NCSE’s Eugenie Scott To Retire

Mr. Byers:

Barb Well we have said all that can be said. We agree that all humans can do anything if they apply themselves. We disagree about the great issue of motivation. you keep repeating female contributors as if this makes your case. It doesn’t. it easily makes my case. Your reacting from the impulse that woman CAN”T when I just insist women DON”T. They can and some do. Yet its about numbers now and in the past.

Yes, we do disagree. You insist that women aren’t motivated to accomplish much in the field of science; I gave you a list of women who were motivated to make “true accomplishments” (your wording) in science, which you willfully ignore. It doesn’t make your case. If anything, it proves that your argument is fallacious.

I say the numbers will not change greatly in true accomplishment depsite the increase in women getting degrees. I do see a unnatural interference on that fact alone to human progress. Motivation is powerful in men too accomplish and not so in women.

Again, I ask: what is a true accomplishment? Without a definition of what a true accomplishment is, your words are meaningless. I listed women whose research was integral to the work of other scientists. How is that not a true accomplishment?

Not socialization but a innate lack of interest as God created them to heklp their husbands in his work on earth.

Here you are ignoring the work of women like Dr. Eugenie Scott, who is an atheist (I think, or at least agnostic). For those who don’t believe, what is preventing them from following others in the field of science? It’s not like they follow a biblical command to be a helpmate to their husbands, if they are married at all. Your argument fails because you are painting all women with the same broad brush. This is a logical fallacy known as hasty generalization. You are drawing conclusions about all women based on insufficient evidence. You make judgments without knowing all the facts and then, when the facts are presented to you, you ignore them.

today woman have put in them a false motivation and it simply is revealed in lack of accomplishment despite great opportunity.

Here, definition is also required. What is false motivation? What makes it false? And why are you again applying it to all women?

I’m sure your daughter can do well because you are interested in science. Yet its a rare thing for women. I know many women who are very successful in school and seek high position but I still say its not the same thing as a man.

It might be rare for you, but that is not (and has not) always been the case. I’ve worked in the medical field for years in an administrative capacity. I’ve worked with female interns, residents, and board-certified physicians.

I don’t need persuading some women found this or discovered that. Anybody can do anything. I didn’t read your link but too say gender doesn’t matter in job choices is just plain wrong. Further even this hides the truth of unnatural motivation.

So, when confronted with facts that contradict your worldview, you ignore them. That is fine, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. But I am entitled to think that you are ignorant for doing so.

its in the difficult things that shows true achievement. Science to me is about discovery and invention from competent intellectual investigation. Its not about degrees earned by kids.

You mentioned discovery and invention. Fine. Take a look at the list I made in my last post. Women have made scientific discoveries and conducted competent intellectual investigations; notably, Rosalind Franklin comes to mind. How is it that you continually denigrate their work by claiming that it’s not true achievement? This, Robert, is misogyny.

I know it hits a nerve but it shouldn’t. In all issues of human intelligence AS long as it all comes down to free will there should not be felt a threat to identity self esteem.

It hits a nerve, Robert, because you have not merely denigrated women scientists, you have denigrated all women. That includes me. And that also annoys me to no end.

Motivation, good or evil, is the origin for the differences in historic mankind. I wish girls well because we all agree with everyone doing what they want but there is a great reality about the great innate differences of men and women.

I agree that men and women were created differently. However, this does not preclude women from succeeding in business, science, or politics since men and women are equal intellectually.

Its from creation. Its real. We are not the same and don’t have the same agendas for our lives.

No, men and women aren’t the same. But you have no way of knowing what agendas all women have for their lives. Another hasty generalization.

By the way I desire more YEC or ID creationist women to apply themselves to these origin issues and win. I wish more were on forums like this. Call up your friends.

I have no idea how many female scientists are currently doing ID-friendly research right now. Nor do I know who else is posting on UD and is female, since Dr. Liddle is gone. I think part of the problem is the bias seen in the education system where girls are told that they’re “bad at math” and shouldn’t consider careers in engineering or science. And part of the problem is men like you Robert, who come onto forums like this and proceed to tell all women that they should be home serving their husbands. If you really want more women on forums like this, then try to be a little more welcoming. Barb

Barb Well we have said all that can be said. We agree that all humans can do anything if they apply themselves. We disagree about the great issue of motivation. you keep repeating female contributors as if this makes your case. It doesn't. it easily makes my case. Your reacting from the impulse that woman CAN"T when I just insist women DON"T. They can and some do. Yet its about numbers now and in the past. I say the numbers will not change greatly in true accomplishment depsite the increase in women getting degrees. I do see a unnatural interference on that fact alone to human progress. Motivation is powerful in men too accomplish and not so in women. Not socialization but a innate lack of interest as God created them to heklp their husbands in his work on earth. today woman have put in them a false motivation and it simply is revealed in lack of accomplishment despite great opportunity. I'm sure your daughter can do well because you are interested in science. Yet its a rare thing for women. I know many women who are very successful in school and seek high position but I still say its not the same thing as a man. I don't need persuading some women found this or discovered that. Anybody can do anything. I didn't read your link but too say gender doesn't matter in job choices is just plain wrong. Further even this hides the truth of unnatural motivation. its in the difficult things that shows true achievement. Science to me is about discovery and invention from competent intellectual investigation. Its not about degrees earned by kids. I know it hits a nerve but it shouldn't. In all issues of human intelligence AS long as it all comes down to free will there should not be felt a threat to identity self esteem. Motivation, good or evil, is the origin for the differences in historic mankind. I wish girls well because we all agree with everyone doing what they want but there is a great reality about the great innate differences of men and women. Its from creation. Its real. We are not the same and don't have the same agendas for our lives. By the way I desire more YEC or ID creationist women to apply themselves to these origin issues and win. I wish more were on forums like this. Call up your friends. Robert Byers

Actually Barb, to play fair you would probably have to tie half your intellect behind your back! :) bornagain77

Mr. Byers again responds:

We can agree with presumptions of the innate equality of mankind. The bible says that.

