NCSE’s Eugenie Scott Reassures Scotland: There’s No Scientific Controversy on Evolution or Climate Change

_{Jonathan McLatchie

September 23, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Last week in Glasgow, Scotland, Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID) director Alastair Noble, David Swift, and I attended a lecture presented by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. The event was organized by Glasgow Skeptics, who previously hosted a talk by PZ Myers back in June.

Click here to continue reading>>>

Comments

F/N: Wikipedia, testifying against interest:
To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth . . . . even a true statement can be used to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being overall untruthful rather than the truthfulness of any individual statement that is considered the lie . . . . One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them . . . . One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation . . . . A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth . . .
Does anyone have any good reason to believe these people don't know better, or that with a modicum of honest investigation they could know better? That is, that they know or SHOULD know the truth? Theatre of the Absurd, indeed. But then Plato exposed all of this, 2350 years ago in The Laws, Bk X. (Go look up the reference for details. And read up on Alcibiades, the poster boy for the underlying problems and prototype for Nietzsche's superman.) They are just telling us what they are. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

It is all about the truth on important conclusions in origin subjects. The people must demand the truth is the only purpose in discussing these subjects to their kids in the schools. Otherwise its an attack upon religion since religion teaches about these conclusions. There is no moral or intellectual or legal prohibition against teaching the truth on origins despite the source of the truth. Creationism(s) being prohibited is the same thing as the state saying officially they are false. So since the state only prohibits them because they are said to be religious then the state is saying these religions are wrong in their doctrines. This is surely illegal in a nation with state and church noninterference concepts and law. Creationism(s) deal with the natural world and natural processes. Just some assumptions are extra. In my YEC there is a claim of a witness however still it comes down to just defending it as a option against aggressive evolutionism etc. MS Scott says only science can talk about origins legally. In fact only truth investigation can talk about origins in a educated scene. Science is just a particular species of investigation. Creationism(s) has full right to any investigative process as long as truth is the objective. Science is a friend to creationism where its accurately done. Creationism says evolutionism etc has not been scientific. Creationism demands the right to criticize evolution claims of using science accurately and demands the right to claim it uses science accurately. Then creationism says both sides fail to use science but since conclusions in origin issues are taught then creationism can offer its own and criticize the other using any line of investigation as long as truth is the objective. Origin issues fail to be scientific mostly or more and so respectable but less vigourous investigative methods can be used. Evolution is mostly lines of reasoning and speculation. Yet its taught as proven fact. Creationism says it ain't. Free the schools.Robert Byers_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

This is par for the course for the NCSE, unfortunately. I don't know how they can get anything done over there -- the cognitive dissonance in that building must be deafening. To paraphrase Palin, I can almost hear it from my house! :)Eric Anderson_{September 23, 2011
September
09
Sep
23
23
2011
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

The title of the presentation itself suggests a fallacious start, in that anyone who denies global warming is either an evolution denier, or just as sinister, a 6 day creationist. It sounds like this was brought out later in her presentation, along with other canards of the NCSE, including omitting the evidence that would count strongly against the unholy miracle that Darwinism would be, if it was true. Her use of the term "creationist" implying a 6 day creationist is also wrong. The old earth creation perspective is consistent with findings of modern science in many ways, ways perhaps she would not want her faithful to know about. Additionally, the false association of ID being creationism would be eagerly disputed among the atheists, agnostics, Jewish and other non Christian or non biblically oriented scientists, scholars and other ID supporters. Of course there has never been a single premise of ID that has been shown to be religious, so I can only conclude that people who make statements about ID being religious are either mistaken due to lack of knowledge, or deluding themselves and others. Her so-called "pillars of creationism".... Straw men each and every one. Should we expect anything more substantive from someone so oblivious to the truth and motivated to remain dogmatic in spite of the preponderance of increasing evidence against Darwinism? Do what Eugenie Scott and the NCSE doesn't want you to do. Think. Wonder. Critique.Bantay_{September 23, 2011
September
09
Sep
23
23
2011
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

I think she knows EXACTLY what she's talking about! She feigns this approach because to honestly battle it would bring up too many issues that need to be sorted. She doesn't want that and would prefer the grandmotherly, kindhearted look and the blanket-ban on all disenting views. What do you think?AussieID_{September 23, 2011
September
09
Sep
23
23
2011
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Jonathan, I think you a little too kind toward Ms Scott when you write her naïvety:
Since Eugenie Scott takes the (in my opinion naïve) view that there are absolutely no weaknesses or problems with neo-Darwinian theory
AussieID_{September 23, 2011
September
09
Sep
23
23
2011
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

You have a much stronger stomach than I. I'm quite certain I would have become ill from listening to Eugenie Scott for an entire lecture. She has been one of the principal persons responsible for distorting the facts and misrepresenting both design proponents and the evolution debate. And now she weighs in with climate change stuff too . . .Eric Anderson_{September 23, 2011
September
09
Sep
23
23
2011
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply