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.
Oh..., in that case, if you’re talking about Evo-think, I see what you mean ... :-)
“You mean like the court mandated Temple of Darwin indoctrination that goes on in our classrooms that holds that biology is the study of complex things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose, but in reality it’s all just an illusion?”
—That’s not a court mandate, that’s a paraphrase of something Dawkins said. And actually, I think a teacher would probably get in trouble for saying such a thing.
Well, Not to heap too much praise........
No, I accuse the ICR writer of being misleading.
Here is the site http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
That's not the site referred to in the article, but it has the same data, so okay.
The actual number of people who use the term millions of years in their answers is 50% not 53%
Read further:
Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?This is the part of the poll linked to by ICR, and is the source of the author's claim that "over 60 percent of Americans believe in recent creation and not in evolution." (39% + 27% = 66%) The first part of his claim is fine, but the second part ("and not in evolution") is an unwarranted conclusion, since more than half say they do believe in that (18% + 35% = 53%) while less than half say they don't (16% + 28% = 44%).A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life
18% Definitely true
35% Probably true
16% Probably false
28% Definitely false
3% No opinionB. Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years
39% Definitely true
27% Probably true
16% Probably false
15% Definitely false
3% No opinion
I hope you now see where I got my figures and that they are correct.
It's true, science is responsible for all those things and more.
And having children is hereditary - if your parents didn’t have any, you will not either.
After all, it (Darwinism) produced atomic energy, solar power, was used by Drake to find oil, Edison to invent electrical devices......
I didn’t think it would be necessary to point out this was a sarcasm, but it appears it is for you. So here goes:
THIS IS SARCASM.
It’s true, science is responsible for all those things and more.
The courts currently mandate the Temple-of-Darwin-only interpretation of the data pertaining to origins. Both ID and Creation scientists are barred from critiquing Darwin’s fanciful creation myth in our public schools, neither are they allowed to put forward their arguments for Creation or ID in a public school or university setting. And any educator or scientist who dares to critique Darwin’s judicially propped-up creation myth usually pays a heavy price, such as being drummed out of their chosen profession by Temple of Darwin fanatics.
“The courts currently mandate the Temple-of-Darwin-only interpretation of the data pertaining to origins.
—No, they did not mandate a “Darwin-only interpretation”, they merely ruled that Creationism (and its kin “cdesign proponentsists”) did not belong in science class since it’s overwhelmingly rejected by scientists (Christians and non-Christians alike); and also because the attempt to inject it into science class was being done for purely or mostly religious reasons.
“Both ID and Creation scientists are barred from critiquing Darwin’s fanciful creation myth in our public schools, neither are they allowed to put forward their arguments for Creation or ID in a public school or university setting. And any educator or scientist who dares to critique Darwin’s judicially propped-up creation myth usually pays a heavy price, such as being drummed out of their chosen profession by Temple of Darwin fanatics.”
—But it is critiqued, such as the fact that the evolutionary tree contains many holes. What sort of critiques are you thinking of?
As for people being “drummed out”, such a thing is incredibly rare. I can’t find any instance of a professor being fired, or someone having to leave their profession, for arguing Creation or ID (the closest thing I can find is a temp who wasn’t rehired at a particular university - possibly for her position on Darwinism - but was subsequently hired by another university).
I would imagine that in many sciences a professor that argues against Darwinism would face criticism, just as a professor of medicine who argues against germ theory, or a chemist that argues against atomic theory would face criticism (by the Temple of germ theory and atomic theory fanatics of course). I don’t see why the evolutionary sciences would be any different. But in science there’s supposed to be confrontations and challenges to ideas. The worst thing that can happen in science is for ideas to be ignored.
==No, they did not mandate a “Darwin-only interpretation”, they merely ruled that Creationism (and its kin “cdesign proponentsists”) did not belong in science class
Wrong, that was a fanatical Temple of Darwin judge acting on behalf of the Communist ACLU to mandate an evo-religious only interpretation of the origins data.
Look, either materialist evolution or some sort of creation is true, but the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism will not tolerate any rivals to their totalitarian religion, and thus all versions of creation or intelligent design must be stamped out by their jackbooted evo co-religionists in the government at all costs. And you are obviously in full agreement with this approach. And given the Temple of Darwin’s totalitarian bent, and seeing how your side knows that open debate re: origins would simply lead to a complete and total defeat for the Temple of Darwin, it really comes as no surprise that the Darwin cult is taking the lowest possible road to install their militant religion.
Yes, so what? There is no guarantee that the populations answering those different questions are the same. Those answering the question being discussed is the same. The head to head comparisons of beliefs are addressed by the first question. The other questions relate to the specific beliefs addressed by the question. That said, it is incorrect to add the two percentages without quoting the question to which they relate. IOW, the second, referenced ICR article is misleading.
Not for celibates or Eunuchs.
Yeah, right. Read this
World Death Rate Holding Steady At 100 Percent
You understand that we can have fewer people dying each year, even with 100% (eventual) mortality?
==As for people being “drummed out”, such a thing is incredibly rare.
Read Slaughter of the Dissidents...it’s quite common. As are other tactics, such as being denied grants, publishing, tenure, etc, etc. But again, seeing how the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is really a totalitarian religion masquerading as science, this really shouldn’t come as a big surprise to anyone who really knows what’s going on. However, as the general public increasingly catches on to the jackbooted tactics of your co-religionists, my guess is they won’t be in a very good mood when the science pendulum swings back in favor of allowing design arguments to compete in the origins debate. Hopefully, creationists and IDers will not overplay their hands when that time comes, and simply limit themselves dismantling government science and returning it to the private sector where it belongs.
NO! Really?
State the conditions when the death rate is zero.
NO! Really?
Yes! Truly!!
You understand that 1,000,000 newborns that live an average of 60 years will have fewer deaths each year than the same number of newborns that live an average of 30 years?
Ever heard of a skewed population? How about fireworks sales by date?
Does that explain why germ theory has increased our life expectancy?
Or does it explain that germ theory was pointless, because we all die eventually?
I have no idea what you're getting at. The article at the top this thread claims that "over 60 percent of Americans believe in recent creation and not in evolution." For support, it references another ICR article, which in turn cites a USA Today/Gallup poll and links to this page. That page has the questions and answers I posted, which obviously all came from the same people.
By the percentages, a good number of people must have said that "the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" and "the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" are both true. I'd like to know more about that. I can sort of see it, depending on what they mean by "created in their present form."
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.