Thank God, we’re getting somewhere.

Then i say identity is everything in human history affecting motivation. I say men are more motivated then women to accomplish things. The bible says so.

What you say is irrelevant. Gender identity is not as important as you make it out to be in terms of ambition or motivation. Men do not become scientists or politicians or business executives because they think, “Hey, I am a man! I should do this!” People choose their careers for varied reasons, the least of which is gender.

its unnatural for women to accomplish things as their real purpose is to assist their husbands.

So, you got around to reading most of the Bible except Proverbs chapter 31.

Society just mirrors this in history and present story. science being more demanding of results other then kids getting degrees reveals the true nature of male/female ability. Just as sports or business or hobbies or poker does.

Science is a demanding career. This does not mean that no women are capable of having a career as scientists; many have in the past, and many will continue to do so in the present and future. My daughter plans on becoming a shark biologist. How does sports or poker factor into this discussion? There are female athletes, too, you know. Some of them won gold medals at the Olympics last summer. What difference do hobbies make in terms of male/female ability?

In the future it will, likely, be less so but still not that less so. I see no equality in motivation and no equality in results.

You aren’t looking hard enough.

Yes female identity affects motivation. Its not irrelevant. Being men affects motivation. its not irrelevant.

Gender identity is a small part of what makes a person successful at a chosen profession. Your willful ignorance of this simple point is astonishing. We could ask to what extent gender shapes career choices and identities. For a time, certain careers were open only to one gender or the other; times have changed. We have male nurses and female doctors, and vice versa. It’s actually less our own gender and more of how we have been socialized to view our gender, how we were taught by our parents or teachers, and what we saw in the adults around us of both genders. Your socialization is unique to you, Mr. Byers. Not everyone was raised to believe that women are substandard human beings and aren’t good enough to be scientists, doctors, or business executives. In some cases, it’s the exact opposite. I would recommend checking out a couple of research papers on gender identity and career choices: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP1775R.pdf http://business.fullerton.edu/economics/kkleinjans/final_ei.pdf

Its just hurt pride about winners and losers. I see it all the time.

No, actually, it’s not.

Give credit wheres its due and not where its not due. Science , true accomplishment I mean, has and still is a manly preserve. I don’t desire it but expect it.

What is a “true accomplishment” in science? Discovering a comet (Maria Winkelmann, Caroline Herschel)? Writing books on botany and insect life (Maria Merian)? Becoming a professor (Laura Bassi)? Discover fossils (Mary Leakey)? How about developing a new field of study: ecology/home economics (Ellen Swallow Richards)? Discovering the period-luminosity relationship of variable stars (Henrietta Leavitt)? The latter directly influenced the work of astronomer Edwin Hubble, who stated that Leavitt deserved the Nobel prize for her research. How about contributing research to submarine detection (Rachel Carson)? Discovering a radio pulsar (Jocelyn Bell Burnell)? How about a crystallographer whose research on viruses, graphite, and DNA directly led to the discovery of the double helix (Rosalind Franklin)? I’m going to give Dr. Eugenie Clark her due here as well: she’s popularly known as “the shark lady” and her research on sharks and poisonous fishes is very well known. IIRC, she worked out of the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, for quite a while. Oh, and discovering radium (Marie Curie)? Are those considered true accomplishments in science?

All people must accept the reality of the influence of identity on human actions/achievement in history and today.

The reality is that identity plays a very small role, if any, in human achievement. You really need to rethink your narrow-minded worldview.

To dream its irrelevant will lead to injustice and unjust interference. Something is true and something isn’r.

Identity is pretty much irrelevant, as noted above. It’s not that scholars haven’t studied this before: try reading the book “Athena Unbound” which discusses women in science.

Just as in origin discussions. Those with the weaker case make the false conclusions and accusations.

That would be you, then. You’ve provided absolutely no evidence for your demonstrably false conclusions. Your case is the weaker case.

Don’t interfere with the people who can do the better job.

Wow, I’m actually agreeing with something you said. The apocalypse must be nigh. Oh, and just so we’re clear on this: the “people” you referred to can be men or women.

Thats the moral and intellectual right of nations and mankind. No theories about this or that identity gets this or that just because of identity percentages in populations. Play fair.

I am playing fair. Checkmate. Barb

Chance ratcliff Okay its better. We can agree with presumptions of the innate equality of mankind. The bible says that. Then i say identity is everything in human history affecting motivation. I say men are more motivated then women to accomplish things. The bible says so. its unnatural for women to accomplish things as their real purpose is to assist their husbands. Society just mirrors this in history and present story. science being more demanding of results other then kids getting degrees reveals the true nature of male/female ability. Just as sports or business or hobbies or poker does. In the future it will, likely, be less so but still not that less so. I see no equality in motivation and no equality in results. Yes female identity affects motivation. Its not irrelevant. Being men affects motivation. its not irrelevant. Its just hurt pride about winners and losers. I see it all the time. Give credit wheres its due and not where its not due. Science , true accomplishment I mean, has and still is a manly preserve. I don't desire it but expect it. All people must accept the reality of the influence of identity on human actions/achievement in history and today. To dream its irrelevant will lead to injustice and unjust interference. Something is true and something isn'r. Just as in origin discussions. Those with the weaker case make the false conclusions and accusations. Don't interfere with the people who can do the better job. Thats the moral and intellectual right of nations and mankind. No theories about this or that identity gets this or that just because of identity percentages in populations. Play fair. Robert Byers

The atheist sandbox 13.7 over at NPR has joined in the lovefest http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/05/13/183625134/video-the-national-center-for-science-education-keeps-evolving "Journalism" at its finest - lol! Optimus

Robert Byers responds:

A nerve has been hit here. It follows the same problems with facts that origin subjects deal with. I guess we are allowed to discuss this. Why are people telling me that women in the past or the present have achieved in like measure or close with men in notable, or any, accomplishments in what is called science???

