Home » Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Science » Here, alas, is a throng of women in science who will NOT be the next Lynn Margulis

Here, alas, is a throng of women in science who will NOT be the next Lynn Margulis

Tom Bethell comments on a recent video effort to persuade the world that women in science endorse Darwinism without question.

The timing was unfortunate for the sponsors. The recent passing of  Margulis (and the almost immediate  ”jealous dog” snarls from Darwinists) have replaced the videographer’s  intended soft focus lighting on the many women scientists we see and hear with – a surgery strength mind laser. Here’s Tom:

A few days ago, YouTube posted an interesting video called “Let’s Talk About Evolution.” It lasts for six minutes and I recommend it, although for reasons that its sponsors may not like. I’m guessing that Eugenie Scott of National Center for Science Education put this show together, but maybe I’m maligning her.

It shows sixteen female academics or science writers, mostly young, whose enthusiasm for evolution is so overwrought that they turn themselves into propagandists.

Eager to show how well they have been trained, they are like show mares who trot around the paddock jumping over each gate in turn. All the while they give the camera a look that says: “Aren’t I good?”

“Evolution undergirds everything we know about science,” says one. “Evolution is the unifying idea of biology and life sciences,” says another.

They recite old chestnuts as though they were new: One said:

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” (That’s from Dobzhansky. By the way, nothing in biology made sense before 1859?)

The video is also highly misleading. The strategy is to define evolution so broadly—evolution is a “change in population over time”; a “change in gene frequencies”—that it is trivially true. A change in population over time is confirmed whenever someone is born or dies.

But you continue to harbor doubts about evolution? You are one of those creationists? Well, that shows you don’t understand science itself. And that’s where we see the bait and switch.

The alleged truth of evolution is used to disparage doubters and dismiss them as rubes. Eugenie Scott took the prize when she said:

“Evolution is really a very broad concept that deals with very basic science, and actually undergirds everything that we know about science, or everything that we do in science . . .”

If evolution is something that is so simply confirmed then Jeanne Garbarino, Ph. D, who works in the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics at the Rockefeller University, could say without fear of contradiction:

“Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is actually an observable phenomenon that is supported by a significant body of evidence.”

I wanted to see if anyone offered any such evidence. Here was Pamela Bjorkman, the Max Delbruck Professor of Biology at Caltech.

“Bacteria in particular are able to mutate to get around antibiotics,” she said. “It’s another example of evolution. It shows bacteria’s “incredible ability to evolve quickly.”

This is perhaps the most cited example of evolution. But confronted by antibiotics, bacteria don’t take evasive action. None other than Richard Dawkins pointed that out in The Greatest Show on Earth. [p. 132] Some varieties are already immune.

After the others are wiped out by antibiotics, the immune ones have access to more nutrients and easily multiply. Nothing new has been created. Some varieties simply become more numerous.

But evolution means making new things, not more of what already exists. So, how does antibiotic resistance illustrate evolution? No other examples of observable are given in the video (if we ignore “change in gene frequencies over time.”

But, hey, such a “change” just is evolution, according to our online ladies (and many others). And that change is obviously real. So antibiotic resistance “confirms” it.

In short, evolution is first trivialized, then used to disparage those who don’t accept it. They are said to be either ignorant of science, or hostile to it.

I’m sorry to see these women in science reciting this propaganda so faithfully. All had “Ph. D” after their name. There’s no sign of a Ruth Hubbard, a Lynn Margulis or a Barbara McClintock in the bunch.

No doubt they’re out there somewhere. But this YouTube video suggests that such wild types are being bred out of the academic gene pool. Deliberately.

File under Ill wind that blows nobody good: Here, we’d wondered who would be the next Lynn Margulis. Our scouts can now save time by crossing these gals off. But we are pretty sure the wild type is still out there. For one thing, Margulis may have inspired some of them herself …

 

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

17 Responses to Here, alas, is a throng of women in science who will NOT be the next Lynn Margulis

  1. Still tilting at windmills, ie still fighting the fallcy that all alternatives to the theory of evolution argue for the fixity of species. Nothing sez “I am a mindless drone” more than that.

    Next thing you know we will have “evolving wardrobes” just because we change our clothes…

  2. Shhhh, Joe. Rate you’re going, you’ll have all the fashionistas claiming to be scientists. Some argue that it goes downhill from there.

  3. there was an article published a while back about water having 80 properties, i think it was a link to an article. does anyone know what it is?

