More dirt on Eugenie Scott
In a section titled "Defuse the Religion Issue" in an article titled "Dealing with Antievolutionism", Eugenie Scott brazenly, hypocritically and cynically urged teachers to use religion in a one-sided way to promote Darwinism in the public schools, in violation of the establishment clause. She wrote,
Again, I urge readers to protest the decision of the University of New Mexico's Board of Regents to award an honorary degree to Eugenie Scott. Protests may be sent to:
ewenzel@unm.edu
Board of Regents
unmpres@unm.edu
University president
jgeiss@unm.edu
Prof. John W. Geissman, led campaign to award degree
.
Teachers have told me they have had good results when they begin the year by asking students to brainstorm what they think the words "evolution" and "creationism" mean. As expected, some of the information will be accurate and some will be erroneous. Under "evolution," expect to hear "Man evolved from monkeys" or something similar. Don't be surprised to find some variant of, "You can't believe in God" or some similar statement of supposed incompatibility between religion and evolution. Under "creationism" expect to find more consistency: "God"; "Adam and Eve," "Genesis," etc. The next step in constructing student understanding of concepts is to guide them towards a more accurate view. One goal of this exercise is to help them see the diversity of religious attitudes towards evolution.
After one such initial brainstorming session, one teacher presented students with a short quiz wherein they were asked, "Which statement was made by the Pope?" or "which statement was made by an Episcopal Bishop?" and given an "a, b, c" multiple choice selection. All the statements from theologians, of course, stressed the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution. This generated discussion about what evolution was versus what students thought it was. By making the students aware of the diversity of opinion towards evolution extant in Christian theology, the teacher helped them understand that they didn't have to make a choice between evolution and religious faith.
A teacher in Minnesota told me that he had good luck sending his students out at the beginning of the semester to interview their pastors and priests about evolution. They came back somewhat astonished, "Hey! Evolution is OK!" Even when there was diversity in opinion, with some religious leaders accepting evolution as compatible with their theology and others rejecting it, it was educational for the students to find out for themselves that there was no single Christian perspective on evolution. The survey-of-ministers approach may not work if the community is religiously homogeneous, especially if that homogeneity is conservative Christian, but it is something that some teachers might consider as a way of getting students' fingers out of their ears. (emphasis added)
Again, I urge readers to protest the decision of the University of New Mexico's Board of Regents to award an honorary degree to Eugenie Scott. Protests may be sent to:
ewenzel@unm.edu
Board of Regents
unmpres@unm.edu
University president
jgeiss@unm.edu
Prof. John W. Geissman, led campaign to award degree
.
Labels: Evolution education (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 3/15/2008 04:02:00 PM
23 Comments:
> in violation of the establishment clause. <
You hopeless imbecile, mentioning or even discussing religion in not a violation of the establishment clause. No wonder you never won a legal case.
As for my not winning some legal cases, that was because the judges were a bunch of dunghills. I said that my smog impact fee lawsuits were federal cases and I was vindicated when a former top California air-quality agency official testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency.
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
> Then teaching ID or creationism in the public schools can't possibly be unconstitutional, you stupid fathead. <
Chuckles again demonstrates that Logic is not an arrow in his quiver. This is shown again with the following:
> As for my not winning some legal cases, that was because the judges were a bunch of dunghills. <
The judges were always kicking Larry's butt. That's why he doesn't like them.
Larry Fafarman:
Non-Notable And Crappy.
Brainfarts Never Cease.
None of what Eugenie Scott said violates the Establishment Clause.
However, teaching ID in public science class would.
The establishment clause doesn't say public resources cannot recognize the existence of a religion or repeat a quote from a religious leader.
It says public resources cannot be used to proselytize religion, promote religion or even "respect" religion.
Why is that difficult to see?
Larry, I used your contact info to compliment the University of NM for their recognition of a great scientific mind - Eugenie Scott.
jlo said,
>>>>>> None of what Eugenie Scott said violates the Establishment Clause. <<<<<<<
No, but teachers who follow her advice would be violating the Establishment Clause.
