Eugenie Scott lectures full of trite "Darwinisms"

An article by Brandon Haught(y) on the Florida Citizens for Science blog says,

Eugenie Scott is not a fire breathing Darwinist. Heck, she doesn’t even believe in evolution. And those are just a few of the things I learned Monday from Dr. Scott’s two lectures she gave at the University of Central Florida.

There we go again with Darwinist word games. Eugenie Scott is a fire-breathing, fire-eating Darwinist and she believes in evolution.

Dr. Scott is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education. The folks at the UCF Department of Biology brought her to town as part of their speaker series honoring the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s work on evolution. Her first lecture was targeted at graduate students and focused on how universities can do a better job of teaching about evolution. The second event was a public lecture for a generalized audience and provided a guided tour of the history of “academic freedom” bills that are popping up across the nation, including here in Florida.
The graduate student lecture had at least 70 people in attendance with some latecomers forced to find a spot on the floor to sit. Dr. Scott’s lecture was entitled “Genie’s Top 10 Ways to Teach Evolution Better.” She politely admonished the university system for not emphasizing evolution enough when training future public school teachers.

Did Genie present any evidence that the university system does not emphasize evolution "enough" when training public school teachers? We have heard a lot of propaganda about how public-school science teachers have supposedly been avoiding teaching about evolution, but in a recent national survey of science teachers, only 2% of respondents said that they don't teach "general evolution processes" at all and an astounding ~38% percent of respondents said that they spend a horrendous 10-20 hours or more on that subject, and some teachers spend even more hours on human evolution!

Evolution simply can’t be set off into a separate course while ignoring it in other life science courses.

Why not? In my engineering program, different subjects were set off in different courses: statics & dynamics, thermodynamics, strength of materials, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, electrical engineering, etc.. There was overlap between the courses only where necessary -- for example, Newton's laws apply wherever the concepts of force, mass, gravity, etc. apply. There are many areas in life science courses where evolution simply does not apply.

That’s irresponsible, especially since many non-biology majors won’t ever make it to that higher-level evolution course.

In colleges and universities, many subjects have terminal elementary courses for non-majors and other courses for majors. Of course, the elementary courses for non-majors need to be more general and comprehensive than the individual courses for majors. Did Genie present any evidence that the elementary courses for non-biology majors do not cover evolution adequately?

Evolution should instead be the main theme driven home again and again during even introductory level biology courses.

There we go again with that outrageous cockamamie idea that evolution is a "central" or "unifying" concept in biology. There are many areas of biology where evolution is simply irrelevant. Making evolution the "main theme driven home again and again" is indoctrination.

She then took a step away from evolution and made a few points about the nature of science overall. For instance, the general public does not understand how science uses the words law, fact and theory.

(yawn) -- and there we go again with that cockamamie line that the great unwashed masses still don't understand that "scientific theories" are "well-supported" and "widely accepted" by definition.
.