Posted on 07/07/2009 8:43:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Recently, the prestigious publication Scientific American honored Eugenie Scott as one of its ten most influential science people in America, along with a manager at a computer chip company, an electric car industry executive, an infectious disease physician, and even Bill Gates from Microsoft.
Who is Eugenie Scott and why is she being honored? Did she contribute to lifesaving cancer research? No. Did she invent a device that will help millions of people in need? No.
Kate Wilcox of Scientific American writes of Scott:
Thomas Henry Huxley was the 19th century biologist known as "Darwin's bulldog" for his defense of the great scientist's ideas. The 21st century has a counterpart in the woman who describes herself as "Darwin's golden retriever." Eugenie Scott has emerged as one of the most prominent advocates for keeping evolution an integral part of the curriculum in public schools.”1, 2
Trained as an anthropologist, Dr. Scott turned away from doing science and began promoting evolution. And not just educating citizens about evolution, but demanding of government officials that only evolution must be taught to schoolchildren across the country. Creation science, Intelligent Design, and any other alternative to Darwinian-based evolution must be eradicated from the educational landscape in America. This is not the first time atheists and humanists have sought to influence education policy in public schools.
In 1963, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Madalyn Murray, an American atheist and communist sympathizer, who demanded that her son should not be subjected to prayer and Bible reading in school. The Court ruled in her favor, and Ms. Murray (later O'Hair) became a hero among atheists around the world.3 She was also named the most hated woman in America by Life magazine.
Eugenie Scott, who serves as Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, appears to have taken up the mantle of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, establishing herself as the guardian of atheism in America's science classrooms. Not surprisingly, Dr. Scott is one of the signers of the 2003 Humanist Manifesto.
Rather than doing science or defending the evidence, Dr. Scott defends the 19th century ideas of Charles Darwin. She works tirelessly to ensure that all children in America never have to hear any science but Darwin's atheistic-based evolutionary ideas. And in this year of worldwide worship of the man Charles Darwin, who popularized the notion that molecules eventually became fish that eventually became people, the popular science community is falling head over heels for anyone defending this origins-by-accident theory that now saturates science and education.
Dr. Scott has won numerous awards and many honorary degrees, mostly for her "public service" in defending evolutionism and disdaining creationism. One of her awards in 1999, oddly enough, was given by the Hugh Hefner Foundation (named for the founder of Playboy) for her efforts in defending the First Amendment! (She later sat as one of the judges on the 2006 Hefner Foundation committee.)
Dr. Scott's NCSE motto is: "Defending the teaching of evolution in public schools." More specifically, she labors to keep "evolution in the science classroom and creationism out." Like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, activist Eugenie Scott wants all American schoolchildren to have only one side of the story in science--her side.
Thus, as part of her mission, she flies around the country to lecture school board members that they must eliminate any policy that includes examining the weaknesses of evolutionary theory, of which she believes there are none. She "consults" with attorneys involved in court cases over creation, Intelligent Design, and evolution, and occasionally testifies as an "expert" witness. She insists that institutions expose and expel suspect scientists who don't hold firmly enough to the evolution gospel. And while many of her opponents make their living conducting actual evidence-based science research, what has Eugenie Scott contributed to the advancement of science knowledge?
The narrow, one-sided approach to the study of science is apparent in her organization's recent lament that students in Texas will now be required to "examine 'all sides of scientific evidence.'"4 And that's a bad thing?
That's like telling judges not to examine all sides of the evidence in a murder case.
That's like telling oncologists not to examine all sides of the evidence in a patient's test results.
That's like telling military commanders not to examine all sides of the evidence before sending their troops into battle.
And, of course, no one wants cancer researchers to examine all sides of the evidence in clinical trials of a proposed cancer-fighting drug. Right?
But according to Eugenie Scott, schoolchildren are less than properly educated (perhaps even harmed?) when they examine all sides of scientific evidence. Spoon-feeding them evolutionary dogma, rather than allowing them to examine actual evidence, is the end result for the "advocacy" efforts of the NCSE. And that helps students become critical thinkers?
So pervasive has Dr. Scott's activism become that TV gossip shows like The View have become forums for ridiculing those parents who would refuse to teach their children the beliefs of Charles Darwin. Co-host Joy Behar publically stated that not teaching Darwinism is tantamount to child abuse!
While Eugenie Scott may not ever take up the title of the most hated woman in America after Madalyn Murray O'Hair, she nonetheless is attempting to counter American public opinion on the creation-evolution controversy, where a recent Gallup poll demonstrated that over 60 percent of Americans believe in recent creation and not in evolution.5 Poll after poll in the United States consistently demonstrates that a majority of Americans don't believe in Charles Darwin's ideas. And yet evolution activists like Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, Michael Ruse, and many others continue their attempts to push Darwin's ideas as genuine science.