>>>>> The establishment clause doesn't say public resources cannot recognize the existence of a religion or repeat a quote from a religious leader. <<<<<<
OK -- if ID is religious, then why can't teachers mention ID in class, as the Dover school board required biology teachers to do? Isn't that just recognizing the existence of a religion?
Also, Eugenie Scott recommended selectively quoting religious leaders: "All the statements from theologians, of course, stressed the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution." What about statements from other religious leaders -- e.g., Cardinal Schoenborn, Popes JP II and Benedict XVI, fundamentalist Christians, orthodox rabbis, and ayatollahs -- that question the compatibility of religion and evolution?
>>>>> Larry, I used your contact info to compliment the University of NM for their recognition of a great scientific mind - Eugenie Scott. <<<<<
So big shit -- when I posted the contact info, I knew I was taking the chance that some visitors would use it to express support for the honorary degree. Panda's Thumb also took a chance by announcing the honorary degree.
Here we go again trying to teach Larry to read.
> No, but teachers who follow her advice would be violating the Establishment Clause. <
Not in the least. They can mention ID as a religion. They just can't teach it in a science class as having any relationship to reality.
> OK -- if ID is religious, then why can't teachers mention ID in class, as the Dover school board required biology teachers to do? Isn't that just recognizing the existence of a religion? <
No. Come on. You can't really be as dumb as you pretend to be. Requiring teachers to teach religion in science classes is not "mentioning" it.
> Also, Eugenie Scott recommended selectively quoting religious leaders: <
"Selectively" is your word. She recommended quoting the relevant ones. I would disagree with her in that I don't think it is necessary to add this sop for the creationists.
>What about statements from other religious leaders<
Or the babbling of the people from your asylum? Also in Math the teachers should not dogmatically insist that 2+2=4. They should give equal time to those whose alternative theories would claim that the answer is 3 or 5?
> when I posted the contact info, I knew I was taking the chance that some visitors would use it to express support for the honorary degree. <
So far everyone here except possibly the derelict from the bay area.
ViU driveled,
>>>>>> No, but teachers who follow her advice would be violating the Establishment Clause. <
Not in the least. They can mention ID as a religion. <<<<<<
No they can't, dummox. Calling ID religious offends the religious beliefs of some people. For example, some fundies reject ID because (1) some ID proponents do not believe in young-earth creationism and (2) suggesting that Genesis needs scientific support implies that the Bible is open to question. An NCSE article said,
Adding to the creationism sightings around the world, Reuters (November 22, 2006) ran a story on Islamic creationism in Turkey, where "[s]cientists say pious Muslims in the government, which has its roots in political Islam, are trying to push Turkish education away from its traditionally secular approach." The main source of antievolution propaganda in Turkey is Harun Yahya -- a pseudonym probably for a pool of writers, headed by Adnan Oktar -- which, as Taner Edis told Reuters, "has managed to create a media-based and popular form of creationism." Efforts to popularize "intelligent design" in Turkey are lagging, Reuters suggests, because most Turks "see no need to avoid naming God," but Education Minister Huseyin Celik recently told CNN Turk that "intelligent design" should not be disregarded just "because it coincides with beliefs of monotheistic religions about creation."
That last statement -- "'intelligent design' should not be disregarded just 'because it coincides with beliefs of monotheistic religions about creation'" -- is ironic, because it is usually used in situations where Darwinists rather than creationists are trying to suppress ID.
Also, if one teacher can say that ID is religious, then another teacher can say that ID is not religious (which is closer to the truth, since ID does not rely on religious sources).
>>>>> Requiring teachers to teach religion in science classes is not "mentioning" it. <<<<<<
And mentioning ID is not teaching it, you stupid fathead.
>>>>> "Selectively" is your word. She recommended quoting the relevant ones. <<<<<<
So Cardinal Schoenborn, Popes JP II and Benedict XVI, fundamentalist Christians, orthodox rabbis, ayatollahs, etc. are not relevant ones?
Larry bleated:
> Calling ID religious offends the religious beliefs of some people. <
You can find people who can be offended by anything. We can't worry about the desires of the unreasonable or insane or we would never do anything.
