled down, he starts flashing these pictures, and I remember looking up at these monkeys and I thought of the Scopes "monkey trial." And it really occurred to me then, when I saw that slide, that perhaps we were in the midst of making history here.'" (Lisa L. Granite [FNa1], "One for the History Books," The Pennsylvania Lawyer, *17 (July/August, 2006).)
---."'I think that some of the cross-examination was absolutely fabulous,'" said Jones. "'It will endure, and I think it will be excerpted for advocacy classes. ... I would say, in particular, Eric Rothschild's cross-examination of Professor [Michael] Behe -- the intelligent design proponent -- that might be as good a cross-examination of an expert witness as I have ever seen. It was textbook.'"
---."Jones says he has little patience for the activist judge label. '[A]n activist judge is a judge whose decision you disagree with -- I don't think it articulates any more than that,' he said."
---."While taking a firm stance against those who would redefine the judiciary's role, Jones is more hesitant to offer his thoughts on the greater legal significance of the Kitzmiller case. Because the decision has no precedential value outside the Middle District, he says it would be presumptuous of him to expound on its future impact."
---."'I will say that the reason I wrote a decision that was so extensive was because I felt I would be ducking my responsibility to rule on that broader question,' he said."
---."I think what made the decision controversial was that I ruled on whether intelligent design is science. ... I had a fervent hope that although some people would likely disagree with the opinion, it could serve as a primer for school boards and other people who were considering this."
---."'And that's exactly what happened,' he explained. 'In Ohio, in California [and] there's a guy from northeastern Pennsylvania, I forget what school board. He sat through parts of the trial, read the opinion and then said publicly that while he had been an advocate for ID [being included in the science curriculum], reading the opinion had changed his mind.'"
---."Despite Jones' dismissal of his perspective on the issue, an entire nation is now apparently eager to hear it. The notoriety of the trial has made an inadvertent luminary of him, with some interesting new titles bestowed on him as a result: He has been named one of Time magazine's '100 Most Influential People of the Year' and one of Wired magazine's '10 Sexiest Geeks of Science'---the latter much to his family's amusement."
“No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life.” (Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, page 99 (Simon and Schuster, 2006).)
“I think that Gould’s separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it’s a very empty idea.” (Richard Dawkins, “God vs. Science: Can religion stand up to the test?”, Time Magazine (November 13, 2006).)
“I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it's hopeless to expect that a single lecture—even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock—will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.” (Laurence A. Moran, "Flunk the Idiots," sandwalk.blogspot.com, located at http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/flunk-idiots.html (November 17, 2006).)
"Teaching students about religion in world history or social studies is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not." (Anthony D. Romero [Executive Director, ACLU], quoted in "Court Rules 'Intelligent Design' is Not Science," located at http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/23158prs20051220.html
"Darwin's theory of evolution, which states that there are cumulative changes that occur in a population over a period of time, has always been controversial." Jon Offredo, "Biology 101 courses teach Darwinism," located at http://www.da.wvu.edu/XMLParser/printstory.phtml?id=24899 (December 4, 2006).)
"So tyranny consists in the desire to dominate everything regardless of order. In the various attributes of mankind, such as strength, beauty, sensibility, and piety, each is master of his own house but nowhere else. Sometimes they conflict and the strong or the handsome will strive to dominate, but this is absurd because their mastery is of different kinds. So they do not understand each other and their mistake lies in wanting to rule everything. Nothing can do this, not even strength. Brute power has no effect on the world of scholarship and only governs external actions. So their human tendencies are false." (Blaise Pascal, Pensees, quote 58 (1669).)
---."Tyranny means wanting to have by one means what can only be had by another. We have to pay different custom tolls for different kinds of merit. We must love charm, or fear strength, or believe in knowledge. These dues must be paid. It is wrong to refuse them and wrong to demand any others." (quote 332.)
“The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory." (Thomas Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design," Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, Issue 2, pages 187-205 (Spring, 2008).)
---."It would be unfortunate if the Establishment Clause made it unconstitutional to allude to these questions [concerning problems with evolution] in a public school biology class, for that would mean that evolutionary theory cannot be taught in an intellectually responsible way.”
“Probably no deeper divisions of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youths to unite in embracing… it is that no official… can prescribe what shall be orthodox in polities, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion…” (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).)
