Culture Humor

National Academy of Sciences Bestows Its Biggest Honor on [drum roll please] … Eugenie Scott!!!

Spread the love

I’m heartened to see our tax dollars working to such good effect:

Date: Jan.11, 2010
Contacts: Maureen O’Leary, Director of Public Information
Luwam Yeibio, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eugenie C. Scott to Receive Public Welfare Medal, Academy’s Most Prestigious Award

WASHINGTON — The National Academy of Sciences Council has selected Eugenie C. Scott to receive its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal. Established in 1914, the medal is presented annually to honor extraordinary use of science for the public good. The Council chose Scott for championing the teaching of evolution in the United States and for providing leadership to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

Scott, a physical anthropologist by training, became the first executive director of the National Center for Science Education in 1987. Beginning with a loose network of supporters scattered around the country and a few private grants, she has developed NCSE into the nation’s leading advocate for the teaching of evolution in public schools. Through lectures, television appearances, and articles, she has explained the process of scientific inquiry and defended science education against creationist challenges. Scott and the NCSE have served as pro bono consultants in state and federal court cases on science standards, including the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which the teaching of intelligent design was held by a federal court to be unconstitutional.

“Eugenie Scott has worked tirelessly and very effectively to improve public understanding of both the nature of science and the science of evolution,” said Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “She makes the case for science again and again.”

“Dr. Scott has been a champion in protecting the teaching of evolution in the U.S. public schools and a central figure in improving the public’s understanding of evolution and the nature of science. We honor her for many years of organizing coalitions of scientists, parents, teachers, business people, clergy, and others to defend the teaching of evolution,” said John Brauman, home secretary of the National Academy of Sciences and chair of the Public Welfare Medal selection committee.

Scott received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and a Ph.D. from the University of Missouri. She holds six honorary degrees and has received numerous awards from scientific and civil liberties organizations. Scott has served on the board of directors of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study and on the advisory councils of several organizations defending the separation of church and state. Scott, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has also held elected offices in the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

The Public Welfare Medal will be presented to Scott on April 25 during the Academy’s 147th annual meeting. Previous recipients of the medal include Neal Lane, Norman Borlaug, William T. Golden, Maxine F. Singer, C. Everett Koop, and Carl Sagan.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit institution that was established under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It recognizes achievement in science by election to membership, and — with the National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council — provides science, technology, and health policy advice to the federal government and other organizations.

# # #

36 Replies to “National Academy of Sciences Bestows Its Biggest Honor on [drum roll please] … Eugenie Scott!!!

  1. 1
    toc says:

    Doing a Ph.D at Missouri? Where is that “Show me” spirit?
    What a joke.

  2. 2
    Nakashima says:

    Dr Dembski,

    I tried to find the IRS Form 990 for the NCSE online but was unsuccessful. In any case, it is a 501 3C non-profit organization, and the NAS is also private and non-profit, according to the end of the press release you quote. I’m not sure how much of anyone’s tax dollars were at work here.

  3. 3
    maggie says:

    eh… You probably should check your first line against that last paragraph. The NAS is a private organization(s) and “do not receive direct federal funding”, according to their website.

  4. 4
    GilDodgen says:

    From here on out, I will assume that anything endorsed by the NAS should be ignored as having been hopelessly corrupted by ideology.

    The following quote:

    Eugenie Scott has worked tirelessly and very effectively to improve public understanding of both the nature of science and the science of evolution…

    Should have been:

    Eugenie Scott has worked tirelessly and very effectively to suppress evidence, vilify and denigrate those who present legitimate scientific criticism of Darwinian orthodoxy, and distort public understanding of both the nature of science and “evolution” (whatever the hell that means), for the purpose of promoting her ideology of atheistic, materialistic, “humanism” (whatever the hell that is) in the public schools.

  5. 5
    tribune7 says:

    People wake up. The NAS is not interested in science or truth or reason. It is a propaganda arm for priests to maintain power over the cult they rule.

    The sooner we shout this out the sooner we can start challenging their authority.

  6. 6
    idnet.com.au says:

    From the NSCE’s own site.

    “Subscriptions and contributions are fully tax deductible. NCSE is tax exempt under Federal IRS Code 501(C)(3) and the corresponding provisions of California law. Amounts paid to NCSE are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.”

    http://ncse.com/membership

  7. 7

    IMO, bestowing fame and honour not based upon real achievement is one of the gate-keeping mechanisms in many elite groupings (not just science) to maintain the status quo.

    It’s a fairly empty cultural fad – the real honours are bestowed by history, not one’s peers. But in the meantime it helps to rally the troops – that’s the point of such things.