> some ID proponents do not believe in young-earth creationism and (2) suggesting that Genesis needs scientific support implies that the Bible is open to question. <
As I said, we can't worry about irrational people.
> Blather about Turkey <
As I said, we can't worry about irrational people. The Turks are now in a period of struggle between the secular ideas of Kemal Ataturk and the forces of ignorance led by Islamofacist mullahs. I am sure that anything bordering on religion, or for that matter science, would stir things up.
As for the religious sensitivities of Muslims in general, A story is told that when the Arabs captured Alexandria in 646, their general wrote to khalif Omar asking what to do with the books. The reply was reportedly: “If the books agreed with the Koran, they were superfluous. Burn them. If they disagreed they were pernicious. Burn them.” This story appear to have been invented out of whole cloth by a Catholic monk 600 years after the fact and seems improbable. Mohammad taught respect for learning and this occurred too soon after his death for his teachings to be so clearly defied.
In contrast, book burning was rampant among the Christians. They would like to do the same with science books. The Christian Roman emperor Valens ordered the burning of non-Christian books In 373. In 1109 the crusaders captured Tripoli and burned more than 100,000 books of Moslem learning. In 1204, the fourth crusade captured Constantinople and burned the classical works that had survived until then in what is generally considered the biggest single loss to classical literature. And don’t be so stupid as to claim that it is the evolutionists that want to burn books. So far it has only been practiced by the religious fundamentalists.
> That last statement -- "'intelligent design' should not be disregarded just 'because it coincides with beliefs of monotheistic religions about creation'" -- is ironic, because it is usually used in situations where Darwinists rather than creationists are trying to suppress ID. <
Wanting to keep ID and other pernicious drivel out of science classes is not suppression. ID belongs under the category of mythology or religion. The problem is that the whackos keep trying to stick its nose into the tent of science.
> Also, if one teacher can say that ID is religious, then another teacher can say that ID is not religious <
And one math teacher can say that 2+2=4 while another can say that it is 3 or 5. What is your point? Are we supposed to teach the alternate theories or are we supposed to mention the controversy and then link to non-notable and crappy blogs where the value of 3 is defended?
> And mentioning ID is not teaching it, you stupid fathead. <
You seem to have taken two opposing sides on this, dunghill. Make up your mind and take on or the other.
> So Cardinal Schoenborn, Popes JP II and Benedict XVI, fundamentalist Christians, orthodox rabbis, ayatollahs, etc. are not relevant ones? <
None of these have any scientific credentials of which I am aware, nevertheless I will accept the statement of Pope JP II that “evolution is more than just a hypothesis”. As for Hitler Youth Benedict XVI, he has done his best to drive the Catholic church back into the middle ages. Orthodox rabbis and ayatollahs have so much in common it is not necessary to mention them both as what can be said about either seems to apply equally well to the other. Both groups are supporters of religious folklore over science.
ViU moaned,
>>>>>> Calling ID religious offends the religious beliefs of some people. <
You can find people who can be offended by anything. We can't worry about the desires of the unreasonable or insane or we would never do anything. <<<<<<
The Supreme Court said in Thomas v. Review Board,
. . . religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.
>>>>>> And mentioning ID is not teaching it, you stupid fathead. <
You seem to have taken two opposing sides on this <<<<<<
What two opposing sides?
>>>>>> So Cardinal Schoenborn, Popes JP II and Benedict XVI, fundamentalist Christians, orthodox rabbis, ayatollahs, etc. are not relevant ones? <
None of these have any scientific credentials of which I am aware <<<<<
It was Eugenie Scott who first proposed quoting and polling theologians who have no scientific credentials.
>>>>> nevertheless I will accept the statement of Pope JP II that “evolution is more than just a hypothesis” <<<<<
A well-known quote mine.
ViU, please cite sources.
A suggestion:
So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it.
It is also quite likely that even if the Museum was destroyed with the main library the outlying "daughter" library at the Temple of Serapis continued on. Many writers seem to equate the Library of Alexandria with the Library of Serapis although technically they were in two different parts of the city.
