Comments on: Blast from the Past: Genie Scott on “Headlines on Trial”

By: RBH

RBH — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:07:21 +0000

I'll be darned. Gish mentioned 'sudden emergence theory' before Edwards v. Aguillard and before the cross examination of Behe on a draft of "Of Pandas and People" in Kitzmiller. I wasn't aware of that term being used pre-Aguillard.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:16:28 +0000

Another facepalm — of course what makes it easy to get away with saying such statements before people who don’t know much about evolution is that it has the cheap trick of making the speaker seem intellectual. It’s the same trick as saying “it’s certainly not black and white” which generates the cached thought of “profound idea” even if it’s not applicable in this case. I can’t believe Scott has been doing this for so long without losing it and going ballistic even once — I think she needs to be canonised as a secular saint.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:47:56 +0000

Actually, if you want to see something worse, go to the end of the segment and look at his closing statement!

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:27:52 +0000

I assume that was sarcastic — but I actually think that really was the most ridiculous statement about the creationism/evolution “debate” that I’ve seen made by a moderator (but obviously not a creationism proponent!)

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:34:55 +0000

Michael: He turned out to be totally wrong. That may be the last time such as dumb-ass thing was uttered by a professional in the business.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:07:28 +0000

The host introduced it saying basically “neither side can prove their point nor can they disprove it”. Could not go on!

By: itzac

itzac — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:49:54 +0000

She’s gotten much better at this over time.