[mlc9852]

Executive Director Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist who taught at the university level before becoming Director of NCSE in 1987.

http://www.ncseweb.org/about.asp

he pro-evolution community continues to endorse organizations like the National Center for Science Education (executive director, Eugenie Scott) and the National Academy of Sciences as resources for unbiased mainstream science. What they conveniently fail to mention is that Eugenie Scott is a self-professed atheist. Moreover, a survey given to representatives of the National Academy of Sciences that was later published in a 1998 volume of the Journal of Nature confirms that 73% of its members are atheist and 20% are agnostic.1 In the same article, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins said, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge."

Eugenie Scott was quoted in a Dispatch editorial on 03/14/04 as saying, "By definition, science cannot consider supernatural explanations: If there is an omnipotent deity, there is no way we can exclude or include it in research design." However, this exact type of scientific research is published in peer-reviewed journals consistently. An example is a paper published in the 1999 volume of the Journal of Archived Internal medicine titled, "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit."2

The genuine problem with Eugenie Scott’s contention of limiting scientific study only to naturalistic processes is that the definition of science today incorrectly accepts a much broader scope. Science today claims that every observation must be explained by naturalistic processes and therefore concludes that there is no such thing as miracles or an omnipotent deity. By embracing this expanded definition, science has now completely overstepped its authority in attempting to explain the natural world.

Science can revert back to the more limited definition of only studying known naturalistic processes, but this assertion must be supplemented with the recognition that science is not capable of explaining the natural world in its entirety. The "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson clearly attempts to use the limited definition of science by teaching that there is no naturalistic explanation or mechanism for macroevolution and consequently reveals why the militant pro-evolutionists are hyperventilating.

The atheist wing of the evolutionist community desires the more expanded definition of science because it demands the teaching of a natural world completely devoid of an omnipotent deity. The more limited scientific definition does not teach of a deity, but it correctly recognizes that if a naturalistic explanation does not exist for a given observation, then it is irresponsible to invoke some pseudoscientific extrapolation that has no basis in the scientific method.

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/oped03.html

I'm sure Dr. Scott doesn't have an agenda.

[freedumb2003]

but it correctly recognizes that if a naturalistic explanation does not exist for a given observation, then it is irresponsible to invoke some pseudoscientific extrapolation that has no basis in the scientific method.

Worth repeating.

[Junior]

What they conveniently fail to mention is that Eugenie Scott is a self-professed atheist.

So he evidently eats small children and tortures animals? What has his being an atheist to do with the validity of the website he directs?

Oh, I get it. Ad hominem. If you can't counter the ideas, insinuate the ideas' holder is a bad man. Typical liberal strategy, but it should work with the relatively ignorant masses.

[aimhigh]

What they conveniently fail to mention is that Eugenie Scott is a self-professed atheist.

Ahhhh, the core of evolution.

[shuckmaster]

Eugenie Scott’s book is a great read and will open your eyes to the truth. You should consider reading it rather than merely posting some belly achers negative review without having a clue.

[Old Landmarks]

For the archives

[grey_whiskers]

The more limited scientific definition does not teach of a deity, but it correctly recognizes that if a naturalistic explanation does not exist for a given observation, then it is irresponsible to invoke some pseudoscientific extrapolation that has no basis in the scientific method.

This is assuming that the deity is invoked primarily as an explanation of the causation of the phenomenon ("we don't know why" = "Goddidit"^TM, and secondly that the phenomenon is agreed to be primarily naturalistic in its essence.

By definition, bringing in God to explain a miracle is not 'pseudoscientific', it is not scientific at all.

Saying that (say) Ball Lightning is "a work of God" is -- except as a figure of speech -- pseudoscientific.

Invoking God in orbital mechanics of the Solar System argues either abysmal ignorance or a belief that God is much more intimately involved in things than generally supposed.

Cheers!