Fatheaded Ed is name-dropping again
Fatheaded Ed Brayton has again familiarly referred to Eugenie Scott as "Genie" Scott. In a post titled "Congratulations, Genie Scott," he said,
And, of course, "Genie" Scott continues to get awards that she does not deserve. She is just a propagandist who claims that all criticisms of evolution are based on religion.
My friend Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education was awarded this week with the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences for "championing the teaching of evolution in the United States and for providing leadership to the National Center for Science Education."
And, of course, "Genie" Scott continues to get awards that she does not deserve. She is just a propagandist who claims that all criticisms of evolution are based on religion.
Labels: Ed Brayton (new #1), National Center for Science Education
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/04/2010 10:40:00 AM
23 Comments:
is that it?
You disparage someone for addressing someone by a truncated version of their name.
The award was well- deserved.
How is she a propagandist when she speaks the truth?
You come across as quite bitter.
A district judge in southern California, Judge James Selna, has reportedly ruled that a teacher who called creationism "religious, superstitious nonsense" was making a religious statement, which violated a student's First Amendement rights.
That's surely welcome news. The judge is clearly not a creationist (and niether am I: I believe that I descended from some species of extinct monkeys, and I'm perfectly happy to have descended thusly.)
But Darwinists are generally bigots, who in practice reject freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and academic freedom. The courts may yet come to their senses, and help protect the rights of all citizens from Darwinist attacks.
She is just a propagandist who claims that all criticisms of evolution are based on religion
Show me criticisms that aren't based on religion. You can't do it.
ID is Christian Creationism. What's left?
Rupert moaned,
>>>>>> You disparage someone for addressing someone by a truncated version of their name. <<<<<<
Rupert, do you see me writing about "my friends" "Mike" Behe, "Dave" Berlinski, "Bill" Dembski, etc.?
Whateverman barfed,
>>>>>> ID is Christian Creationism. <<<<<<
Doofus, the bible has nothing about irreducible complexity, DNA, bacterial flagella, blood-clotting cascades, co-evolution, etc..
The Bible has everything to do with ID, Larry, and you know it.
Criticism of evolution can and should stand on its own. ID is not that criticism.
What a tired old diatribe from Jim. It's disappointing that the teacher was disparaged for speaking the truth. Would the outcome have been the same if the teacher had said crystal healing was superstitious nonsense. I don't see the difference.
Your interpretation of freedom of thought and academic freedom is permitting equality for creationism/ID. Freedom of religion I'll give you, as long as it's done in private between consenting adults. And I mean adults, not perverting young minds.
Larry, I doubt very much that they are your friends. No, the bible doesn't contain those things but that does not negate the fact that ID is creationism in disguise.
The bible doesn't really mention anything about dinosaurs either, but that doesn't seem to stop creationist morons trying to retcon all sorts of nonsense into their biblical mythology(coconut eating T-Rexes, modern carnivores were all vegetarians before the original sin, Noah putting dinosaurs in his ark, fossils being literally placed there by satan himself to "trick" us, etc)
ID, irreducible complexity, and all other pseudo-scientific nonsense made up by the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis are just extensions of this retconning.
Bob the Bastard barfed,
>>>>>>>The bible doesn't really mention anything about dinosaurs either, <<<<<<
What's that got to do with my statement that ID does not reference the bible, bozo?
I think that it is OK to use nicknames when referring to well-known people who are commonly known by their nicknames, e.g., Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Larry Bird. But Ed Brayton is obviously trying to impress people by referring to Eugenie Scott by a nickname when she is not popularly known by that nickname. Also, "Genie" is not a well-known nickname for "Eugenie" and can easily be confused with "Jeannie."
bozo, doofus, er, Larry, 'What's that got to do with my statement that ID does not reference the bible'.
Quite a bit actually. Creationism (the root of ID) claims that man lived alongside the dinosaurs.
The factors such as this which creationists claim support their theories don't appear in the bible, just like factors which IDers claim support their theories don't appear in the bible.
You really are sounding a bit jealous over this whole 'friends' thing.
What's that got to do with my statement that ID does not reference the bible, bozo?
