Talk:Eugenie Scott/Archive 1

Scott's views
If she's a secular humanist, shouldn't that be in the intro? We call Phillip E. Johnson a born-again Christian in the intro. (Or if we don't some edit warrior will go all the way to 3RR and than slap an NPOV template on it.)

Also, John G. West wrote,


 * Eugenie Scott, the group's executive director, is an original signer of something called the Humanist Manifesto III, which proclaims that "humans are... the result of unguided evolutionary change" and celebrates "the inevitability and finality of death."

I'm wondering about this "unguided" thing. Are advocates on both sides of the US "evolution in education" dispute wrangling about whether evolution is guided or unguided? If so, we probably need an article about "Unguided evolution". Uncle Ed 16:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I see the campaign to recast the creationism debate as ideologically driven on both sides by portraying the "opposition" to various forms of creationism as being as "religiously" motivated as creationists continues apace. Scott's personal spiritual views are particularly relevant to the article as they're not a centerpiece in her group's stated agenda. They certainly don't feature prominently in NCSE mission statements and other guiding documents like theistic creationism does in the ID movement's platform, as detailed in official ID documents like the Wedge Document and its former mission statements.


 * And we already do have article about "unguided evolution", it's called "evolution." The one on guided evolution is called "Intelligent Design." I'm surprised you don't know this Ed, considering your recent attempts to make significant changes at the ID article and since John West is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, which is driving force behind ID. The institute defines ID as "The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."


 * I agree that the bit on her religious beliefs (or lack of them) needs to include that she is personally attacked for them. Also needs mentioning is that NCSE is religiously neutral, but is again attacked for being "atheist". There is an element of truth here, but the creationists' spin is non sequitur and hypocritical. Your faith would have to be made of very stern stuff for you not to start questioning it when confronted with creationist lies, and indeed many people are deconverted by evangelism. Equating the humanism with atheism also shows a lack of understanding of both of them. Dunc|&#9786; 19:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good points, I agree. FeloniousMonk 19:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

off-topic meanderings
If "unguided evolution" is what scientists mean by the unmarked term "evolution", then is it true that the Roman Catholic Church regards evolution as consistent with its theology? I thought Christoph Cardinal Schönborn said just the opposite! Uncle Ed 22:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Catholic Church has been sending mixed messages on this since the pope's death, but traditionally the RCC has taught that evolution is consistent with its theology for over 40 years, which is about 10 before I attended Catholic school. FeloniousMonk 22:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the mixed messages depend on the meaning of "evolution", i.e., whether it's specifically seen as unguided evolution or as evolution guided by God.


 * Schonborn claims to be clarifying a papal statement. And if his opinion is at odds with the pope's we ought to be able to show this rather handily. What is the pope's position on unguided vs. guided evolution? And is it consisistent with the recent 39 Nobel prize winners' statament with describes evolution as an "unguided" process?


 * The question is not "What form of evolution is really true, guided or unguided?" I'm only asking, "What does the RC church teach: that only guided evolution is true, or that unguided evolution can be true?" Uncle Ed 15:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, explain to me how any of this relates to the subject of this article, Eugenie Scott. FeloniousMonk 16:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Razzendahcuben comments
Razzendahcuben explain the changes that are needed and why. Be very specific with your wording and provide citations from a WP:RS. FloNight  talk  23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Claiming ID is an offshoot of creationism is a position some ID proponents advocate in an attempt to deflect the point that ID is creationism. FeloniousMonk 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True. : ) Razzendahcuben is frustrated that no one will discuss the reverted changes. I explained that it better to discuss on talk page of article and wait for others to reply. And look you are here before Razzendahcuben!  FloNight   talk  01:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's more because I was discussing the issue on the talk pages of individuals such as [Guettarda] and [Duncharris].

And actually, I'm not frustrated in the least. The fact that my critics have been completely incapable of producing a meaningful reply (exception can be made to Guettarda) to any of my charges is really quite amusing. And yet I am the "brainless cretinist troll", according to Duncharris. Then compliment this with the fact that I'm the one who is reminded at least 4 times to be more 'civil'... the irony is beautiful! ;)Razzendahcuben 16:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Razzendahcuben, do you want to discuss edit changes and develop consensus or not. Wikipedia is not a forum for debating. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Articles are better when a variety of people edit them, so I hope you will provide citations so we can address them. --FloNight 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of debates, because that's what discussions of opposing viewpoints typically are. ID and creationism are particularly volatile topics. Anyway, perhaps I'll condense the material I wrote to Duncharris and Guettarda and post it here, otherwise you can visit the links I posted in my previous comment. Thanks. Razzendahcuben 18:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Church State Separation
The last change to the Church State Separation section on this page had linked another page regarding the establishment clause of the US constitution, in which it stated that the church state separation is the "common interpretation" of the establishment clause.

The Church-State Separation interpretation of the establishment clause is a legal point of view not free from opinion and therefore should not be stated as thus...the text alone is sufficient.

Given that this is your own interpretation of the existing law, it is not fair to represent ONLY this point of view in your edit. You should either represent both sides of the legal arguments to this issue or simply state the text of the Constitution and let people learn and decide for them selves.