Dr. Scott, like those who honor her and those who set governmental policy in education, is much like a politician who loses touch with her constituency after taking office--she votes against the majority time after time. Splitting from the majority can be a good thing, if the majority is wrong. However, Dr. Scott's aversion to the investigation of true science--where all of the evidence is fair game for study--demonstrates that her agenda is not anchored in the investigation of truth.
But Eugenie Scott is just one of many new faces in America's cultural war. She is a symptom of a larger malignancy growing even faster during these postmodern times in America's history. Because of changes in the nation's political, economic, social, and even religious landscape in recent years, activists like Dr. Scott in public education and leaders of the radical fringe groups among environmentalists, for instance, now ply their trade to politically pragmatic decision-makers at all levels of government, hoping to swing votes against traditional values and common sense, despite the will of the American citizens and even the clear evidence from scientific research.
A few years ago on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, the entire science faculty of SMU refused to sit down, behind closed doors, with scientists from the Intelligent Design Movement to dialogue about science. What were they afraid of? Were they not confident enough in their own understanding of scientific data to enter into a friendly discussion about the evidence? What about examining evidence and analyzing data to discover truth? It's not on the agenda of these activist groups. Leveling attacks against certain elected and appointed officials (who happen to not hold these radical views) in order to oust them from school boards and other positions of influence is a much more efficient approach to accomplishing their goals.
There are others like Eugenie Scott who in their own locales are determined to push humanism and atheism on city councils, on school boards, on civic leaders, and on others who maintain the traditional values that formed the foundation of the United States. Science has become a hot-button issue in many state legislatures as the majority of citizens still want to see their children taught all sides of the evidence. Thus, there remain opportunities for people to counter the one-sided arguments of organizations like the NCSE.
And what about the role of Christians in this battle? While Dr. Scott will readily point out that many "religious" and "Christian" people are "okay" with evolution, the fact is that many of her allies in the clergy and church have long abandoned the authority and accuracy of the Bible, which defines Judeo-Christian belief. It's time for evangelical Christians to redouble their efforts--influencing and persuading those in authority with the evidence that activists like Eugenie Scott don't want children to know and consider. And while laws still prohibit the teaching of biblical creation science within the public schools, training our children with critical thinking skills will empower them to do what is right in the classroom--examine, analyze, and critique all sides of the issues, especially science.
References
* Mr. Ford is Executive Editor at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Ford, L. 2009. New Voices in Evolution Activism. Acts & Facts. 38 (7): 4.
Goebbels was a propoganda minister, not a scientist, but the nazis are notorious for publishing things like going to Tibet and finding remnants of their so-called master race.
Unsurprisngly, it’s not so much the scientists that keep information from reaching children but stupid godless liberals like the NEA and the ACLU.
Understand?
If you napped, you didn’t get enough sleep. I’ll give you some more time to rest up.
I got nothing wrong. I asked you to back up your assertion that string theory relies on the supernatural, and you failed.
But the point remains, why is it treated differently than ID?
Because ID is religious creationism masquerading as science. Read the wedge strategy and educate yourself.
ID asks no questions, provides no answers, and makes no testable predictions. It simply looks at a complicated structure and says, "Designed!", and ends the inquiry there. It is a completely worthless method of studying the universe.
Really, because you're the one that's not making any sense.
How do Nazi assertions about the master race have anything to do with modern peer review? At least you're backing off the absurd claim that Goebbels published peer reviewed scientific findings.
But I think you need to educate yourself as to what peer review actually is. Your understanding is quite lacking.
Do you even understand the difference between propoganda and science?
Please show me where I asserted Goebbels published scientific articles.
I, and most people here btw, understand the fallacy of modern peer review just fine, and that’s the problem for poeople like you.
You got everything wrong. You’re just a typical cultist that only talks past everyone that disagrees with you.
Go lay down.
The multiverse and string theory are mathematical extensions of astronomy, physics and quantum mechanics. Evolution is based on geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and biochemistry among other things.
Global warming over the past 100 years is a fact. Global cooling over the past decade is a fact. Future global warming caused by man made CO2 causing widespread catastrophe is a political movement not based on fact. There are real scientists who say it isn’t so. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist.
Young Earth Creationism and the promotion of ignorance is a religious movement based on mysticism that turns people away from religion and God. Intelligent design isn’t quite as bad, but is inspired by YEC.
The wedge strategy is propaganda. Read and learn:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Please show me where I asserted Goebbels published scientific articles.
Be glad to.
On post #90 I said, "Goebbels never published anything that was peer reviewed..."
In post #92 you said, "Sure he did!"
QED.
I, and most people here btw, understand the fallacy of modern peer review just fine, and that’s the problem for poeople like you.
I have no doubt that you and many others here reject the processes of modern science. It's quite clear you do by the ridiculous things you say.
