Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Eugenie Scott’s Just Deserts


Parent’s Claim Sparked by False Article by Leading Darwin Advocate

ROSEVILLE, CA — The California Academy of Sciences has settled with a California parent, Larry Caldwell, who raised a potential libel claim against the organization over its publication of a false and defamatory article authored by Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc. (NCSE) Scott’s article, entitled “In My Backyard: Creationists in California,” appeared in the Spring print and online editions of the Academy’s California Wild magazine. The article had also been accessible through a link on the NCSE’s website.

In a lawsuit filed against Scott and the NCSE in April, Caldwell claimed that the Scott article contained numerous factual misstatements and libeled him in an effort by Scott and the NCSE to discredit his efforts to promote his “Quality Science Education” policy, which is designed to include some of the scientific weaknesses of the Darwin’s theory of evolution in biology classes. Caldwell’s lawsuit did not formally name the California Academy of Sciences as a defendant, although, as the publisher of the Scott article, it was a potential defendant in the suit.

In a settlement agreement finalized recently, the California Academy of Sciences has agreed to permanently remove all on-line access to the Scott article. The Academy has also agreed to publish a lengthy letter by Caldwell and a retraction letter by Scott in the upcoming Summer 2005 Edition of Calfornia Wild, which will be available in print and on the internet in early July.

Caldwell’s letter will correct a number of factual misstatements in the Scott article.

Scott’s letter will retract several false allegations about Caldwell and his-year long effort to improve science education in the Roseville high school district. For example, Scott had falsely accused Caldwell of purportedly proposing two young earth creation science books to the Roseville Joint Union High School District for potential adoption and use in biology classes–one of which is authored and published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In her letter to be published in California Wild, Scott now concedes that Caldwell did not submit these books to the school district.

Contrary to her article, Scott also now admits that school officials in the Roseville high school district never actually considered those books for adoption anyway.

Scott also concedes that her allegation that a science expert had purportedly expressed his opinion that Caldwell had a “gross misunderstanding of science” was false; and Scott will also retract her claim that the Roseville high school board had purportedly passed a resolution “recommending” that “creationist” materials be used in science classes.

Said Caldwell, “I am pleased that the California Academy of Sciences and California Wild have shown the professional integrity to remove this libelous article from internet access, and to give me an opportunity to set the record straight on my Quality Science Education Policy”

Caldwell added, “It’s a shame it took a lawsuit to get Scott, the author of the article, to retract some of the more outrageous factual misstatements in her article.

“Unfortunately, Scott and the NCSE have a long history of libeling people in the debate over how evolution should be taught in our public schools; my case is only the most recent example. Hopefully, it won’t take any more libel lawsuits to teach them how to stick to the truth.”

“Other critics of Darwin’s theory have been personally attacked on the basis of misrepresentations in similar cases where the Darwinists claim that the critics’ professional statements or qualifications are false,” said Caldwell. “The difference between them and me is that I decided to take legal action. Darwinists need to get the message: engage in civil discourse without defamation or prepare to answer in court.”

According to Caldwell, there’s also an important lesson for journalists and publishers: Claims by Darwinists should by carefully investigated before being reported as facts.

Meanwhile, Caldwell’s libel lawsuit against Scott and the National Center for Science Education, Inc. continues.

Caldwell is the founder of Quality Science Education for All, a non-profit organization dedicated to securing and defending the right of all students to receive a quality science education that exposes them to the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Quality Science Education for All is on the web at www.qsea.org.

