I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, October 03, 2010

Predictably, NCSE's Eugenie Scott is still peddling the "all anti-evolutionism is based on religion" nonsense

In a previous interview, Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, said, "antievolutionism is uniformly the product of religious opposition," and of course she continues to repeat this nonsense.

A Los Angeles Times article said,

In his Academy Award-nominated 1960 drama, "Inherit the Wind," director Stanley Kramer offered a fictionalized depiction of the famed Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, in which Tennessee high school instructor John Scopes was tried for violating the state's Butler Act, a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution.

Fifty years after its initial release, with activists on the political right and left still bitterly divided over social issues, the film remains sharply relevant, something the Malibu Film Society hopes to underscore with a special anniversary screening and panel discussion Sunday . . . .

. . . . "I always tell people, 'Don't look at it as a movie reporting on the Scopes trial,'" she [Eugenie Scott] said. "It does capture a very important mood that reflects the anti-evolution movement, [which contends that] evolution is not biblical, so it should be opposed."

She has no credibility.

The article notes that the screening was held at the Malibu Jewish Center and Synagogue. This may unfortunately reinforce the false stereotype that Jews, because of their tendency to support the so-called "separation of church and state," generally support the dogmatic teaching of evolution in the schools. The fact is that many Jews -- particularly orthodox Jews -- are critical of evolution theory.

Labels:

17 Comments:

Blogger Rupert said...

So what is creationism based on then?

White mice? Aliens? Serendipity?

Monday, October 04, 2010 5:20:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

The question is not "what is creationism based on?" but is "what is anti-evolutionism based on?"

Monday, October 04, 2010 6:26:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

Anti-evolutionism is either creationism/ID, white mice or aliens. What else is there?

So its' either religion, white mice or aliens. So you've made your point, I guess.

Monday, October 04, 2010 6:55:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

The important point is that it can be based on scientific observations and reasoning, and not just on religious sources like the Bible.

Monday, October 04, 2010 9:20:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

Yeeees, and what do you think that will lead to? God, evolution, white mice or aliens?

Monday, October 04, 2010 10:15:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

It doesn't have to lead to anything -- an analysis does not have to answer all possible questions. For example, evolution theory does not answer the question of how life originated.

Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:12:00 AM  
Blogger Rupert said...

So the choices are:

a. God
b. Evolution
c. White mice
d. Aliens
e. None of the above

is that what you are saying?

Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:42:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

No, that is not what I am saying. There are other possible choices, e.g.:

f. Don't know
g. No opinion
h. Decline to state an opinion

Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:49:00 AM  
Blogger Rupert said...

Well I think you'll find that 99.5% of the population believe it is either god or evolution.

99.5% of the remaining 0.5% wear these funny jackets with extra long sleeves which are tied at the back.

I haven't come across any anti-evolutionists who don't credit god.

Wednesday, October 06, 2010 5:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Wrong, doofus -- see this post.

Thursday, October 07, 2010 9:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing in that post contradicts what Rupert said. You know, I'm not sure I've ever seen you use the word "wrong" correctly. You either end up supporting what the person wrote, or you write something that doesn't contradict what the person wrote.

Thursday, October 07, 2010 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said,
>>>>>> Nothing in that post contradicts what Rupert said <<<<<<<

Rupert said, "Well I think you'll find that 99.5% of the population believe it is either god or evolution." A Pew Research Report quote in that post said,

.. . . in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

And those are just individuals' "main" reasons for disbelief in evolution -- individuals' secondary reasons are not given. Maybe a large percentage of those who gave religion as their main reason also doubt the evidence, and maybe a large percentage of those who cited lack of evidence as their main reason also think that goddidit. My point is that contrary to what Eugenie Scott says, religion is not the only reason for doubting Darwin.

Actually, I was surprised that the figure is only 14% -- I thought it was much higher.

Thursday, October 07, 2010 12:34:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

So what DO those 14% believe?

Thursday, October 07, 2010 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> So what DO those 14% believe? <<<<<<

I don't know -- as I said, my point is that contrary to what Eugenie Scott says, religion is not the only reason for doubting Darwin.

Thursday, October 07, 2010 11:39:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

Well if they don't accept the evidence for evolution they're obviously a bit thick, so I dare say they'll end up falling for religion anyway. So Scott's right, if your dumb enough to doubt evolution you're stupid enough to believe goddidit.

Friday, October 08, 2010 12:29:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

No, doofus, Scott is not right. That is not what she said. She said that no one has scientific reasons for doubting Darwin -- she did not say that some people have bad scientific reasons for doubting Darwin.

And Darwinists cherry-pick their evidence -- they see only the strengths but not the weaknesses. They remind me of the hillbilly who was on trial on a charge of stealing chickens:

defendant to witness: Did you see me go into the henhouse?

witness: Yes.

defendant: Did you see me come out of the henhouse?

witness: No.

defendant: Aha! Ise still in that henhouse!

Friday, October 08, 2010 8:21:00 AM  
Blogger Rupert said...

sounds more like the usual pro- religious argument!

what, a bad scientific reason like creationism/ID ?

Sunday, October 10, 2010 11:35:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home