---.“Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality will not be partisan or the enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction. If it is to impose any ideological discipline, however, each party or denomination must seek to control, or failing that, to weaken the influence of the educational system” (624, 637.)
“For God's sake, let the children have their minds kept open - close no doors to their knowledge; shut no doors from them.” (Closing argument of Dudley Field Malone, defense attorney for John T. Scopes, as quoted in State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, 152 Tenn. 424, 278 S.W. 57 (1925).)
"In the short run, new ideas that do not mesh well with mainstream ideas may encounter vigorous criticism, and scientists investigating such ideas may have difficulty obtaining support for their research. Indeed, challenges to new ideas are the legitimate business of science in building valid knowledge. Even the most prestigious scientists have occasionally refused to accept new theories despite there being enough accumulated evidence to convince others." (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science for All Americans, (Oxford University Press, 1989).)
---."Scientific habits of mind can help people in every walk of life to deal sensibly with problems that often involve evidence, quantitative considerations, logical arguments, and uncertainty; without the ability to think critically and independently, citizens are easy prey to dogmatists, flimflam artists, and purveyors of simple solutions to complex problems."
“Promoting science isn't just about providing resources — it's also about protecting free and open inquiry,” he said. “It's about letting scientists … do their jobs free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” (U. S. President Barack Obama [praising the lifting of a federal ban on funding for stem cell research], quoted in B. D. Colen, "Harvard scientists praise lifting of stem cell restrictions," Harvard Science, (March 9, 2009).)
“The Court’s inquiry is shaped by the educational context in which it arises: ‘First Amendment rights must be analyzed in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.’ Widmar, 454 U. S., at 268, n. 5. This Court is the final arbiter of whether a public university has exceeded constitutional constraints. The Court has, however, cautioned courts to resist ‘substitut[ing] their own notions of sound educational policy for those of . . . school authorities,’ for judges lack the on-the-ground expertise and experience of school administrators. Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 206. Because schools enjoy ‘a significant measure of authority over the type of officially recognized activities in which their students participate,’ Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 240, the Court approaches its task here mindful that Hastings’ decisions about the character of its student-group program are due decent respect.” (Christian Legal Society Chapter of the Univ. of Ca., Hastings Coll. of the Law, v. Martinez, pages 19-21 (Jun. 28, 2010).)
“Our inquiry is shaped by the educational context in which it arises: ‘First Amendment rights,’ we have observed, ‘must be analyzed in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.’ Widmar, 454 U. S., at 268, n. 5 (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court is the final arbiter of the question whether a public university has exceeded constitutional constraints, and we owe no deference to universities when we consider that question. Cf. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, 827 (1974) (‘Courts cannot, of course, abdicate their constitutional responsibility to delineate and protect fundamental liberties.’). Cognizant that judges lack the on-the-ground expertise and experience of school administrators, however, we have cautioned courts in various contexts to resist ‘substitut[ing] their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.’ Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 206 (1982). See also, e.g., Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 273 (1988) (noting our ‘oft-expressed view that the education of the Nation’s youth is primarily the responsibility of parents, teachers, and state and local school officials, and not of federal judges’); Healy, 408 U. S., at 180 (‘[T]his Court has long recognized ‘the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.’ (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 507 (1969))).” (Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the Univ. of Ca., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, pages 19-21 (Jun. 28, 2010).)
“[D]eterminations of what constitutes sound educational policy or what goals a student organization forum ought to serve fall within the discretion of school administrators and educators. See, e.g., Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 206 (1982).” (Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the Univ. of Ca., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, page 21, fn 16 (Jun. 28, 2010).)
"Today, as in the nineteenth century, science is a predominant feature of our culture, which may be good or bad. Nonetheless, the pervasiveness of science is a modern fact, so it should be dealt with thoughtfully. Most politicians who govern today have no better training in biology or in any science than did politicians in Marsh's time. Law schools and businesses still supply most of our public figures. A background heavy in business and light in science gives only lopsided preparation to persons who guide the destiny of science in society." Kenneth V. Kardong, Vertebrates, page 119 (McGraw Hill, 2012).)
Source: Many of the quotes in our collection have been verified for accuracy, but not all have been verified. Thus, we present our quote-collections as a starting point for research, and suggest you verify any individual quote before using it.
If you have information about problems or inaccuracies in any quotes, we welcome corrections. Please send them to us at: email@example.com.
Return to the Quote Collections Home Page.