“Unfortunately, the idea that science is the only way to truth often leads people to think that “scientific” means the same as “rational,” that is, in accord with reason. This is false [...] Reason has a far larger scope than science.”

“The natural sciences can cope with questions about the nature and structure of the cake, but they cannot answer the “why” question of purpose. Science has its limitations.”

“The God of the Bible is not a god of the gaps. He is the God of the whole show. He is the God of the bits of the universe we don’t understand and the bits we do.”

“The key point here is that science does not compete with God as an explanation. Science gives a different kind of explanation.”

“There can be multiple explanations that are equally true at the same time. [...] The first is scientific and the second is personal, involving my intentions, will and desire. [...] The two explanations do not conflict or even compete. They complement each other.”

“The principle of following evidence where it leads is extremely important. It may mean that we have to go beyond narrowly defined scientific explanations in terms of natural processes, but it need not lead us beyond rational explanation.”

“Question A. Does science - its history, presuppositions, and findings - provide evidence of a designing intelligence involved in the universe and life? rather than: Question B. What is the nature of that designing intelligence, if it exists? Differentiating between these two questions has been the intellectual motivation behind the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.”

“At the heart of all science lies the conviction that the universe is orderly. Without this deep conviction science would not be possible.”

“Design arguments come in two main forms. Firstly, the argument to design where the idea is that, if we believe in a Creator for whatever reason, then we would expect to find evidence of that fact in the physical world. [...] The argument from design moves in the opposite direction, in taking perceived design in the universe as evidence of the existence of God.”

“Suppose we scientists are given a black box to investigate. Is it legitimate for us to ask and investigate whether there is any scientific evidence for an informational input into the design and function of the box? [...] I then said that this question is the key to understanding ID.”

“[T]hat certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected natural process.”

“[S]cientific reasoning can also deal with unrepeatable events via inference to the best explanation and this too can lead to well-confirmed hypotheses, if there is good evidence. [...] While subjective judgments can come into play, the crucial thing is the quality of the evidence in a given case.”

“For, the statement that only science can lead to truth is not itself deduced from science. It is not a scientific statement but rather a statement about science, that is, it is a meta-scientific statement. Therefore, if scientism’s basic principle is true, the statement expressing scientism must be false. Scientism refutes itself.”

“[T]here is nothing but nature. It is a closed system of cause and effect. There is no realm of the transcendent or supernatural. There is no “outside”. Diametrically opposed [...] is the theistic view [...] [that] the universe is not a closed system but a creation, an artefact designed and produced by the mind of God.”

“The danger of terms such as “methodological atheism” or “methodological naturalism” is that they might be understood as lending support to an atheistic worldview [...]. [...] What no scientists can avoid is having their own a priori philosophical commitments. Those commitments [...] may well play a much more dominant role when we are studying how things came to exist.”

“The building does not emerge from the bricks nor the writing from the paper and ink without the injection of both energy and intelligent activity.”

“God is not to be understood merely as a God of the gaps since he is not an alternative to science as an explanation. On the contrary, he is the ground of all explanation. It is his existence which gives rise to the very possibility of explanation, scientific or otherwise.”

“[T]he remarkable picture that is gradually emerging from modern physics and cosmology is one of a universe whose fundamental forces are amazingly, intricately, and delicately balanced or “fine-tuned” in order for the universe to be able to sustain life. [...] Change any of them a little, and the universe would become hostile to life and incapable of supporting it.”

“[T]he preceding arguments are not “god of the gaps” arguments; it is advance in science, not ignorance of science, that has revealed the fine-tuning. There is no “gap” in the science. The question is rather: How should we interpret the science?”

“[P]roteins are [...] like the DNA used in their construction, information rich. It is that informational structure that so far has presented an insuperable barrier to scientific explanation. [...] Evolution in the Darwinian sense is a non-starter here, since it makes no sense to try to explain the origin of life in terms of something (natural selection and mutation) whose functioning self-evidently depends on life’s prior existence.”