Because women have made scientific achievements, whether you like it or not.

Something is true or not true!

See above.

Now I say the females have done nothing in history or modern times relative to men. Naming a few people does not make the case against me but in fact makes my case. I didn’t say there was none. i said few and far between as of today and yesterday.

And I say that you’re completely, utterly wrong. The simple truth is you are negating the valuable contributions women have made in the field of science by insisting that women are inferior beings.

I suggest the future will also not be much different because whatever women do will be done much better in numbers by men. I say men are created and indeed more motivated then women and this is seen everywhere when sincere competition in results takes place.

And I say that women were also created and some are, in fact, motivated to excel in the various scientific disciplines. Oh, and whatever women will do will be done much better by men…does that include getting pregnant and giving birth?

This wherer intelligence really matters./ I don’t see school for kids in their teens and early twenties as a thing of intelligence but only of being studious or more blunt mere memorization of data. Not insight, innovation, or wisdom etc.

You might not see teenagers or twentysomethings as having innovative ideas; I can assure you that the professors at Caltech, MIT, Princeton, and Harvard certainly see this on a daily basis.

School and professions depending on school only rewards ambition for people to be in prestigious things. further I see women as so lacking ambition as those that do want high careers congregate in a few prestigious professions.

Women have excelled in business, medicine, and science. Deal with it. Denigrating all women everywhere as you are doing in your posts only proves that you are a misogynist.

Its unnatural for women to aim high and so this forces a limited number of options. Its female lack of ambition that makes them compete equally in the classic prestige professions oddly enough.

And the “classic prestige professions” are what, exactly? You claimed medicine was unimportant; do you happen to have a medical degree? No? How about a master’s? Bachelor’s? You wrongly assume that it’s unnatural for women to have ambition. Where did this assumption come from? Most real women today do not have the desire to simply be barefoot and pregnant.

All people are created in gods image and so its impossible for any difference between men and women in innate smarts.

And yet you said in your last post that men were more intelligent than women. Finally get around to actually reading the Bible, did you?

Its only in motivation that differences happen. I agree any person can do anything. Yet people don’t chose so for profound reasons. Sexual identity is a major motivation in almost everything.

Then explain the existence (past and present) of women scientists (Marie Curie), astronauts (Sally Ride), business executives (Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay), and politicians (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton). If you agree that anyone can do anything, then for the love of bacon, please stifle your misogynistic attitude.

Accuse me of this and that but it changes not a single fact. No one presents facts against me but only hurt pride.

The facts that you willfully choose to ignore are that women are perfectly capable of succeeding in previously male-dominated professions like medicine, politics, science, and business.

All babies are born equal in smarts potential. however after that identity affects everyone. You can measure these things with consistent results.

Oh, good. You have statistics that prove your point?

I wish well for everyone but don’t interfere with those who fair and square prevail. Saying women are the equal of men in scientific achievement as of today is a false and unkind dismissal of the true achievers.

Saying that men are more intelligent than women is a false and unkind dismissal of those whose IQ is probably 50 points higher than yours.

Please no more Marie Curie !! One chick don’t make an equality. Why do you think it does??

Marie Curie is going to stay around for a while. Her scientific findings affect everyone in radiology and nuclear science today. Calling her a “chick” dismissively is grossly disrespectful to a woman whose achievements far outweigh yours. I think that her contributions to science in general disprove your point about women having no ambition or success in scientific fields. Barb

Robert Byers,

"Why are people telling me that women in the past or the present have achieved in like measure or close with men in notable, or any, accomplishments in what is called science??? Something is true or not true!"

You're conflating an observation and a judgment. There's an inappropriate leap in logic here on your part. Premise: Women's contributions to science are not as numerous as men's. Conclusion: Women's contributions to science are insignificant. The premise is a non-judgmental observation of fact, for which there may be multiple competing or complementary explanations. The conclusion is a narrow-mined, practically bigoted value judgment that does not follow from the premise.

"Now I say the females have done nothing in history or modern times relative to men. Naming a few people does not make the case against me but in fact makes my case. I didn’t say there was none. i said few and far between as of today and yesterday. I suggest the future will also not be much different because whatever women do will be done much better in numbers by men."

Again, you are making an observation and then applying it as an inappropriate judgment. You are not justified here. Why not instead take note of the exceptionalism of women in the context of science, because of their noteworthy prevailing against odds? Your judgment is arbitrary and unjustifiable. Observing differential contributions is not justification for the judgment that women's contributions are insignificant. This is your problem. You're forming a connection to value, based on numbers, because of some apparent bias you have against women in science.

"All people are created in gods image and so its impossible for any difference between men and women in innate smarts. Its only in motivation that differences happen. I agree any person can do anything. Yet people don’t chose so for profound reasons. Sexual identity is a major motivation in almost everything."

