NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott was invited to debate Ray Comfort, a creationist in the news recently for his plans to distribute copies of the Origin of Species with his own introduction, on the God & Country blog of U.S. News & World Report. Comfort began the debate on October 29, 2009; Scott replied on October 30, 2009; Comfort responded on November 2, 2009; and Scott replied on November 3, 2009. The debate, according to Dan Gilgoff, who maintains the blog, elicited “more feedback than any other issue on this blog has received over any similar stretch in its not-quite-one-year of existence.”

In her first post, Scott urged students to accept the free copy of the Origin that Comfort is offering, but not to waste time reading Comfort’s introduction — especially the middle section. “[It’s] a hopeless mess of long-ago-refuted creationist arguments,” she observed, “teeming with misinformation about the science of evolution, populated by legions of strawmen, and exhibiting what can be charitably described as muddled thinking.” After giving a number of examples of scientific errors in Comfort’s introduction, she added, “I have faith that college students are sharp enough to realize that Comfort’s take on Darwin and evolution is simply bananas.”

Scott also noted that the copy of Comfort’s version of the Origin she was sent by the publisher was missing four chapters as well as Darwin’s introduction. In his response, Comfort claimed that the next edition includes the missing material: “Not one word will be omitted.” Scott observed, “It’s still missing a crucial diagram from Chapter 4 as well as the epigraphs from Bacon and Whewell, which Darwin chose with care,” and also wondered about the unexplained change of heart: “Elsewhere he wrote that it was ‘abridged because it was too many pages (too expensive) for a giveaway.’ But now he’s going to try to give away even more copies of this more complete version?”

“I stick by my advice,” Scott wrote in her second post. “Students who are interested in learning about science can skip Comfort’s introduction, which, despite a few cosmetic revisions, remains a hopeless mess of long-ago-refuted creationist arguments.” And she concluded, “Anyone who honestly examines the data supporting evolution — even a young-earth creationist [such as Bryan College’s Todd C. Wood, whom Scott quoted as acknowledging, “Evolution is not a theory in crisis”] — concludes that the science is strong. If you reject evolution, you are doing it for religious reasons. You’re entitled to your religious opinions — but not to your own scientific facts.”

For the debate, visit: this, this, this, this, and this.

(a repost)

Gilgoff’s comments on the reception of the debate

..that even when you try diligently to separate the politics of religion vs. creationism and to say again and again that religion can go along its merry way as long as it stays out of the science classroom, people like Casey Luskin will still find the words in your rhetoric to accuse you of attacking religion.

A while back, Genie Scott appeared with me and Lynn Fellman on Atheist Talk Radio, where we discussed science education. Genie is the director of the National Center for Science Education.

Subsequently, in a posting on the Discovery Institute web site, Casey Luskin makes the contrast between the National Center for Science Education’s stance, and thus of Genie Scott’s philosophy (in that she is the director) on one hand vs. what she said in this radio interview.

Luskin specifically contrasts Genie’s statement that the NCSE’s goals are “not to promote disbelief” but rather to “help people understand evolution and hopefully accept it.” Hey, folks, that is is indeed what Genie pushes, and what the NCSE promotes, and it is classic middle-ground nice-guy, don’t be a dick science education. This is as good as it gets from the point of view of “appeasement” because it says let the religion go its own way, as long at it does not go into the classroom (see this: Accommodationists and New Atheists Sail in the Same Boat)

Luskin then contrasts that position with this quote from the same interview:

“Evolution is the scientific explanation that has the most repercussions, shall we say, for people’s worldview and religious perspective. Evolution tells you that humans share kinship with all other creatures. For some, that’s a very liberating and exciting idea, and it makes them feel one with nature and it’s empowering and so forth. For others, it’s threatening. If your view is a human exceptionalism kind of view, that humans are separate from nature and special — especially if they are special to God as in some Christian traditions, then evolution is going to be threatening to you.”

This quote was Genie’s answer to Lynn Fellman‘s question: “[A caller has asked] Why is it always evolution that seems to be under siege?”

Genie’s answer is correctly quoted above but with the last part of the quote bolded to emphasize the “threat” language, and Luskin further emphasizes the part about evolution being threatening:

Did you catch that? She just stated that evolution is “threatening to you” if you believe that humans “are special to God as in some Christian traditions.”

And, I should mention, the title of Luskin’s essay is: Eugenie Scott Claims Evolution Is Threatening to Certain Christian Traditions

OK folks, listen. There is no significant national organization involved in the evolution-creation debate that bends over backwards more to be “nice” to religion than the National Center for Science Education. But here, in Luskin’s critique, we see two important things:

1) It is not good enough. In order for Genie’s philosophy or the position of the NCSE to be considered “ok” by the Discovery Institute, the contrast that Genie talks about in her quote would have to go away. Human exceptionalism would have to be incorporated into the science or the science teaching. Evolution would have to be taught along side creationism in the classroom.

2) Luskin practices out of context interpretation and quote mining here. Strangely, he is providing the fuller context and the quote mined in the same place, so we see Genie’s de facto statement of the relationship between religion and science being converted before our very eyes as “Religious people, Evolution is threatening to you!!!”

It is hard to say that one can win under these circumstances. It is hard to support a be nice to the creationists philosophy under these circumstances. Genie Scott must be some kind of saint.

(A repost)