    David

  8. 8
    Joseph says:

    Well if Al Gore and Barrack Obama can win Nobel a Nobel Prize- Al for misrepresenting reality and Obama for doing nothing- this comes as no surprise.

  9. 9
    Joseph says:

    Also Eugenie has to work hard because there isn’t any scientific data to support the claims of the theory of evolution.

    So perhaps she should stop working on propoaganda and start working on the science.

  10. 10

    Nakashima writes, “I’m not sure how much of anyone’s tax dollars were at work here.” Oh, please! The NAS was founded by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. This is not a private enterprise. This is government supported through and through — it’s the scientific equivalent of Fannie and Freddie.

  11. 11
    IRQ Conflict says:

    That’s a really cool fact Dr.Dembski. Thanks for that. I had no idea.

  12. 12
    tribune7 says:

    Nakashima-san,

    From the FAQ at the NAS website :

    How many staff members are associated with the work of the National Academies?

    There are approximately 1,100 staff members.

    What is the Research Council’s major source of funding?

    The federal government funds about 85 percent of the institution’s work.

    Is there an annual congressional appropriation for the National Academies?

    No. Support from the federal government comes in the form of individual contracts and grants.

  13. 13
    Charlie says:

    Check out the big English on Mr. Nakashima …. san.

  14. 14
    Upright BiPed says:

    This is the same Eugenie Scott who thinks it “appropriate” to actively discriminate against students seeking doctorate degrees in science based solely upon their religious convictions.

    She doesn’t want any voices to disrupt the echo chamber. It is for this very reason, and none other, that she receives the award.

  15. 15
    GilDodgen says:

    The NAS has become the Darwinist equivalent of the Climate Research Unit at West Anglia.

    It’s not a conspiracy; it’s human nature. Millions of dollars are at stake for research grants (which would not be granted if there were no crisis in the case of global warming, or if it turned out that random mutation and natural selection explained almost nothing of any ultimate significance in the history of life, in the case of Darwinism). In addition, professional prestige, fear of excommunication by the priests and zealots of the academy, and promotion of an ideology are extremely important factors in all of this.

    This is why the CRU “scientists” manipulated data and computer programs to prove their point, and destroyed the raw data and hid the computer code so as to avoid independent scrutiny.

    A massive media campaign was launched to promote global-warming alarmism and suppress public knowledge and understanding of the actual evidence and science.

    Darwinists have been doing the same thing for years.

    Darwinian orthodoxy is in a state of complete evidential, empirical, scientific collapse, and those whose lives are completely invested in the lie will do anything to preserve their power, funding, and control of the debate.

  16. 16
    Mung says:

    The NAS is desperate to show that they are “reasonable” religionists. Voting for E. Scott shows what a lie that is.

  17. 17

    Ugh. I’m struggling to think of anyone less deserving . . .

  18. 18
    h.pesoj says:

    Gil

    Millions of dollars are at stake for research grants (which would not be granted if there were no crisis in the case of global warming, or if it turned out that random mutation and natural selection explained almost nothing of any ultimate significance in the history of life, in the case of Darwinism).

    Logically you would expect the grants to dry up once the first set had been handed out and the results had come back in. If, as you say, Darwinism is a big lie, then why are subsequent grants being handed out?

    Or are the people handing out the grants in cahoots with the people taking the money, and then results falsified to obtain the next round of funding?

    Perhaps you could point to a recent paper or study which you consider to have been falsified?

  19. 19
    tribune7 says:

    h.pesoj –Logically you would expect the grants to dry up once the first set had been handed out and the results had come back in.

    You are quite wrong.

    Here is an example of the proper use of logic concerning federal grant money.

  20. 20
    h.pesoj says:

    Tribune7

    You are quite wrong.

    I’m sorry, you’ll have to clarify.

    Although the airport only offers three commercial flights and has very little other activity, as of April 2009, the airport had received almost $200 million in federal subsidies. In 2004, an $8 million air traffic radar system was installed at the airport, but as of April 2009, it has never been used.

    While that example may be valid, what exactly does it have to do with Gil’s point?

    Do you have any examples in the field of biological evolution rather then aviation?

    It’s telling to me that I ask for an example and the only one (it seems) you can give is in a totally unrelated field.

    And in any case, from what Gil is saying you would now expect the people handing out the money to now hand out more money for other airports that will also be unused.

    As that does not seem to be happening I don’t see what relevance your example has.

    Can you clarify? Ideally I’d like to see a grant given out to a group that produced no results, or where the results are considered to be falsified, and then a further grant given to that same group for not good reason other then to continue the “lie”. Do you have such an example, as that’s what Gil appears to me to be saying is happening.