I think I can agree with most of this. If you're saying that there is no difference in inherent value, or innate intellectual capacity between men and women, I can entirely agree. Further, if you're saying that our sexual identity influences a) the choices we make about what to do or how we go about it; and b) cultural context plays a major part in this, then I also agree. But you seem to turn these facts into value judgments about the relative contributions of women vs men, that we should discount a woman's accomplishments in science because they haven't been as prolific as men's. This is unjustified. And there is no reason to use sexual identity judgments to conclude that women should not bother with scientific or other intellectual pursuits.

"I wish well for everyone but don’t interfere with those who fair and square prevail. Saying women are the equal of men in scientific achievement as of today is a false and unkind dismissal of the true achievers."

Here I think you go off the rails. For one thing, you're elevating sexual identity over individual achievements, as if being a man or a woman has anything to say about the value of individual contributions in science. This is why you appear bigoted. Also, the content of your comments fail to account for factors, such as societal structures and cultural contexts, which may very well contribute significantly to the differences. This is shallow on your part.

"Please no more Marie Curie !! One chick don’t make an equality. Why do you think it does??"

Comments like these make it very difficult to interpret you charitably, and they help justify the accusations leveled against you here. And when you claim that it's "unnatural" for women to compete with men, or to be ambitious, it makes it pretty easy to dismiss you altogether. Chance Ratcliff

"females have done nothing in history or modern times relative to men." "Its unnatural for women to aim high" "I wish well for everyone but don’t interfere with those who fair and square prevail." Will you please sign my copy of "The Design Revolution," Robert Byers? You, sir, have quite clearly done some 'intelligent designing' in this thread! ;) (Tongue firmly in cheek, for those who find it hard to recognise internet humour!) Gregory

A nerve has been hit here. It follows the same problems with facts that origin subjects deal with. I guess we are allowed to discuss this. Why are people telling me that women in the past or the present have achieved in like measure or close with men in notable, or any, accomplishments in what is called science??? Something is true or not true! Now I say the females have done nothing in history or modern times relative to men. Naming a few people does not make the case against me but in fact makes my case. I didn't say there was none. i said few and far between as of today and yesterday. I suggest the future will also not be much different because whatever women do will be done much better in numbers by men. I say men are created and indeed more motivated then women and this is seen everywhere when sincere competition in results takes place. This wherer intelligence really matters./ I don't see school for kids in their teens and early twenties as a thing of intelligence but only of being studious or more blunt mere memorization of data. Not insight, innovation, or wisdom etc. School and professions depending on school only rewards ambition for people to be in prestigious things. further I see women as so lacking ambition as those that do want high careers congregate in a few prestigious professions. Its unnatural for women to aim high and so this forces a limited number of options. Its female lack of ambition that makes them compete equally in the classic prestige professions oddly enough. All people are created in gods image and so its impossible for any difference between men and women in innate smarts. Its only in motivation that differences happen. I agree any person can do anything. Yet people don't chose so for profound reasons. Sexual identity is a major motivation in almost everything. Accuse me of this and that but it changes not a single fact. No one presents facts against me but only hurt pride. All babies are born equal in smarts potential. however after that identity affects everyone. You can measure these things with consistent results. I wish well for everyone but don't interfere with those who fair and square prevail. Saying women are the equal of men in scientific achievement as of today is a false and unkind dismissal of the true achievers. Please no more Marie Curie !! One chick don't make an equality. Why do you think it does?? Robert Byers

UB, your ‘semiosis’ position has been dominated so thoroughly elsewhere, it is not healthy for this to happen again here.

This is true. It has been dominated by arbitrary willful ignorance and obfuscation on the part of his opponents. Not something to be proud of, yet here is Gregory. Strange. Joe

As expected, the politician runs from any material challenge to his claims. An "academic" by pronouncement, without any standard of conduct. Upright BiPed

To calibrate what is going on, understand it in light of G's unfinished business here. KF kairosfocus

UB, your ‘semiosis’ position has been dominated so thoroughly elsewhere, it is not healthy for this to happen again here.

This is fluff - demonstrated by the fact that you cannot present a refutation of the argument of any kind, all you can do is hope no one realizes that you are lying through your teeth.

A credible man wearing a pseudonym at an ID-happy site – how unlikely is that? It is sadly so typical of Expelled Syndrome IDists!

Your politics mean nothing to me Gregory. Your argument against ID is refuted by material evidence, and you won't lift a finger to engage because you know your argument cannot survive the scrutiny.

Byers merely shows the worst in IDism cum ‘creationism’. The problem is that the ‘best’ you have to offer at UD is fellow-Expelled Syndrome sufferer ‘timaeus.’ That’s not a very high ceiling, folks!

Your politics are pointless Gregory. You can offer a counter-argument to the refutation of your position, or you can't. The answer to that question is in your ongoing avoidance of the issue.

At least timaeus is not sexist like Byers. But like many IDists, they don’t really care if the facts are against them. Ideology plays too strong in their outlook and communication

Your politics cannot save you from your claims Gregory. Be an academic, support your claims against evidence to the contrary. Upright BiPed

UB, your 'semiosis' position has been dominated so thoroughly elsewhere, it is not healthy for this to happen again here. A credible man wearing a pseudonym at an ID-happy site - how unlikely is that? It is sadly so typical of Expelled Syndrome IDists! Far too many unintelligent 'universal designists' at UD! Byers merely shows the worst in IDism cum 'creationism'. The problem is that the 'best' you have to offer at UD is fellow-Expelled Syndrome sufferer 'timaeus.' That's not a very high ceiling, folks! At least timaeus is not sexist like Byers. But like many IDists, they don't really care if the facts are against them. Ideology plays too strong in their outlook and communication. Gregory

