Unprejudiced Quotes (3 quotes)
I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.
This is too often seen distorted by creationists in this form, without the larger context. In isolation, it does not represent the position of the author.—Webmaster. The more complete quote from the author’s work is: “The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this [taxonomic] hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution—from biology, bio-geography, and paleontology; but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” From article, 'Evolution', collected in Anna Macgillivray Macleod and Leslie Samuel Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (1961). A longer quote, making clear that Corner “was by no means arguing in any way for special creation, or against evolution❞ is given in 'E. J. H. Corner' at https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/E._J._H._Corner.html
Science, regarded as the pursuit of truth, which can only be attained by patient and unprejudiced investigation, wherein nothing is to be attempted, nothing so minute as to be justly disregarded, must ever afford occupation of consummate interest, and subject of elevated meditation.
On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences (1858), 2-3.
Scientific discovery, or the formulation of scientific theory, starts in with the unvarnished and unembroidered evidence of the senses. It starts with simple observation—simple, unbiased, unprejudiced, naive, or innocent observation—and out of this sensory evidence, embodied in the form of simple propositions or declarations of fact, generalizations will grow up and take shape, almost as if some process of crystallization or condensation were taking place. Out of a disorderly array of facts, an orderly theory, an orderly general statement, will somehow emerge.
In 'Is the Scientific Paper Fraudulent?', The Saturday Review (1 Aug 1964), 42.