  21. 21
    Adel DiBagno says:

    For the difference between Congressional pork (the Murtha airport) and the competitive process for science grants in the USA see:

    http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm

  22. 22
    tribune7 says:

    h.pesoj

    Your reference regarding logic was not to biology but to federal spending.

    I simply pointed out that your logic was flawed.

  23. 23
    h.pesoj says:

    tribune7,
    I take it you have no such example then as I requested.

    Do I then take it you disagree with Gildogen on that issue?

    I would remind you the comment of mine you quoted was

    Logically you would expect the grants to dry up once the first set had been handed out and the results had come back in.

    Do airports typically return results? In the same way that biological research projects are wont to do?

    It was obvious my reference was to biology, given the contents of Gil’s comments and mine.

    If my logic is flawed, as you say, well what I can say to that?

  24. 24
  25. 25
    tribune7 says:

    h.pesoj –Do airports typically return results?

    Umm, yes.

    In the same way that biological research projects are wont to do?

    More measurably actually.

  26. 26
    tribune7 says:

    h.pesoj, respectfully, is English your second language?

  27. 27
    tribune7 says:

    h pesof, sorry I missed this.

    Ideally I’d like to see a grant given out to a group that produced no results, or where the results are considered to be falsified,

    See post 24.

  28. 28
    h.pesoj says:

    Tribune7
    Please tell me then about the results that airports return and the results that biological research projects return.

    And do you disagree with Gil on this or not?

  29. 29
    h.pesoj says:

    tribune7,
    so, in the entire world, and presumably 100% in agreement with what Gil said, the only example you can come up with is nothing to do with biology at all?

    So, can you give me an example of a biological research project funded by goverment money where the issue Gil raised is relevant, or not?
    If not, I can only assume you disagree with Gil on that point and I have to wonder why you simply won’t say as much.

  30. 30
    tribune7 says:

    h.pesoj –Please tell me then about the results that airports return and the results that biological research projects return.

    In the case of the Murtha airport the return on $150 million was a service for about 20 passengers a day.

    In the case of biological research projects it rather depends on the project.

    And, I don’t disagree with Gil.

  31. 31
    h.pesoj says:

    And, I don’t disagree with Gil.

    Yet despite that you can’t come up with an example but you agree anyway.

    Your loyalty is commendable.

    If what Gil notes had in fact been happening you’d at least be able to come up with at least one project that is being funded just for the sake of it, to support the “illusion” that Darwinism was not in a state of complete evidential, empirical, scientific collapse, and you’d have at least one example of those people whose lives are so completely invested in the lie that they will do anything to preserve their power, funding, and control of the debate.

  32. 32
    h.pesoj says:

    trib,

    In the case of the Murtha airport the return on $150 million was a service for about 20 passengers a day.

    In your capacity as expert, what is the minimum return you would expect for such an outlay, and over what period of time?

  33. 33
    tribune7 says:

    Yet despite that you can’t come up with an example

    I gave you examples. You are just rejecting them so you don’t have to deal with the conclusions to which they lead namely the government grant process is corruptible; practitioners of science are not immune to politics, prejudice or easy money; and that organizations should not be given unquestioned authority regardless of whether they have the government seal of approval.

    The global warming scandal is a perfect example as to what happens when we do — life, btw, gets much harder for all of us if the recommendations of the global warmers are put into legal effect.

    Here’s another example this one involving apparently prejudicial decision making by the NAS

    Here’s a classic example of why government science spending should not go unquestioned.

  34. 34
    Leviathan says:

    I gave you examples. You are just rejecting them so you don’t have to deal with the conclusions to which they lead namely the government grant process is corruptible; practitioners of science are not immune to politics, prejudice or easy money; and that organizations should not be given unquestioned authority regardless of whether they have the government seal of approval.

    How is using an airport as an example to show how research grants in biology are corrupt and unwarranted relevant at all to the conversation?

    Also, about the Stargate project….tribune you are so often posting links to weird sources about pseudo-scientific concepts and ideas I would think that you would be a proponent of Stargate right off the bat. Tell me, what difference, if there is indeed a discernible one, is there between Stargate and, say, SETI?

  35. 35
    uoflcard says:

    I don’t know how long it will take for mainstream science to finally accept that law and chance (on the order of the history of time) are incapable of producing the FCSI found in biology – 10 years, 50 years, 200 years… But whenthat happens there will be an endless supply of comedic material like this for people to enjoy. Think ether but over 100+ years and promoted like religion.

  36. 36
    tribune7 says:

    Leviathan, why are you ducking the subject? Do you think it is logical to believe that government grants dry up once the first set had been handed out and the results had come back in?

    And why are you defending the Stargate project? You don’t think it was a good use of research money do you? Why did it take 15 years for the grants to dry up after the results came in?

Leave a Reply