It is truly fitting that Grogory should piggyback Byers. One avoids evidence of one kind, and the other avoids evidence of another. Upright BiPed

"I see none here either." Although I find almost all of R. Byers' posts repulsive and crude and am disgraced to call myself a 'Canadian' as he is, this point is actually well-placed. At UD, the ratio of men-to-women participants I guess is about 30 or perhaps 40-to-1. Dr. Elizabeth Liddle was tossed out. Who else? Are there any regular posters at UD who are women? Surely it shouldn't be hard for people to state their gender at UD, should it? Oftentimes names reveal it already. UD sure seems to be pretty much a 'boys-only' club. (No offense to you, Barb! Support for Proverbs 31) "ID doesn’t need you." Very well-stated, UD. The first 'reflexive' thing I've read from you yet! ;) "recent rising creationism(s)" Yes, like ID-creationism - Byers'-variety, PeterJ variety, Mung-variety, etc. Thanks E. Scott for showing the cat for what it actually is, even if you are an atheist! "I think medicine should be dominated by males because of a better intellect." - a 'credible' IDist? In-credible. Un-believable. IDism. "You’re an unintelligent misogynist." As for ideology, I've been saying there are far too many unintelligent 'universal designists' here for months, but nobody seems to be paying attention ;) Gregory

Byers, your knuckle-dragging understanding of life is generally repulsive, but your fear of women is something to behold. Please rest assured, when theistic men abuse their faith by assuming the incredibly stupid positions regarding women that you do, you become the caricature used to disparage the vast majority of theistic men who do not see the world through your emotionally repressed glasses. If you think that your God gives you justification for the things you say, then you are one truly deluded individual, and you should seek professional help. Do us all a favor and leave Uncommon Descent. Upright BiPed

And more from Robert Byers:

“The issue was about achievement and present ability to acheive in science by women. or rather people tried to tell me it was equal now and in the past by lines of reasoning. Nothing to do with mere doctors.”

Check out the list of female scientists on Wikipedia sometime. You might be enlightened.

“I don’t know the score on male/female doctors in the world but i do think it should be a male dominance.”

Really? Why?

“Not as in the past but I think men are more motivated to accomplish things and so become more intelligent pound for pound. All humans are born equal in smart potential but I see males always prevailing over females.”

Men are more intelligent than women? Really? That’s your argument?

“Educational things distort this reality. The better test is the business world.”

Please speak to the female CEO of Yahoo.

“Anyone can memorize medical stuff.”

Really? Can you?

“Also because women are told to be ambitious they tend to concentrate on obvious prestiges things like medicine as kids because they don’t have true ambition to succeed like men.”

*facepalm* So, obtaining a medical degree (4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, internship, 3 years of residency plus however many years of specialization) should mark someone as being less successful than someone who has an MBA (4 years of college plus 1 year for the MBA).

“I do think women equaling men in medicine dumbs it down and ethnic issues .”

So, allowing women to be doctors “dumbs medicine down”? Do you have any sort of evidence for this or is this simply your woefully uninformed opinion?

“You seem too be celebrating a demise of men. Well if it was the other way yopu would be called sexist. Whats the motivation here. Is there a right and wrong moral answer to who gets what?”

I don’t see anyone celebrating the demise of men. What I do see is a serious case of misogyny on your part.

“I think there is also. I think medicine should be dominated by males because of a better intellect. Not innately but because of motivation.”

Men are not more intelligent than women. Period.

“I think its unnatural for woman to compete with males.”

So women should simply be barefoot and pregnant and making sandwiches in the kitchen. If you’re trying to defend this belief with scripture, then please re-read the 31st chapter of Proverbs. It speaks of a capable wife who deals in real estate and marketing. She does not merely sit at home, waiting for her husband.

“If we live in a society of everything for anyone then desiring or welcoming any interference on who gets what by identity is surely a important BREAK with this society’s values.”

What are this society’s values? Equal opportunity for everyone? Is that bad? Why?

“Anyways docs or not there is a reality to important achievement in science and I insist the girls haven’t and never will compete with the boys and thats not all that anyways. identity is very important in human motivations and results.”

You can insist all you want. The facts show otherwise. You’re an unintelligent misogynist. Barb

Robert Byers: “Women today achieve very little in science still.” Anyone making a statement that suggests that women cannot “do science” or have not contributed to science should be beaten into unconsciousness with a framed photograph of Marie Curie. “I see none here either. she simply is rewarded for giving the establishment in society and in these ‘science’ high circles someone to reward for doing their cause.” Like her or not, she has been educated to doctorate level and has held the same job for 26 years. “its a fraud of activism from elites.” What? “In reality she gave creationism a pulpit by the silly aggressive opposition to creationists. She was very useful back in the early days for entry level activism by creationism.” So you’re indicating that she did achieve something in science? “Defending science from creationist aliens just made us very important and all the more how important it all is.” What are creationist aliens? Have you been reading Von Danniken again? “Evolutionism and its dUmB strategy of fighting us by hysterical protest will be seen in retrospect as just what the doctored ordered.” I really don’t think anyone believes that evolution happened the way Darwin described it 150 years ago. Now an ID-friendly law allows teaching of alternatives to evolution in Louisiana. “i wish she wasn’t going for that reason but their all the same.” Who’s all the same? Scientists? Painting with a broad brush, aren’t you? “Bring on the moral and intellectual accusations against organized creationism(s) science defenders of the universe!!!” I have no idea what this sentence means. Barb