It shows that creationists have, and will continue to go through extraordinary mental self-abuse to make aspects of reality "fit" into their little religious fantasy world.
Which was leading to your other point:
Doofus, the bible has nothing about irreducible complexity, DNA, bacterial flagella, blood-clotting cascades, co-evolution, etc..
Which are all examples of the aforementioned mental self-abuse. Everything in the world must fit with their creationist worldview, so they invent these fantastic "theories" to convince themselves and others that their deluded fantasies are real. All the examples you mentioned are nothing more than specious reasoning and twisted interpretations of natural mechanisms that willfully ignore contradictory evidence; evidence which would otherwise reveal just how flawed and oversimplified these creationist explanations actually are. Get it, retard?
Sherwood wrote: A district judge in southern California...
The teacher's statement was religious. The prohibition against any form of creationism is to both protect it as religious speech (it cannot be criticized) as much as to keep it out of science.
The teacher was out of line with the "superstitious nonsense" remark.
However, YOU, Jim are failing to realize that your following statement:
But Darwinists are generally bigots, who in practice reject freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and academic freedom.
makes you no different than the aforementioned teacher (not to mention no less guilty if you were a teacher and uttered it in a classroom full of children).
Yes, I believe it's all about in Bible.
What?
Darwinists are evidently too stupid to recognize that the problems that their old doctrine faces don't arise from Christians, from creationists, or from the Bible. Their problem has been caused by the many eminent scientists who have questioned and attacked Darwinist doctrine, increasingly over the past 30 years. Quite a few of them, including the late Fred Hoyle, have been atheists or agnostics.
Jim Sherwood said,
>>>>> Darwinists are evidently too stupid to recognize that the problems that their old doctrine faces don't arise from Christians, from creationists, or from the Bible. <<<<<<
Right, Jim. And no one is more clueless than Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education. She said, "antievolutionism is uniformly the product of religious opposition."
I have communicated via email with Dr. Scott. Although I've never spoken directly to her, and couldn't remotely claim her as a friend, she signed her emails to me, "Genie."
Everyone who knows her calls her Genie. And unlike either you or me, Ed Brayton actually knows her, so I think he's certainly entitled to call her by the name she frequently uses for herself.
Jim Sherwood,
Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist, and clearly hadn't studied evolution. His famous analogy to a storm assembling a jet airplane reveals a deep ignorance of how evolution works. Every biologist would absolutely agree with him that such a thing couldn't happen, but then they'd follow up with, "but of course no one claims evolution assembles a complex organism all in one fell swoop," but only through generation upon generation of small changes, each of which must prove itself not detrimental. His analogy doesn't resemble that process at all, and in fact is bluntly called "Hoyle's Fallacy." It assumes completely random and separate events, whereas in biology, only mutation is random and separate, while selection is both non-random and non-separate.
Despite your claim that scientists themselves are undermining evolutionary theory, you are unable to name any significant number of contemporary biologists who doubt evolutionary theory--the best you can do is to reach back to a single--almost decade-dead--astronomer. That's because you couldn't possibly find any significant number of living biologists who reject evolutionary theory.
But turning to an astronomer for hos thoughts on evolution is like turning to a biologist for his thoughts on the big bang--in each case there's no reason to assume the person actually understands what he's talking about better than those in the proper field do.
My experience with Darwin-fans is that they simply haven't informed themselves as to the many purely scientific critiques of the old Darwinist doctrine which have developed and gained increasing momentum over the past 30 years. They are basically ignorant or backward people, still living in a bygone era when Darwinism was very rarely questioned among scientists, or among the "educated elite." Those olden times are gone forever.
Now's your chance, Jim. Take this opportunity to educate a Darwinist about the "many purely scientific critiques of the old Darwinist doctrine which have developed and gained increasing momentum over the past 30 years".
Post a few links. Remember, they have to be purely scientific (ie. can't have ties to creationism, must be based on scientific principles, must have some minimal amount of 'momentum' [can't be some guy posting on a blog], etc).
The floor is all yours.
I find it noteworthy, if not laughably predictable, that no such links have been forthcoming...
Post a Comment
<< Home