Contact: Larry Caldwell
June 20, 2005
Phone: 916-774-4667

Actually the book mentioned in this article that was published by Jehovah's Witnesses is NOT young earth creationism at all! Idiots Ragnar
The article, with edits, has reappeared. Seems like mostly trivial errors and the suit was simply a nuisance suit. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8521_in_my_backyard_creationism_in_8_18_2005.asp Jason Potter
The problem as I see it is money, being the root of all evil, corrupts science too. Global warming is a good example. Getting the unwashed masses all paniced about is a great way to get gobs of research funding flowing to the scientists inciting the panic. Letting a few famously bad apples spoil the whole barrel isn't right either. Take it all with a grain of salt but except in certain cases I put trust ahead of distrust. In the area of healthy living there've been some recent brouhahas where money plays a role. It now appears being moderately overweight (BMI 25 - 35) isn't, in and of itself, an increase in mortality risk. As long as you get moderate exercise and keep cholesterol and blood pressure under control the extra weight appears to make people more resilient to debilitating illness. Yo-yo dieting, which most of the human race is genetically doomed to if they try to conciously control weight, is worse than being moderatly overweight. Now the money... the diet industry is HUGE and they're the ones funding all the research into the health effects of being overweight. Follow the money. Read this article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E5065-2345-128A-9E1583414B7F0000 Another one: sun exposure and skin cancer Turns out dietary vitamin D is D-2 which isn't nearly as effective as the D-3 that your skin manufactures when exposed to sunlight. Recent research is showing that vitamin D-3 deficiency raises the risk for all kinds of cancers and that for every 1 case of skin cancer avoided by staying out of the sun there are 7 cases of some different cancer caused by D-3 deficiency. Guess who funds all the studies on UV exposure and skin cancer? The makers of sun-blockers (SPF factor lotions etc.). Follow the money. DaveScot
Yet another reason to mistrust the NCSE. Can anyone think of any reasons why they or any other spokesman for science should be trusted? Just curious. Jedi Deist
Mister X That would be Doctor Dembski not Mister Dembski. I don't trust a single character on NCSE's Board of Directors. Elsberry lied by omission about why he banned me on Panda's Thumb. He knows very well that before I broke any rule on Panda's Thumb my comments were being arbitrarily deleted or "disemvoweled" and he's refused to admit it. Matzke is just a flunky. He'll say or do anything his handlers want. Eugenie Scott isn't quite a criminal liar only due to settling out of court. The rest of NCSE I'm just going to go ahead and distrust by guilt through association with the characters above. In any case they're stupid if not dishonest. They mischaracterize both ID and neo-Darwinism in gross ways. That can be done through honest mistake or lying to further an agenda. Since I don't believe any of them are stupid that only leaves one option and Eugenie getting caught red-handed in a bald-faced criminal lie is a demonstration of it. DaveScot
Ah well: Eugenie blew it. I might as well admit right up front that I'm not a big fan of "intelligent design." My apologies for that, Mr. Dembski! Feel free to delete my comment if you consider it unsuitable. For the record, the NCSE and some of its more visible participants -- Nick Matzke and Eugenie Scott, in particular -- have never struck me as particularly savvy (the recent maneuvering in Kansas being a noteworthy exception). As self-proclaimed leaders in the area of science education, they strike me as notably weak and spineless, favoring the issuance of limp soundbites or (in the case of Matzke) snide sophistry in lieu of honest, direct and incontrovertible statements. The most annoying aspect of this affair (from the perspective of an evolutionary biology advocate) is that there was no need for Eugenie Scott to make up that garbage. I wonder if her letter will explain why she felt compelled to do so. Mister X
It is apparent that Darwinists are not above propagandizing. Last semester, a friend and I co-authored an article in our Campus's Collegian calling into question the validity of evolution (as typically presented via Neo-Darwinian Theory). After reading the lousy "rebuttal" a student had presented defending Darwinism, the local "Evolution Professor" decided to chime in. His article -- which was published the week thereafter -- called our original anti-NDT article "error-filled" yet it did not point to anything specifically that was erring. Since my friend and I had taken great pains to see that our article was accurate, this was very troubling. So, we went in to the professor's research lab and discussed the matter with him. When pressed in person the professor could NOT point to ONE error; although he believes the period for the Cambrian explosion is longer than we reported (up to 30-50 million years rather than 5-15 million years). [The *new evidence* that makes him believe the span is much longer is another issue.] Although he apologized, his apology did nothing to counter the propaganda he wrote. Furthermore, after my friend and I told him that we were not positing ID -- we were merely pointing out flaws in NDT -- he let his guard down. Eventually he even admitted that the notion that "random mutation and nonrandom natural selection cannot account for complex features in nature" is scientifically and rationally sound. If only the public were allowed to view this side of evolutionary biologists... The_Intellectual_Ape
They did the same thing to Jonathan Wells. Benjii
I wonder if wikipedia will add this to Eugenie Scott's page? HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I crack me up sometimes! DaveScot
I emailed Wesley R. Elsberry (welsberr@antievolution.org)with the subject line "Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them" with a link to this article and a friendly tip that a slab of steak on a black eye helps. I suggested keeping a whole cow handy for NCSE leadership. DaveScot
Is the manner in which Eugenie Scott was forced to tell the truth anything like The Vise Strategy? Where's a plush doll of Eugenie when you need one, huh? ;-) DaveScot
I wish it were a just desert. There a lot of appropriate spots I can think of for her in the Mojave. Perched atop a slender Joshua Tree in Jushua Tree National Monument would be a good one. The Marines have a war game practice area out in back of Twenty Nine Palms and therein is a bunch of old vehicles the jet jockeys use for target practice. I'm thinking a sleeping bag in the back seat of one of those might be apt too. DaveScot

Leave a Reply