Axel. The issue was about achievement and present ability to acheive in science by women. or rather people tried to tell me it was equal now and in the past by lines of reasoning. Nothing to do with mere doctors. I don't know the score on male/female doctors in the world but i do think it should be a male dominance . Not as in the past but I think men are more motivated to accomplish things and so become more intelligent pound for pound. All humans are born equal in smart potential but I see males always prevailing over females. Educational things distort this reality. The better test is the business world. Anyone can memorize medical stuff. Also because women are told to be ambitious they tend to concentrate on obvious prestiges things like medicine as kids because they don't have true ambition to succeed like men. I do think women equaling men in medicine dumbs it down and ethnic issues . You seem too be celebrating a demise of men. Well if it was the other way yopu would be called sexist. Whats the motivation here. Is there a right and wrong moral answer to who gets what? I think there is also. I think medicine should be dominated by males because of a better intellect. Not innately but because of motivation. I think its unnatural for woman to compete with males. If we live in a society of everything for anyone then desiring or welcoming any interference on who gets what by identity is surely a important BREAK with this society's values. Anyways docs or not there is a reality to important achievement in science and I insist the girls haven't and never will compete with the boys and thats not all that anyways. identity is very important in human motivations and results. Robert Byers

Robert: 'A quiet sexual revolution, brought about by the overwhelming success of bright young women applying to medical schools, is about to deliver the NHS into female hands. Within eight years, according to a report published today, most doctors will be women. The old medical patriarchy has left, retired, gone underground or been forced to change its views. Already 40% of ­doctors are women. In the GP surgeries, 42% are female. By 2013, says the two-year review from the Royal College of ­Physicians, women will make up the majority of GPs and by 2017, hospitals will also be dominated by female doctors.' .. from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jun/03/women-doctors-nhs-medicine-review Why not more Marie Curies? Well, although the World prizes the intellect as a virtue, of itself, nay, arguably, in a close contest with Ambition, as the sovereign virtue, it is actually a degradation, the brain being a reducing valve for survival in time, i.e. reducing our proclivity for religious contemplation. The same principle as LSD and other hallucinogens. So, the natural academic will never be as connaturally spiritual as non-academic educated people; and at the end of the day - or rather, the life, what will count for us is how purposefully we have sought to put our worldy intelligence at the service of the more connaturally spiritual. The odd thing is - at least, with our mindset - in principle, above a certain threshold, at least, non-academic people can hone their intellects to an extraordinary level, selling their birthright for a mess of potage, so to speak. The Sinn Fein MP and Deputy First Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Martin McGuinness, had been a manual worker in his youth, but after talking with him, a British colonel working for MI5 said that he felt he was talking to some with the intellect of a brigadier! In the UK, generally. The more decadently, economically right-wing, the polity and successive governments and the more indigent, the general populace, the more the girls in the secondary schools are excelling in their studies, most doubtless, going on to a university. Certainly more than ever. Needs must, when the devil drives. So that should dispel any doubts concerning the generic aptitude of women for higher studies. The best the academically-endowed person can do is to hone their intellect in the manner mentioned above, i.e. being mindful to put it at the service of others. Unsurprisingly, the World being the way it is, the egregiously important role of a lovingly nurturing motherhood, and as you Americans so aptly put it, 'home-making', has historically invited, not plaudits, but disdain. But that's no reason for you to join the club, Robert. Axel

"However, during that time women did what no man can- gave birth to those male scientists."

High five. Chance Ratcliff

Hey Robert, Yes it is true that for thousands of years males would not let women play in any reindeer games- education and science were not available to those with dos equis. Men saw to that. However, during that time women did what no man can- gave birth to those male scientists. So for thousands of years and into the foreseeable future, woman's contribution to science will be the most important- providing differential scientists. Now call home and apologize to your mother- and wish her a happy mother's day. Joe

Robert Byers:

Women today achieve very little in science still.

And:

Women do not come now or in the past close to mens achievement in science. This is right or wrong.

And:

She is to blame because they should iof had a better person and that means a man these days still.

And:

There are more women in these science things but they are STILL a poor second.

And:

I wish well for anybody in science but there are realities and Ms sCott is typical of females not ready for prime time.

Could someone kick this guy? Not only are his comments extremely offensive, but they are drastically out of touch with reality. Genomicus

Its not the point oif the thread here but to once again analysis is incorrect. Listing a few girls is just making my case. its a few. Science has been and STILL is the domaine of male achievement. Origin subjects and contentions and forums and blogs are almost all male. I am right or I am wrong. Why deny men their status or invent a status for the undeserving?? Whats the rub? Relative to the hugh numbers of men there has been few women to be noted. This way in everything. Perhaps, i doubt it, someday it will be equal but today and yesterday it isn't even close. Science is not about a short list of a hundred names. Its a cast of thousands. The women are not much in the cast. I insist . If folks want to deny this and say I'm wrong then as I say to evolutionists PRESENT your evidence. What is the percentage of male to female achievers, of some threshold of note, in science. Otherwise its wishful thinking and truly a diminishment of men and showing a motivation unrelated to the progress of science. I think I win but show me I'm wrong. I wish well for anybody in science but there are realities and Ms sCott is typical of females not ready for prime time. Affirmative action aplenty rules in these areas. Evolutionism won't be beat by poor observation and investigation by creationists, if they see science glory as having been affected very much by the girls. Somebody's wrong here. Robert Byers

Earth to Robert Byers- Just because E Scott is scientifically illiterate that does not mean all women are. The NCSE has men working for them too. Men who share the same affinity for scietific illiteracy as Scott... Joe

Here's two more: Rosalind Franklin & Lynn Margulis. Chance @ 13 It's hard to tell, but his comments are almost always barely intelligible. Optimus

