Evil Genie gets more awards
Eugenie "Evil Genie" Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has been selected to receive two more awards:
She will be the first recipient of the Stephen Jay Gould Prize, which will be awarded at the Evolution 2009 conference to be held at the University of Idaho. [link]
She has been selected as one of the Scientific American 10 for 2009, described by the magazine in its June 2009 issue as "researchers, politicians, business executives and philanthropists who have recently demonstrated outstanding commitment to assuring that the benefits of new technologies and knowledge will accrue to humanity." [link]
I previously reported other awards that Evil Genie has received. [link] [link]
What has Evil Genie done to deserve these highly distinguished awards? Has she made any great contributions to technology? No. She just heads an organization that (1) promotes censorship of scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution in the public schools and (2) misuses religion to promote evolution. These awards she has received reflect the pro-Darwinist bigotry of the organizations that granted them.
She will be the first recipient of the Stephen Jay Gould Prize, which will be awarded at the Evolution 2009 conference to be held at the University of Idaho. [link]
She has been selected as one of the Scientific American 10 for 2009, described by the magazine in its June 2009 issue as "researchers, politicians, business executives and philanthropists who have recently demonstrated outstanding commitment to assuring that the benefits of new technologies and knowledge will accrue to humanity." [link]
I previously reported other awards that Evil Genie has received. [link] [link]
What has Evil Genie done to deserve these highly distinguished awards? Has she made any great contributions to technology? No. She just heads an organization that (1) promotes censorship of scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution in the public schools and (2) misuses religion to promote evolution. These awards she has received reflect the pro-Darwinist bigotry of the organizations that granted them.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/29/2009 12:40:00 AM
6 Comments:
> She just heads an organization that (1) promotes censorship of scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution in the public schools <
Exactly what scientific criticisms of evolution has she censored? I see only that she has kept pseudoscientific criticisms out of science classes.
Few actually oppose teaching even pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution as long as they are in religion or mythology classes where they belong.
As to "misusing religion to promote evolution", pointing out that evolution might not be incompatable with most religions except the most fundamentalist ones is not "misusing religion".
>>>>>> Exactly what scientific criticisms of evolution has she censored? I see only that she has kept pseudoscientific criticisms out of science classes. <<<<<<<
It doesn't matter whether the criticisms are scientific or pseudoscientific. As I have pointed out many times, teaching even pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution in science classes serves the following purposes: broadening students' education, encouraging critical thinking, increasing student interest, helping students learn the material, preventing and correcting misconceptions, and helping to assure that technically sophisticated criticisms of evolution are taught only by qualified science teachers.
>>>>>>> Few actually oppose teaching even pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution as long as they are in religion or mythology classes where they belong. <<<<<<<
You Darwinists are talking out of both sides of your mouths -- you say that teaching criticisms of evolution in science classes would only "confuse" students, yet you want these criticisms to be taught by unqualified people. If you have been following some of the debates on the Internet, you would know that many of these criticisms are technically very sophisticated -- this isn't just "poof"-type creationism.
>>>>>>> As to "misusing religion to promote evolution", pointing out that evolution might not be incompatable with most religions except the most fundamentalist ones is not "misusing religion". <<<<<<<
NCSE has gone a lot farther than merely "pointing out that evolution might not be incompatable (sic) with most religions." And it hardly needs to be pointed out that there are a lot of religious people -- including clergy -- who see evolution as compatible with religion. Also, NCSE appears to have underestimated the extent to which Darwin-doubting -- including the Darwin-doubting of a lot of religious people -- is based on scientific arguments instead of religious belief. A lot more religious people would accept evolution if they found the scientific evidence convincing, just as they now accept heliocentrism -- which also appears to be contrary to the bible -- because they find the scientific evidence convincing.
Even many Darwinists are now condemning the way that NCSE uses religion to promote Darwinism. [link]
Larry said, "You Darwinists are talking out of both sides of your mouths -- you say that teaching criticisms of evolution in science classes would only "confuse" students, yet you want these criticisms to be taught by unqualified people. If you have been following some of the debates on the Internet, you would know that many of these criticisms are technically very sophisticated -- this isn't just "poof"-type creationism." Actually, they are trivial criticisms - you are simply not well versed in the literature of this problem. And teaching religiously-based pseudo-science in a religion class would hardly be a case of the unqualified teaching it - since it would be 'religious' material, after all.
Remember, Larry - there are NO scientific criticisms of evolution; merely debates about the relative importance of various evolutionary mechanisms and some argument about the details of the evolutionary tree of life.
Edward said,
>>>>> Actually, they are trivial criticisms - you are simply not well versed in the literature of this problem. <<<<<<<
Whether or not they are trivial, some are very technically sophisticated and are not suitable for being taught by unqualified people.
>>>>>> Remember, Larry - there are NO scientific criticisms of evolution; merely debates about the relative importance of various evolutionary mechanisms and some argument about the details of the evolutionary tree of life. <<<<<<
Wrong -- a criticism can be scientific even without being valid. And you forgot that I pointed out good reasons for teaching invalid criticisms of evolution.
Interesting exchange:
Edward: >>>>>> Remember, Larry - there are NO scientific criticisms of evolution; merely debates about the relative importance of various evolutionary mechanisms and some argument about the details of the evolutionary tree of life. <<<<<<
Larry: Wrong -- a criticism can be scientific even without being valid. And you forgot that I pointed out good reasons for teaching invalid criticisms of evolution.
Nope. If a criticism isn't valid, it's not scientific; though I suppose one could label it pseudo-science.
And you clearly have no experience in teaching: High School science classes are intended to give the broadest survey of the current scientific understanding. They are not intended for the development of 'critical thinking' - especially given the very high percentage of creationist idiots teaching in high schools. Are our current teaching methods insufficient for teaching genuine critical thinking? Yes. Is this the way to correct that problem?
Absolutely not.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
Post a Comment
<< Home