The real tragedy of course is not the uncertainty of knowing whom to blame for the Library's destruction but that so much of ancient history, literature and learning was lost forever.
Selected sources:
"The Vanished Library" by Luciano Canfora
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons
Larry eructed:
> The Supreme Court said in Thomas v. Review Board,
. . . religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection. <
You dimwitted dunghill. This protection does not include freedom from being offended or it would but heads with the basic meaning of the First Amendment. You should give up reading legal decisions. You have proven to be devoid of the ability to understand them.
>>>>> nevertheless I will accept the statement of Pope JP II that “evolution is more than just a hypothesis” <<<<<
> A well-known quote mine. <
No. A direct quote in context.
> So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? <
Well lets go back over the details. In 48 BC, while visiting Egypt to murder his son-in-law, Pompey, Julius Caesar became involved in a sibling rivalry between Cleopatra VII and her brother Ptolemy XIII. Cleopatra, then 19 (Caesar was 52), had herself rolled up into a carpet and presented as a gift. To reciprocate for her generosity, Ptolemy XIII was killed by Caesar’s goons. At Cleopatra’s request, they also murdered her little sister, Arsinoe.
As a further inducement, Cleopatra had offered Caesar whatever reading matter he might need. In 47 BC, his soldiers were loading a large part of the rolls from the library onto a ship to take them back to Rome when the Alexandrians, in an early instance of campus unrest, rose against Caesar and Cleopatra. Offended by this hostility, the Romans sacked the city, burned the library, and made slaves of the scholars.
The library was again damaged when the Roman emperor Aurelianus quelled an Egyptian revolt in 272 AD, and again in 295 when the emperor Diocletian suppressed another revolt. In 391, a Christian mob, led by Bishop Theophilus destroyed the Temple of Serapis, where some of the surviving books were kept. Another bishop, Cyril, led a mob in 415 wreaking more destruction and hacking to death the mathematician Hyapatia. He was sainted for his great work.
When you consider that Omar never was known to have been in Alexandria, that his army didn’t reach it until 700 years after the initial burning, and the claim that he was involved didn’t appear for yet another 500 years, I would suspect he had a bad rap.
> Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it. <
Yes. Humiliated by the barbarity of Caesars’ burning of the library, Mark Antony graciously replaced many of the rolls by looting 200,000 from the library at Pergammon.
The source: Anonymous
>>>>>> This protection does not include freedom from being offended or it would but heads with the basic meaning of the First Amendment. <<<<<<
You profoundly retarded nitwit, the Kitzmiller v. Dover case was basically a "right-to-not-be-offended" type of case -- there was no attempt to establish an official state religion and the case was not a free-exercise case.
>>>>>> A well-known quote mine. <
No. A direct quote in context. <<<<<<<
JP II has made statements contradicting the quote mine, but I won't belabor the point -- we can just remove his name from the list of theologians who have questioned Darwinism or said that Darwinism is incompatible with religion.
> You profoundly retarded nitwit, the Kitzmiller v. Dover case was basically a "right-to-not-be-offended" type of case <
You mindless cretin, you should give up trying to read legal briefs. You have shown that you know no more about them than you do about fornication. You should try to return to humanity with baby steps. For this week your assignment is to try to take a crap without the assistance of the hospital staff.
> there was no attempt to establish an official state religion and the case was not a free-exercise case. <
Nor did I say anything about that.
> JP II has made statements contradicting the quote mine, but I won't belabor the point <
Because you are unable to provide anything that disputes what I said or supports your bullshit. Thank you for ceding this point so we can go on.
Ms. Scott likes to quote mine and cherry pick her religious sources.
Ms. Scott likes to quote mine and cherry pick her religious sources.
Hardly.
An ironic claim coming from creations, the poster children for quote mining.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous, you dunghill, if you think you can sneak your gossip in here, you are sadly mistaken, because nothing gets past me -- I am emailed a copy of every comment posted on this blog. You are just making a nuisance of yourself. And you are a big hypocrite -- falsely accusing me of vandalizing Wickedpedia while you vandalize this blog.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home