Mr. Byers, I'm ashamed for you. Pasteur, Bohr, Einstein…we are all familiar with the great male scientists who have contributed greatly to the knowledge and progress of the human race. Less well known are those women scientists without whose work our understanding would be greatly impoverished. From Merit Ptah to Marie Curie to Evelyn Boyd Granville, the ranks of the greatest scientists have always included women. The Greatest Women in Science History http://articles.usa-people-search.com/content-the-greatest-women-in-science-history.aspx http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Ten-Historic-Female-Scientists-You-Should-Know.html bornagain77

Is Byers a sock puppet? Chance Ratcliff

Oh no folks. Identity matters. Women do not come now or in the past close to mens achievement in science. This is right or wrong. Ms sCott is case in point. I always find the women are not up to keeping up even in the subjects they apply themselves too in science. This is my observation. I have no doubt Ms Scott being picked for her job was because of a desire to have a woman. They needed one in subjects of origin research that largely are male. They always practice affirmative action. I insist. He was inarticulate, constantly based on misunderstanding the whole issues even allowing for being on the anti -creationist side. Thats why I liked her being there and dislike her retirement. She messed up the very organized opposition in academia against recent rising creationism(s). They could of done a better job at dealing with the early years of ID and YEC ascendency. She is to blame because they should iof had a better person and that means a man these days still. There are more women in these science things but they are STILL a poor second. To deny the intellectual prevalence of men is what could balled SEXISM. Identity matters in science in history and today. Robert Byers

OT: "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) http://sciencereasonfaith.com/pay-no-attention-to-that-data-behind-the-curtain/ "What's remarkable about this is how closely everyone is related to each other. On a genealogical level, everyone in Europe traces back to nearly the same set of ancestors only a thousand years ago," .... "...such close kinship likely exists in other parts of the world as well." (Genes show one big European family, May 7, 2013) http://phys.org/news/2013-05-genes-big-european-family.html bornagain77

Whoever is chosen to replace Dr. Scott, I'll bet one of the prerequisites will be a willingness to aggressively resist ID at all costs. Given the recent survival of the Louisiana Science Education Act and the fact that ID is gaining momentum, NCSE's new director will no doubt need to carry on Eugenie's crusade with even move vigor. From what I read in the literature and on the blogs, it seems to me the Darwin worshipers are getting more shrill and more desperate. RexTugwell

F/N 2: I go on to my main point, that the slander perpetuated by NCSE under Ms Scott's watch for many years, the false assertion that ID is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," is corrected here at UD in the WACs. Let me clip (inviting also an onward reading):

