Mariano on the evils of ... Eugenie Scott and the NCSE

In his new attack against atheism, Mariano from Atheism is Dead is focusing on none other than Eugenie Scott, the fantastic head of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and claims she and the NSCE are bent on pushing atheism in public classrooms. As if.

But then, that's quite the standard of stupidity from the guy – for one thing, he keeps referring to the Discovery Institute's plans to "Teach the Controversy" as "The Wedgie Document" (it's the Wedge Document), which foreshadows the sort of accuracy and credibility the rest of his post has.

Eugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education, an anti-theism organization dedicated to promoting and defending the teaching of atheism in public schools.

Um ... no. The NCSE promotes good science, like evolution. Evolution isn't atheism. They are totally different things: one is a science, the other is a set of beliefs in the metaphysical and so forth. Promoting good science is not the same as pushing non-theism, no matter how much ignorants like Mariano like to say so.

Next, Mariano quibbles over definitions (oh, goodie! I love battling definitions, I always seem to win):

Eugenie Scott urges scientists not to use the term “believe” when referring to their position on “evolution”—unfortunately, she does not define that she means by “evolution”,

You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you “accept evolution.”

Actually, you also “accept God” and accept newspaper accounts that report that your sports team won the game. Moreover, cell division and thermodynamics has nothing to do with what most atheists mean by “evolution”—at least when they are in anti-theistic activist atheist mode.

Anyone who has the vaguest idea what that last sentence is even supposed to mean gets a medal. (With a Scarlet A on it, just for coolness.) But no, Mariano, one doesn't accept God unless they believe in him to begin with. Hard to accept something we do not even believe exists. First you believe, then you can accept. Get the idea?

Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't require that you believe in it – no more than do gravity, heat or light. You can, however, as Eugenie pointed out, accept it or not. Doesn't make it more or less true either way, however.

As for what she means by "evolution" ... well, what the hell do you think!? She must mean how club sandwiches are made! Seriously, this dingus spends his time debating and arguing evolution and scientific facts – and doesn't even know what the hell it is?

... Not that anyone should be surprised.

He then mentions how Eugenie, like all respectable atheists and "evolutionists", never seem to agree to debate creationists, in public at least:

Well, since is she is one of many defenders of atheist co-opted evolution who refuses to debate creationists it seems as if she is content to take pop-shots from the peanut gallery.

Or whatever that means.

The reason for which actual accredited experts in evolution refuse to squabble with creationists on-stage is extremely simple: they just don't wanna give creationists and other anti-science fools and kooks any more publicity than they already bring upon themselves. They also don't want to be seen sharing a stage with then, which then brings them an illusion of credibility or expertise merely by being seen at the side of, or on the same stage as, an eminently qualified expert.

Seriously, creationists are causing enough crap and are being heard from more than enough these days without us atheists and "evolutionists" giving them airspace as well.

He also then complains about Eugenie's continuing "refusal" (read: neglect) to define what she means by "evolution". As if that wasn't sorta obvious. Common descent, perhaps? That's all the theory of evolution is. They're merely synonyms. Trash can and garbage bin.

And then, he brings up the usual excuse for discrediting evolution: those pesky fidgety scientists can't stick to their guns, always changing their minds about what evolution is!

Things that are Darwinian and things that are not are still subsumed under the term “theory of evolution” because quaint Victorian Era tall tales about it, somehow, fits.

[...]

If Eugenie Scott ever dared to debate creationists she would know that they, yes even the most fundi-bible thump'n-born againer-evang-YECers, have no problem “accepting” evolution so long as it is defined according to actual observations of changes and not defined according to philosophy or mere speculation.

Dammit, my brain's really starting to hurt now. I can really only guess what he's referring to; and I don't have the slightest idea what he means by "quaint Victorian Era tall tales". The origins of the Theory of Evolution, perhaps? God only knows.

But, back on-topic. The reason why scientists keep changing their minds, Mariano, is because the stuff that leads them to making up their minds in the first place – you know, the evidence – keeps becoming more and more complete as holes are filled in and answers are discovered over the course of time. What we think is true, may eventually turn out to be false based on contradicting evidence; and this is where the ultimate crucial difference between scientists and creationists lies.

When contradicted, scientists will gladly come up with new, better theories to try and explain what they're trying to understand, all the while keeping accurate to the available evidence. Creationists on the other hand ... close their eyes, block their ears and scream that evidence is worthless and that it's all irrelevent 'cuz Goddidit, anyway. Scientists always make sure to stick with the evidence and try and figure out where it leads them, no matter how unlikely or even ridiculous it may seem at times. Creationists stick to their guns, no matter what. No matter how many times they're contradicted, or categorically proven wrong with mountains of new (and old) evidence.

And finally, this monstrosity of idiocy:

Eugenie Scott also elucidates her view on the current state of the effort to ensure that evolution is taught in schools,

Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it.

Right then; it is those wacky creationists who are ruining all of that absolutely certain scientific evidence. This is interesting and one must guess what it means: is the evidence for her particular view of evolution so weak that she must turn to indoctrinating propaganda such as regulating the manner in which scientists speak? Or are those wacky creationists so good at what they do, to the point that personages such as Eugenie Scott will not debate them, that all of the convincing evidence is simply not enough to convince every public school child who is indoctrinated five days per week for at least a dozen years?

She admits that “the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it” and so activist evolutionists have long, since before Darwin, been turning to propagandizing.

Somewhere, an English teacher is crying. That's not even in the same neighborhood as being what she said, or meant. Holy hell, Mariano truly suffers from lack of reading comprehension. Or maybe he comprehends too well ... what he wants to comprehend, which often just isn't there.

"Wacky creationists ruining all of that absolutely certain scientific evidence"? A) no evidence is ever "absolutely certain" (and what does he even mean, "ruining evidence"? Smashing fossils or burning histograms? You can't ruin evidence unless you actually, well, ruin the evidence, literally. You can, however, ruin people's understanding of said evidence, which is what Eugenie clearly both said and meant.

"Indoctrinating propaganda such as regulating the manner in which scientists speak"? What? All she said is that scientists constantly have to battle with an "evolving" creationism and refute ever-changing creationist tactics to try and discredit evolution. Nothing about regulating what scientists say, no matter how you stretch or phrase it.

And finally, why are students in public schools still doubting evolution? Maybe because scientific education is America is shite. Ask any number of accredited science teachers, they'll all tell you the same thing. Scientific education in the U.S. is in major need of a major overhaul.

I'm running out of steam here – just as well, as this is the last of Mariano's tragic excuse for an intelligent post:

Lastly, Eugenie Scott comments on what scientists and “people who care about science” should do,

I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change ... you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will ... accept the science.

Again, she calls for activism because indoctrination is not enough to convince many people of her particular view of “the science.”

Oh, just learn to fucking read already! Seriously, this is just getting tedious by now. She merely stated how people need to vote for the right people, those who work for their best interests. How the hell is that supposed to translate into "activism" or "indoctrination"?

Mariano, you fail in more ways than I even thought were possible.