  4. Just think about the new shows it could spawn:

    “What Not to Wear When Studying Infectious Diseases”

    “What Not to Wear to the Amazon Rain Forest”

    “What Not to Wear When Studying an Active Volcano”

    “What Not to Wear When Studying Wild Animals on the African Savanna”

  5. Anomalous life enabling properties of water
    http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html

    Water’s remarkable capabilities – December 2010 – Peer Reviewed
    Excerpt: All these traits are contained in a simple molecule of only three atoms. One of the most difficult tasks for an engineer is to design for multiple criteria at once. … Satisfying all these criteria in one simple design is an engineering marvel. Also, the design process goes very deep since many characteristics would necessarily be changed if one were to alter fundamental physical properties such as the strong nuclear force or the size of the electron.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....42211.html

  6. There are excellent women who give their minds and energy to organized YEC work. There are ID women kicking around and write for these forums.
    Women have sincerely successfully applied themselves to conquoring “science” subjects and getting the rwrds.
    There is however a liberal establishment with a agenda to promote women and this means over more deserving men. Affirmative action , openly/secret, is powerful in nOrth america.
    They want women to be as smart as men in these perceived smarter things.
    They think it should be at least 50/50.
    However it ain’t and it never will.

    Women do not have the same motivation for achievement as men and this is the explanation for failure to keep up with men intellectually.
    Its a effort.

    Science fields are just more fields that demonstrate female lack of interest in stuff.
    So the great campaign to push them in , and over male rights, will in the end fail.
    In fact it must be already interfering with progress in paid circles.

    The bible teaches man is to be the one with ambition and women to be wives to support him.
    woman deeply feel this and it comes out in lack of motivation.
    Despite a society pushing them to be equal.
    In reality only entry level teenage women for a while can kkep up to males.
    Beyond studying women will always come up shiort.
    Not dumber but not on the make.

    I see , relatively, few women who would interest me or show me they have something to offer in Science.
    Not many men but few women.

    yet lets welcome all, as long as no interference with men, and see what mankind can do.

  7. SNL Emily Litella:

    What’s all this fuss about thong wearing women of science?

    Why should we care if they want to wear a thong?

    Does it hinder them from looking in microscopes or telescopes? No!

    I say let them wear a thong if they want to.

    Umm Ms Litella, that is a throng of women , not women wearing thongs.

    Throng of women? Well that’s different then.

    Nevermind…

  8. Women do not have the same motivation for achievement as men and this is the explanation for failure to keep up with men intellectually.

    This certainly isn’t my experience, as a working scientist. The women I meet are at least as motivated as the men, and certainly work as hard and are as talented.

    I see , relatively, few women who would interest me or show me they have something to offer in Science.

    My experience is that there’s not much difference – women do have a lot to offer in science, I have employed several and work with many more.

  9. Robert Byers @ 3 writes,

    “There are excellent women who give their minds and energy to organized YEC work. There are ID women kicking around and write for these forums. Women have sincerely successfully applied themselves to conquoring “science” subjects and getting the rwrds.”

    Okay, and?

    “There is however a liberal establishment with a agenda to promote women and this means over more deserving men. Affirmative action , openly/secret, is powerful in nOrth america.”

    WTF? Why are men more deserving than women? What is the basis for that?

    Oh, and affirmative action applies to African-Americans and other minorities, not women.

    “They want women to be as smart as men in these perceived smarter things. They think it should be at least 50/50. However it ain’t and it never will.”

    Again, WTF?

    Anyone who claims that women are less intelligent than men should be beaten into submission with a framed photograph of Marie Curie.

    “Women do not have the same motivation for achievement as men and this is the explanation for failure to keep up with men intellectually. Its a effort.”

    And the basis for this sweeping generalization is…what?

    “Science fields are just more fields that demonstrate female lack of interest in stuff.”

    This sentence makes absolutely no sense at all.

    “So the great campaign to push them in , and over male rights, will in the end fail.”

    Again, where is it noted or written that men have inherent rights to perform scientific inquiry?

    And who, exactly, is pushing them over male scientists? I don’t see that happening at all. Cite examples to prove your point.

    “In fact it must be already interfering with progress in paid circles.”

    Really? Prove it.

    “The bible teaches man is to be the one with ambition and women to be wives to support him.”

    Um, what?

    The Bible teaches that pride is before a fall, and that ambitious people are far off from God, who wants his servants to be humble and meek.

    The Bible also teaches that women are perfectly capable of running businesses, marketing, as well as caring for their families. Read Proverbs chapter 31 sometime. This is not a description of Suzy Housewife by any means.

    “woman deeply feel this and it comes out in lack of motivation.”

    Again, prove it. Cite examples.

    “Despite a society pushing them to be equal. In reality only entry level teenage women for a while can kkep up to males.”

    Another sentence which makes no sense.

    “Beyond studying women will always come up shiort.”

    Beyond studying what? Science? I have news for you: there are plenty of women in various fields of science who are keeping up quite nicely with their male counterparts.

    “Not dumber but not on the make.”

    Yet a third sentence which makes no sense.

    Dude, you’re arguing that women are intellectually inferior to men and yet nothing you’ve written proves that you’re in any way smarter than, say, me.