[UD WAC's, ] 5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo” In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based. Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the “forward” approach in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover” — i.e. from effect to its “best” causal explanation — is obviously empirically based. To say then, that Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm (Creationism) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward equals backward. What could be more illogical? 6] Since Intelligent Design Proponents Believe in a “Designer” or “Creator” They Can Be Called “Creationists” First, a basic fact: while many intelligent design proponents believe in a Creator (which is their world-view right), not all do. Some hold that some immanent principle or law in nature could design the universe. That is: to believe in intelligent design is not necessarily to believe in a transcendent creative being. However, what is rhetorically significant is the further fact that the term “creationist” is very often used today in a derogatory way. Traditionally, the word was used to describe the world view that God created the universe, a belief shared by many ID scientists, and even some ID critics. But now, that same term is too often used dishonestly in an attempt to associate intelligent design, an empirically-based methodology, with Creationism, a faith-based methodology. Some Darwinist advocates and some theistic evolutionists seem to feel that if they can tag ID with the “Creationist” label often enough and thus keep the focus away from science–if they can create the false impression that ID allows religious bias to “leak” into its methodology–if they can characterize it as a religious presupposition rather than a design inference –then the press and the public will eventually come to believe that ID is not really science at all. In short, anti-ID ideologues use the word “creationist” to distract from a scientific debate that they cannot win on the merits. The only real question is whether someone who uses this dubious strategy is doing so out of ignorance (having been taken in by it, too) or out of malice. 7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science In general, personal beliefs and personal views about the general nature of reality (be they religious, atheistic, or of any kind) should not be considered directly relevant to what scientists say and do in their specific scientific work: that’s a very simple rule of intellectual respect and democracy, and it simply means that nobody can impose a specific model of reality on others, and on science itself. Moreover, Dembski is qualified as a theologian and a philospher-scientist-mathematician (one of a long and distinguished tradition), so he has a perfect right to comment seriously on intelligent design from both perspectives. Further to this, the quote in question comes from a theologically oriented book in which Dembski explores the “theological implications” of the science of intelligent design. Such theological reframing of a scientific theory and/or its implications is not the same thing as the theory itself, even though each may be logically consistent with the other. Dembski’s point, of course, was that truth is unified, so we shouldn’t be surprised that theological truths confirm scientific truths and vice versa. Also, Dembski’s reference to John 1:1 ff. underscores how a worldview level or theological claim may have empirical implications, and is thus subject to empirical test. For, in that text, the aged Apostle John put into the heart of foundational era Christian thought, the idea that Creation is premised on Rational Mind and Intelligent Communication/Information. Now, after nineteen centuries, we see that — per empirical observation — we evidently do live in a cosmos that exhibits fine-tumed, function-specifying complex information as a premise of facilitating life, and cell-based life is also based on such functional, complex, and specific information, e.g in DNA. Thus, theological truth claims here line up with subsequent empirical investigation:a risky empirical prediction has been confirmed by the evidence. (Of course, had it been otherwise – and per track record — many of the same critics would have pounced on the “scientific facts” as a disconfirmation. So, why then is it suddently illegitimate for Christians to point out from scientific evidence, that on this point their faith has passed a significant empirical test?) 8] Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious Right to establish a Theocracy Darwinist advocates often like to single out the “Discovery Institute” as their prime target for this charge. It is, of course, beyond ridiculous. In fact, all members from that organization and all prominent ID spokespersons embrace the American Founders’ principle of representative democracy. All agree that civil liberties are grounded in religious “principles” (on which the framers built the republic) not religious “laws” (which they risked their lives to avoid), and support the proposition that Church and State should never become one. However, anti-ID zealots too often tend to misrepresent the political issues at stake and distort the original intent, spirit, and letter of the founding documents. Historically, the relationship between Church and State was characterized not as a “union” (religious theocracy) or a radical separation (secular tyranny) but rather as an “intersection,” a mutual co-existence that would allow each to express itself fully without any undue interference from the other. There was no separation of God from government. On the contrary, everyone understood that freedom follows from the principle that the Creator God grants “unalienable rights,” a point that is explicit in the US Declaration of Independence. Many Darwinists are hostile to such an explicitly Creation-anchored and declaratively “self-evident” foundation for liberty and too often then misunderstand or pervert its historical context – the concept and practice of covenantal nationhood and just Government under God. Then, it becomes very tempting to take the cheap way out: (i) evade the responsibility of making their scientific case, (ii) change the subject to politics, (iii) pretend to a superior knowledge of the history, and (iv) accuse the other side of attempting to establish a “theocracy.” In fact, design thinking is incompatible with theocratic principles, a point that is often lost on those who don’t understand it. Jefferson and his colleagues — all design thinkers — argued that nature is designed, and part of that design reflects the “natural moral law,” which is observed in nature and written in the human heart as “conscience.” Without it, there is no reasonable standard for informing the civil law or any moral code for defining responsible citizenship. For, the founders held that (by virtue of the Mind and Conscience placed within by our common Creator) humans can in principle know the core ideas that distinguish right from wrong without blindly appealing to any religious text or hierarchy. They therefore claimed that the relationship between basic rights and responsibilities regarding life, liberty and fulfillment of one’s potential as a person is intuitively clear. Indeed, to deny these principles leads into a morass of self-contradictions and blatant self-serving hypocrisies; which is just what “self-evident” means. So, as a member of a community, each citizen is should follow his conscience and traditions in light of such self-evident moral truth; s/he therefore deserves to be free from any tyranny or theocracy that which would frustrate such pursuit of virtue. By that standard, religious believers are permitted and even obliged to publicly promote their values for the common good; so long as they understand that believers (and unbelievers) who hold other traditions or worldviews may do the same. Many Darwinists, however, confuse civil laws that are derived from religious principles and from the natural moral law (representative democracy) with religious laws (autocratic theocracy). So, they are reduced to arguing that freedom is based on a murky notion of “reason,” which, for them, means anti-religion. Then, disavowing the existence of moral laws, natural rights, or objectively grounded consciences, they can provide no successful rational justification for the basic right to free expression; which easily explains why they tend to support it for only those who agree with their point of view. Sadly, they then too often push for — and often succeed in — establishing civil laws that de-legitimize those very same religious principles that are the historic foundation for their right to advocate their cause. Thus, they end up in precisely the morass of agenda-serving self-referential inconsistencies and abuses that the founders of the American Republic foresaw. So, it is no surprise that, as a matter of painfully repeated fact, such zealots will then typically “expel” and/or slander any scientist or educator who challenges their failed paradigm or questions its materialistic foundations. That is why for instance, Lewontin publicly stated: Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Bold emphasis added] The point of all this should be clear. ID does not seek to establish a theocracy; it simply wants to disestablish a growing Darwinist tyranny.

Dr Scott and the NCSE are not exempt from duties of care to truth, accuracy, fairness etc. They knew or should have known better and were repeartedly correcvted time and again. They willfully and remorselessly, ruthlessly pushed a slander. Let that be noted for record. For shame!!!!!!!!! KF kairosfocus

F/N 1: before I say anything else, let me answer to the women in science silliness with one name: MARIE CURIE. End of argument. KF kairosfocus

E. Scott @ the NCSE- 26 years of cowardly equivocations, lies and false accussations. The NCSE is respected? By who? Note to the new incoming NCSE director- you are going to have to deal with the fact that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Good luck with that... Joe

Byers: "Women today achieve very little in science still" What a silly thing to say. If you have to make false statements (with no bearing on the issues) in order to have something to say, then ID doesn't need you. Upright BiPed

Women today achieve very little in science still.

What? Methinks you are a bit out of touch. Scott's shortcomings have nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman and everything to do with the fact that she had a materialist agenda to push. Eric Anderson

Ummm...."Women today achieve very little in science still"...is this a sexist comment? Could you explain this please. ForJah

Women today achieve very little in science still. I see none here either. she simply is rewarded for giving the establishment in society and in these 'science' high circles someone to reward for doing their cause. its a fraud of activism from elites. In reality she gave creationism a pulpit by the silly aggressive opposition to creationists. She was very useful back in the early days for entry level activism by creationism. Defending science from creationist aliens just made us very important and all the more how important it all is. Evolutionism and its dUmB strategy of fighting us by hysterical protest will be seen in retrospect as just what the doctored ordered. i wish she wasn't going for that reason but their all the same. Bring on the moral and intellectual accusations against organized creationism(s) science defenders of the universe!!! Robert Byers

Hasn't Zack Kopplin been auditioning? ;) Chance Ratcliff

Nick Matzke? paijo