Nope, everything I said was correct, hence your failure to make any dissenting argument to my post. Good job.
Please show me where I asserted Goebbels published scientific articles.
Be glad to.
On post #90 I said, “Goebbels never published anything that was peer reviewed...”
In post #92 you said, “Sure he did!”
QED.
Ummmm GR, there’s no “science article(s)” to be found in the statement “Sure he did”, only the assertion that he indeed had his work peer reviewed!
I’m thinking all the sleep in the world can’t help you.
You do understand articles outside of science are peer reviewed?
For instance do you think if Goebbels published and disseminated that all Jews were God’s chosen people, his peers would have had no problems with it upon their review?
Ummm ALL realms of science.
Epic fail.
And the rest of your drivel belongs on DC or DU or other liberal sites that promote Godless liberal propoganda, not FR a pro-Christian website.
Perhaps you should review JR's clear statements about what FR are about.
Peer review is not just "having your peers read your work".
It's a scholarly process used in publishing subjects in one's field. Please tell me articles authored by Goebbels that passed peer review. Even though science is the subject of this thread, you can choose any field. Tell me the name of the article and the journal in which it was published.
“No, I’m referring to the evo-religious doctrine that sometime in the unobservable, unrepeatable past, life came from non-life, that super-sophisticated bio-nano designs sponantaneously emerged from the elements, and that intelligence came from non-intelligence...all without a shred of evidence “
—In our daily lives we all constantly make assumptions/theories/inferences about the past. If we couldn’t use the present to learn about the past we’d be living moment to moment like goldfish. Science is a method for learning about the world around us, and one can’t very well do that without theorizing as to what occurred in the past to present the world we have today. Of course, in the case of a crime scene it’s precisely *when* there are no witnesses that forensic science is used the most and is most important.
As for evidence of abiogenesis: The chemicals which are the building blocks of life (nucleotides, amino acids, etc) strongly suggest that life came naturally from chemistry, and experimentation shows that these molecules form easily, in many conditions, and that nucleotides form into chains which produce copies of themselves (i.e. pass on information).
“(and the admission that it all appears to be designed for a purpose, but then turn around and say that it’s all just an illusion...again based no ZERO evidence).”
—You use the term “admission” as if it were a problem for Darwinism, when Natural Selection would really make so sense without such an appearance (we “design” lifeforms via selective breeding, and nature does the same).
“What a laugh. It is you and your fellow evo coreligionists who hide behind your court enforced “standards” mandating the teaching of your evo-atheist creation myth to the exclusion of all other design related explanations for life’s origin who are the ones who show an extreme aversion to open debate. The Temple of Darwin brooks zero dissent to their evo-religion. As such, they have created “standards” to ensure their religious monopoly over the origins debate in our public schools. If the Evos want to separate religion from state, they can start with the unconstitional establishment of the Temple of Darwin as the de facto religion of the land.”
—There is no such court mandate - nor should there be such a court mandate. The mandate was to teach the well established theories. How radical and totalitarian. As I asked before - what, pray tell, SHOULD be taught in science class? What SHOULD the standards be? We go to historians to determine what to teach in history class, we go to mathematicians to determine what should be taught in math class, etc - where should we go to determine what to teach in science class? You? Maybe we should change the name to the “GodGunsGuts class”?
I don’t agree with everything taught in science class, but if it’s what most scientists agree with, than so be it. The standards shouldn’t change for the sake of my feelings. Likewise there are many things that I personalize believe and yet don’t belong in public school science class. I agree with most of what Dawkins says, but his books wouldn’t make proper textbooks. There’s quite a bit of conjecture and philosophizing and personal religious beliefs which wouldn’t belong.
If Darwinism, or even evolution as a whole, were supplanted tomorrow by what the vast majority of scientists saw as a better theory, it’d be no skin off my nose. In fact, I think that’d be pretty awesome - I’d love to live through a time of such scientific revolution. Let’s say such a revolution took place, and the number of Darwinist scientists dwindled to that comparable to the number of Creationist and ID scientists today - Darwinism would surely stop being taught in science class. But let’s say I didn’t agree with whatever the evidence or reasoning was which overthrew Darwinism - would you see me fighting to have Darwinism put back into science class? No. I would understand that a theory believed by such a fringe group shouldn’t be taught, even if I still agreed with the theory. That’s not to say I wouldn’t fight for the theory’s renewed acceptance in science – I might, perhaps even in a similar fashion to how what you are doing for Creationism (although certainly not as emotionally or ardently as you push Creationism/ID; you care much more about Creationism than I do about Darwinism) but I wouldn’t try to argue it should be in the classroom. That would just be silly for a theory believed by so few scientists.
