Talk:Eugenie Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eugenie Scott article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

"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 [1]. 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)

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

Contents 1 Religious views and use of religion 1.1 Scott's views 1.2 off-topic meanderings 2 Razzendahcuben comments

[edit] Religious views and use of religion

[edit] 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 [2].

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|☺ 19:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [3] 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)