    “I see , relatively, few women who would interest me or show me they have something to offer in Science.”

    Oh, so it’s your opinion that counts.

    Except not.

    “Not many men but few women.”

    *sighs* Do I have to C&P the entire list of women scientists throughout history from Wikipedia?

    “yet lets welcome all, as long as no interference with men, and see what mankind can do.”

    Okay. You want to welcome women into the field(s) of science but you claim that they cannot perform the various disciplines correctly, or are in some way inferior to men. I work with four Board-certified female pathologists; should I tell them to go home and have babies. Better yet, why don’t you tell them that?

    Your entire post is an ill-written, poorly spelled, misogynistic diatribe that gave me a headache.

  10. You are looking at women who are already there.
    I mean the ratios.
    I’m sure there are excellent women fixing cars but the ratio is surely 9-1 m/f.
    Women can equally fix cars but are not motivated for the subject and generally not as motivated as men.
    This explains the lack of achievement and why this will never change.

  11. Reading short posts shouldn’t give a person a headache.
    I read difficult things and never get headaches.

    I stand by what I said.
    Its just not true that men and women acheive equally.
    Science axhievement still reflects this.
    I’m not saying women are intellectual inferior.
    Actually Darwin did say this.
    I’m saying womens failure is due to motivation.
    I see this as a very real identity of them due to their biblical calling to support their husbands first or only.
    women don’t have ambition and despite or society pushing them they still fail to keep up anywhere where results are unbiased.
    Only in school or other simple enterprises of mere studying do they compete.

    This is a Mans world because we were created to do well before God.
    We are on the make.

    Yes there is a organized and profound agenda to raise women up at the immoral and illegal loss to men.
    Affirmative action is for anyone the establishment wants to raise up and knows can’t without it.

    I have watched this closely for years.
    I insist and accuse.

    Any human can do anything.
    But identity matters in who will.

  12. I’m also looking at students. In Finland, most biology undergrads are women: even in maths and computer science the ratio is pretty even.

    I haven’t seen formal numbers, but at the level of graduate students in Europe, the ratio of men to women seems to be skewed towards women in biology, and even in statistics it seems fairly even. And I haven’t noticed any difference in motivation. Do you have any evidence?

  13. face palm

  14. Is that your evidence, Upright Biped? :-)

  15. “Reading short posts shouldn’t give a person a headache.”

    Firstly, your post wasn’t short. It was at least three paragraphs. Secondly, it gave me a headache because sentence construction isn’t your best skill.

    “I read difficult things and never get headaches.”

    Wonderful for you.

    “I stand by what I said.”

    Without proof? Okay, then.

    “Its just not true that men and women acheive equally.”

    Achieve what equally? Scientific endeavors? Please look at the Wikipedia list of Nobel laureates and explain to me why the women’s achievements aren’t worthy of consideration.

    “Science axhievement still reflects this.”

    See above.

    “’I’m not saying women are intellectual inferior.”

    Yet that is exactly what you said earlier.

    “Actually Darwin did say this.”

    And you repeated it, which proves what, exactly?

    “I’m saying womens failure is due to motivation.”

    And I’m saying that if you examine science as a field of study (including all disciplines) you will find women who have achieved much, with or without children or a family. To deny their achievements is simply wrong.

    “I see this as a very real identity of them due to their biblical calling to support their husbands first or only.”

    And not all women, scientists or not, follow a biblical calling.

    “women don’t have ambition and despite or society pushing them they still fail to keep up anywhere where results are unbiased.”

    How on earth can you conclusively prove that women don’t have ambition? Oh, wait, that’s right. You can’t. Another baseless assertion.

    How can you prove that their results are biased or unbiased?

    “Only in school or other simple enterprises of mere studying do they compete. This is a Mans world because we were created to do well before God.”

    More misogyny. You might try reading the Bible, where women are given respect and honor, instead of derogatory comments like yours.

    “We are on the make.
    Yes there is a organized and profound agenda to raise women up at the immoral and illegal loss to men.”

    So, if a woman does well in a scientific endeavor, this is immoral and illegal to men? That is so profoundly illogical and silly, I don’t know where to start.

    “Affirmative action is for anyone the establishment wants to raise up and knows can’t without it.
    I have watched this closely for years.
    I insist and accuse.”

    Your insistence is nothing but unscientific blather. As noted before, affirmative action applies primarily to minority groups and not women. You’re wrong in this instance.

    “Any human can do anything.
    But identity matters in who will.”

    This makes little sense.

  16. From Mr Byers: The bible teaches man is to be the one with ambition and women to be wives to support him.

    Sigh.

  17. Women should be welcome in science or any other field where raw physical strength and endurance is not a factor. They be treated with respect and not subjected to boorish behavior. They should be paid according to their merit like anyone else. Outside of sports and the military there are few fields where this requirement is applicable.

Leave a Reply