Thanks,

Deanj59 ake Eric


 * The problem is Dean/Eric that there are no two sides (unless you've been reading some nonsense spewed by Christian fundamentalists who want to impose their religion on everyone else). From the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision:


 * ''It is contended that the ID Policy [of the Dover School Board] constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


 * The courts have consistently upheld the principle of church-state separation, not only in Congress but through all branches of the executive. Your claim that it only applies to Congress is very naïve. Humps 12:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Humps,

I have changed the text (again) in the section with regards to Church and State. Wikipedia is ideally an informational resource and not a platform for one to either have political discussions and or narrowly put forth one sided political points of view under the veil of un-biased information. To state that Church and State Separation is what the establishment clause states is an opinion, not a fact. Quote all the precedent you like on the matter, but the fact remains that it is an interpretation of the constitution. Regardless of how little credence you give to the arguments against Church/State separation there is another interpretation. Who do you think argued for the Dover Area School District in the case you mentioned? Now, you feel they are wrong. Fine, but there IS a different side, that you are clearly wanting to silence. Now, I have no desire to get into a political debate as to the true meaning of the text or the judicial precedence behind the text. My opinions on this matter are utterly irrelevant. You stated "Your claim that it only applies to Congress is very naïve." I made no such claim. It seems odd that one would oppose having the actual text of the constitution in referencing the Establishment Clause. Isn't it best to present people with both sides, however little merit you feel they have? If your case is so strong and the judicial precedence so iron clad then the reader will ultimately come to agree with you anyway, which seems to be your goal.

Thanks, Deanj

California Wild controversy
"The points alleged to be false made by Scott were details not central to the subject and conclusions of the article, but Intelligent Design proponents characterized them as a "false smear" a "campaign of disinformation" and showing a "pattern of making false claims and character attacks"

While this is slightly better than the previous version, I still have problems with it. Namely, it implies that shoddy journalism is okay. Scott & co. got called on their mistake and basically said "Oh bug off." True, the creationists used their mistake to imply holes in their arguments (and wrongly so), but shoddy journalism is still shoddy journalism.the1physicist 02:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Journalism is not a science nor is it perfect. And it's hampered even further when covering a movement that intentionally dissembles its goals and methods. That the litigious Larry Caldwell and his Quality Science Education for All filed two suits just this month on the behalf of the ID movement says something of the sort of opponents that Scott faced.


 * The fact remains that the date of the Georgia evolution disclaimer, the spelling of "Sarfati," the type of material Caldwell submitted, and Caldwell not being the person described by the scientist as having a "gross misunderstanding of the nature of science" are not central to the subject and conclusions of the article. Yet the Discovery Institute in conjunction with Quality Science Education for All and the Caldwells makes it out to be just that. In journalism, that's called hyperbole. So for actual shoddy journalism, the reply from the Discovery Institute is a far better example . FeloniousMonk 03:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Journalism is not a science nor is it perfect."

Right, and when you screw up, you don't just say "shit happens". You publish corrections, etc (which they did). I have no issues with that. The problem I'm having is that the way the article is currently worded, it implies it was no big deal. I just have an issue with the wording, that's all.the1physicist 05:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the background facts:
 * That minor details in an article are in dispute.
 * The author was advised by attorneys to not respond publicly.
 * Quarterly publications like California Wild are published every 90 days. Caldwell's suit was filed less than 60 days of the article's publication.
 * The libel suit against Scott has all the hallmarks of a SLAPP.
 * Caldwell has a well-established history of pro-ID litigiousness.
 * This all points to Caldwell being litigious, and quite possibly a vexatious litigant, a common criticism of Caldwell. The facts support the NCSE's position that the suit was without merit. This controversy is more accurately described as a case of vexatious litigation on Caldwell's part than shoddy journalism on Scott's. FeloniousMonk 19:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Add to that that Caldwell withdrew the suit without even notifying Scott that he had done so:


 * "However, we have just discovered that Mr. Caldwell has dismissed the lawsuit against us – way back in July, in fact! He had sent us a settlement offer, we replied, and my lawyer and I have been waiting for his response to our reply– but we have heard nothing from him. In fact, although he filed the suit in April, he never even bothered to formally serve me with notice of his legal action! Now, shortly after receiving our reply to his settlement offer, he has moved to dismiss the lawsuit.


 * He never informed us that he had dismissed the case (which is apparently not legally required, but certainly would have been courteous) and thinking that I was still under the advice of my counsel to maintail silence, I have remained mute. This should not be mistaken for any acquiescence to Caldwell’s claims, nor certainly lack of confidence in the strength of our legal position! But you can’t take certain actions until certain procedural events take place – one usually gets served when one gets sued, for example, and then the clock starts ticking for response. We’ve been waiting around for Caldwell, but I’m happy to say that since he dismissed his lawsuit, I am not longer under those constraints." Source


 * --Wesley R. Elsberry 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't Burger King, but you can Have It Your Way if you want.the1physicist 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)