1. Comment #53503 by Crazymalc on July 1, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I like the way this lady speaks. Very clear. Very logical.

I liked the way she exposed the false dichotomy. Very clear and straight forward.

Much props

Other Comments by Crazymalc

2. Comment #53509 by godma on July 1, 2007 at 7:33 pm

I happened upon it last night on tv (re-broadcast on a local college channel) and thought she got the points across very well. Thanks for posting it, Josh.

Other Comments by godma

3. Comment #53523 by Zakie Chan on July 1, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Eugenie Scott rules. Check out her book "Evolution vs Creationism", its a great overview of the whole issue.

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

4. Comment #53536 by JohnRa on July 2, 2007 at 1:10 am

Is there a better link for this? The streaming is jittery.

Other Comments by JohnRa

5. Comment #53537 by wice on July 2, 2007 at 1:19 am

i don't really get the use of term "creationism/evolution controversy". it suggests that these are two, equally working theories, which contradict each other. for example, relativity/quantum theory, now, that's a controversy. all we have here is a creationism stupidity.

Other Comments by wice

6. Comment #53558 by chbg21808 on July 2, 2007 at 3:47 am

The only thing I don't like about The National Center for Science Education, is that their position is a bit wimpy. Though they argue well against Intelligent Design ...Their position is a bit like that of the philosopher Michael Ruse. They tend to argue that as long as the religious position is not a creationist one, there is compatibility. I'm sure this is a purely political ploy... But I still find it frustrating.

'Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design' by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross is an excellent book on the subject. Forrest was a key expert witness for the plaintiffs in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.

The 'Wedge Strategy' (authored by the Discovery Institute) was a frighteningly well organised attempt to get religion in science classes. Thankfully, Forrest and Gross's book and the trial, bust it wide open. In fact, the defence in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area trial were more scared of Barbara Forrest, than any other plaintiff and tried their damnedest (unsuccessfully) to stop her testimony.


Other Comments by chbg21808

7. Comment #53563 by CJ22 on July 2, 2007 at 4:22 am

Agreed chbg, I do get annoyed with scientist who argue that evolution is not incompatible with religion. If that regligion includes a Young Earth hypothesis, then it damn well IS incompatible.

Other Comments by CJ22

8. Comment #53589 by tieInterceptor on July 2, 2007 at 6:15 am

any youtube link for this?

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

9. Comment #53628 by chauvinj on July 2, 2007 at 10:13 am

I can't find a youtube link for this but I stumbled across this...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H5sfHz3xyNc&mode=related&search=

It's disgusting to say the least. No wonder there are so many ID nutjobs. It's because of video's like this that brainwash the ignorant.

Other Comments by chauvinj

10. Comment #53633 by godma on July 2, 2007 at 10:59 am

I think it's legitimate to call it a political or religious controversy, just not a scientific one.

Other Comments by godma

11. Comment #53682 by richpierce on July 2, 2007 at 2:47 pm

She completely misquoted Dawkins reasoning, when she equated it with Shermer's. Shermer needs to read Dawkins again, if he read it in the first place. She was exaactly right that Shermer's conclusion - that evolution shows god had nothing to do this creation - is wrong. But that is not Dawkins position (if I may be sold bold). Which is that one cannot claim that god created anything because there is no evidence of it.

Also, she said if one wants to believe that god started evolution that science could not refute that claim. I believe she is assuming that the claim does not also include god having direct effects on the natural world. Using he cornfield analogy, how could someone control a cordfield to collect scientific data if god is effecting how the corn grows?

Other Comments by richpierce

12. Comment #53715 by marcdesm on July 2, 2007 at 8:07 pm

I also agree with chbg. She gets weird when she tries to accommodate deists. If evolution created our brains w/o super natural guidance, and if our minds is our brains in action, it would be a hell of a coincidence that there's a god that just happens to be there ready to speak to us in English...

Other Comments by marcdesm

13. Comment #53752 by bokonon on July 3, 2007 at 2:54 am

I think that the point she misses is not that 'God' and religion are compatible with reason and science, of course they are. What is incompatible is specific religious belief. God did not create the world 6000 years ago, the flood didn't happen, God can't be omniscience, omnipresent and omnipotent at the same time... Reason and science constrain and specify the type and character of God that can still be believed in, and it has been squeezed into almost nothingness - but not quite.

Religious people need to be forced to reflectively consider the actual content of their claimed belief because 'belief' is compatible with anything.

Other Comments by bokonon

14. Comment #53817 by troodon on July 3, 2007 at 11:01 am

The NCSE is focused on defending the teaching of evolution in public schools and fighting the well-funded groups attempting to bring creationism or ID into the classrooms. As Eugenie Scott points out, the issue of whether or not god exists is a separate question.

Richard Dawkins has said it's best if he would not be called as a witness in an American ID trial, as the ID side would love to demonstrate that a scientific understanding of evolution leads to atheism.

In the long term I think most of us here want to achieve a society where rational thought wins out over superstition. In the short term, however, the proper education of our children is probably the most important battle to be won. The more kids who are taught good science and critical thinking the better.

Don't get me wrong. The question "does god exist or not?" is crucial and is being dealt with effectively by RD, Hitchens, Harris, Stenger and others. But I think it's smart of the NCSE to stay focused on the evolution/creation debate. In this video, Eugenie takes us by the hand and shows us how to do just that. Behe and the Discovery Institute have their "Wedge" strategy. Maybe it's time for us to sharpen our own wedge to split the creationists apart from Christians who accept evolution by natural selection.

Other Comments by troodon

15. Comment #53935 by Morro on July 4, 2007 at 9:15 am

I love Eugenie. She's got a soothing voice, and a great mind. A fantastic voice for evolutionary science.

Other Comments by Morro

16. Comment #58056 by robotaholic on July 23, 2007 at 7:42 am

I love hearing her speak. I couldn't choose a better Executive Director.

The argument is sort of like this if you ask me - ID is what they "think" and Evolution is what we've "found". - There is no dichotomy at all.

Other Comments by robotaholic

17. Comment #59141 by kardde1492 on July 27, 2007 at 2:32 pm

if religion would drop indivisual beliefs, like noahs arc and social things like no gay marriages, alltogether, then yeah they might be able to coexist with evolution. but i doubt it will happen, and if and when we pick sides im taking the more rational one.

Other Comments by kardde1492

18. Comment #103816 by Styrer- on December 27, 2007 at 12:17 am

Well, the power of this site to educate is clearer to me than ever after watching that.

But not, perhaps, for the reason you may think.

I joined this site several months after this was posted, and I have only just come across it.

In my ignorance of her comments here, I have spoken extremely highly of Eugenie Scott since joining, in particular of her performance at the AAI 07 meeting. While my comments stand, I must withdraw some effusion because of her nauseatingly ingratiating and scientifically blinkered comments to the audience here.

It is simply not the case that science has no comment to make on the existence of a god. It is also simply not true, as she tries to force on the audience in some self-seeking moment of 'yo, I'm with all of yas, faithful or not', that science is indifferent in its findings as to the question of an existant god. Indeed, her bald 'S. J. Gould'-ish insistence on NOMA is a disgraceful submission to young learners in the audience, a submission which flies slap in the face of Dawkins himself, and Stenger, as world-renowned thinkers far beyond her own significant, but much smaller, achievements.

Thanks again to this site for making me reconsider.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-