In scientific work those who refuse to go beyond fact rarely get as far as fact.

A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.

The most solid piece of scientific truth I know of is that we are profoundly ignorant about nature.

The truth is that the religious and the scientific processes though involving different methods are identical in their final aim. Both aim at reaching the most real.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Scientific truth is marvelous but moral truth is divine and whoever breathes its air and walks by its light has found the lost paradise.

Selling drug secrets violates a trust that is fundamental to the integrity of both scientific research and our financial markets.

There is no scientific reason to think that we even with space travel are going to survive as a species for ever certainly not by biting off the hand that feeds us which is exactly what we are doing.

IBM's long-standing mantra is 'Think.' What has always made IBM a fascinating and compelling place for me is the passion of the company and its people to apply technology and scientific thinking to major societal issues.

With all the technology we're inventing and what they're coming up with scientifically people are having longer lifetimes. It's scary but in the same sense it's also very exciting.

There is no scientific answer for success. You can't define it. You've simply got to live it and do it.

Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it. Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.

If you look at the purported dangers of salt or fat there is no consensus of support in scientific literature. So I would ask first: 'Is it possible to have an informed government that actually follows the science?' From what I've seen it's not likely.

As the Nation's primary supporter of research in the physical sciences the DOE Office of Science led the way in creating a unique system of large-scale specialized often one-of-a-kind facilities for scientific discovery.

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.

If you publish a scientific paper it is very hard to start a nationwide debate about something. If you do this in a movie you can start a debate. We like to create a bridge between those two worlds - film and science.

In this time of budget cuts we cannot forget that basic science is a building block for scientific innovation and economic growth in the information age.

There's no doubt that scientific training helps many authors to write better science fiction. And yet several of the very best were English majors who could not parse a differential equation to save their lives.

In praising science it does not follow that we must adopt the very poor philosophies which scientific men have constructed. In philosophy they have much more to learn than to teach.

At a time when science plays such a powerful role in the life of society when the destiny of the whole of mankind may hinge on the results of scientific research it is incumbent on all scientists to be fully conscious of that role and conduct themselves accordingly.

The 'science' for which the United States is respected has nothing to do with the unscientific and baseless theory of evolution.

We're uncomfortable about considering history as a science. It's classified as a social science which is considered not quite scientific.

Goethe died in 1832. As you know Goethe was very active in science. In fact he did some very good scientific work in plant morphology and mineralogy. But he was quite bitter at the way in which many scientists refused to grant him a hearing because he was a poet and therefore they felt he couldn't be serious.

People and especially theologians should try to familiarize themselves with scientific ideas. Of course science is technical in many respects but there are some very good books that try to set out some of the conceptual structure of science.