So even if ID really was a valid scientific theory (which it’s not) and even if it had no linkage whatsoever with religion - it would still have no basis for being taught because of how marginal the theory is.
“You are living in la la land. Like I said, read Slaughter of the Dissidents. The author goes through case after case where Creation and ID scientists, teachers, etc. are persecuted or fired for daring to present the massive and ever growing evidence against Darwin’s evo-religious creation myth.”
—So you won’t give any examples? Interesting, so far I haven’t found anyone else that will either. So this stuff occurs all the time - and yet somehow Creationists/IDists are so desperate for any examples of such that even the slightest *rumor* of such a persecution taking place spreads across the web like wildfire - and to find a single *real* case of such persecution, I have to buy a book? Riiight. I think you’re right, this *must* be la la land.
You can’t be serious.
The nazi scientists reached the conclusions they set out to reach long before they did anything in the field and Josef Goebbels was just their mouthpiece, no diffeent than say algore.
You should do some research on the nazis and what they did in the name of science, from master race madness to medical experiments. Not that it’ll help you understand what liberals like algore are doing to science with their same “the debate is over” mentality and idiocy.
Again, it’s not so much the scientists but the ACLU and NEA types that are destroying science, not normal parents without the multiple God-hang-ups. There’s simply nothing scholarly about what they do.
But the problem many scientists do have is the same as journalists, their ideology infecting their objectivity. Again, nothing particularly “scholarly” about it. They may have you fooled but that’s your hang-up, not normal people.
Congratulations what you liberals have done to science and education in general, as I said Goebbeles must be as proud of this as anything in the 21st century.
This sounds exactly like the MO of creationists. They've decided evolution is wrong and that the Earth is 6,000 years old, then they work backwards.
The Discovery Institute is your Goebbels.
Nothing in your post has anything to do so much with evolution, and is your usual non-sequitur diatribes.
It's amusing that you accuse the practice of peer review of being akin to Nazi "science" when you have such a false understanding of how the process actually works.
But keep up the DI talking points; you're one of their unpaid mouthpieces, spewing gibberish every day on these threads.
“This sounds exactly like the MO of creationists”.
I’m sure it sounds exactly that way to a cultist that demands no intelligence, no design even when it’s plain as day to the majority normal people.
And you see, it’s your side that must rely on lawsuits, not the science to simply survive.
And liberals project-alot.
Ignore the reality of that and the fact that you’re on the wrong site till the end of time for all I care.
And by all means project and continue to project about the damage to.
But sane people understand liberals are wrecking science. (And everything else you touch.)
I don't demand anything, except that mysticism and religion be kept out of the scientific realm. Believing scientists instead of the Discovery Institute is not cultish, it's common sense.
But sane people understand liberals are wrecking science. (And everything else you touch.)
Sane people like you; Discovery Institute lackeys who don't know what they're talking about and post links to DI's website to back up their points? The evolution debate isn't conservative vs. liberal.
There are plenty of folks here who understand that the wedge strategy and creation science are multi-level marketing hustles disseminated by a small group of con artists. You're the one who's fallen into their cult.
So intelligence and design in science is mysticism.
Got it.
NO WONDER liberals destroy science.
And scientists like the chemist on dissentfromdarwin.org ARE telling you common sense, but your cult indoctrination simply won’t allow you to do anything more than parrot your epically failed script of projection.
Got it.
Close. A supernatural "designer" or "grand architect" who drew up blueprints for everything in nature and then manufactured them is mysticism. Looking at something, noticing that it is complex, and then concluding that someone "designed" it is not science. It make no predictions that are testable, and answers no questions.
And scientists like the chemist on dissentfromdarwin.org ARE telling you common sense, but your cult indoctrination simply won’t allow you to do anything more than parrot your epically failed script of projection.
I already explained how Dr. Peltzer's quote in no way questions evolution as the reason for the diversity of life. Your tin ear for these things makes you unable to comprehend I guess.
Everyone dissents from Darwin in some manner, whether you're Ken Hamm or Richard Dawkins; its a 100 year old theory and has been modified, tweaked, and updated many times.
To pretend things just happen willy nilly with no purpose is mysticism.
Even your liberal buddy Dawkins exclaims “well it must have all gotten here via aliens”.
And the liberal vs. conservative battle in this is liberals demand all those that disagree with them be silent.
Normal conservative people are telling you loons to go pound sand. No one appointed you people in charge of anything let alone science.
algore is proof enough you people have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
And yeah, you can go on tweaking, normal people understand it’ll never be able to be tweaked sufficiently enough to supplant a more viable explantaion: a created and purposefully intelligently designed universe.
And the scientific “debate isn’t over” and it’s not “settled science” by any stretch, no matter how many times you Chrissy-fit matthews and algore loons say it is.
No one appointed you or your ilk in charge of defining what is or isn’t science, so get over it already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.