Home » News, science education » Caroline Crocker on the Darwin lobby: In science education, one subject, one point of view, matters to them

Caroline Crocker on the Darwin lobby: In science education, one subject, one point of view, matters to them

She was interviewed here, and was asked about the difference between her organization, AITSE, and the Darwin lobby:

The purpose of AITSE is to promote good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus. The purpose of NCSE is to promote the consensus view on evolution and squash any hint of dissension—no impartial evaluation of evidence allowed. As such, there is really no commonality between our goals. The only possible similarity between AITSE and NCSE would be in our mutual focus on education. But, again, NCSE has a very narrow educational focus since they want to educate on one subject and on only one point of view about that issue. In comparison, AITSE encourages people to think about the scientific evidence on a range of topics. We have solicited input from scientists, physicians and engineers coming from a variety of viewpoints on controversial matters—not that all actually contribute. But, since scientific integrity requires telling the whole story, our doors are open. Our goal is for the evidence to be evaluated, not to fit scientific evidence into a prior worldview which, in the case of NCSE’s president Eugenie Scott, is humanistic naturalism.

One of the first things we need to point out to new kids on the block is that “National Center for Science Education” is not in any way about science education as such, it is about forcing Darwinism, explicitly and exclusively, on the school system. They even oppose teaching other non-design approaches to evolution, as shown here. (They may be planning to join in the climate change din.)

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

13 Responses to Caroline Crocker on the Darwin lobby: In science education, one subject, one point of view, matters to them

  1. The purpose of AITSE is to promote good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus.

    So basically the AITSE has positioned itself as the arbiter of what constitutes ‘good science‘. A watchdog, a guardian, a sentinel. The hubris!

    But, again, NCSE has a very narrow educational focus since they want to educate on one subject and on only one point of view about that issue.

    And with good reason. Evolution, and the teaching thereof, has been the focus of nearly a century of religiously motivated attacks.

    Our goal is for the evidence to be evaluated….

    No, that is not your goal Mrs. Crocker.

    The evidence for intelligent design already has been evaluated by the scientific community and overwhelmingly rejected. The sole reason for the existence of the AITSE is that you started teaching junk science, got busted for it and found consolation in the Discovery Institute’s ‘Professional Martyr‘ program.

  2. Wow- if by “evaluated” you mean rejected without thought, then yes the evidence for ID has been “evaluated” by non-ID scientists.

    Howver it should be noted that those same scientists who reject ID cannot produce any positive evidence for their position.

    Strange, that…

  3. And with good reason. Evolution, and the teaching thereof, has been the focus of nearly a century of religiously motivated attacks.

    The irony of course is that you are simply picking up where religion left off. So much for history, and learning from it.

    The evidence for intelligent design already has been evaluated by the scientific community and overwhelmingly rejected. The sole reason for the existence of the AITSE is that you started teaching junk science, got busted for it and found consolation in the Discovery Institute’s ‘Professional Martyr‘ program.

    As opposed to the house of cards that is evolution. A consistent re-evaluation and uprooting of assumed dogma discarded with each new revelation; continued failed predictions. Evolutionary theory is so full of holes and makeshift patchwork, it requires an army of “little Dutch boy’s” to keep it from collapsing. Yeah that’s so much better.

  4. Single_Malt, since I consider the actual evidence to be final arbiter of truth in things ‘scientific’, and not scientific consensus,,,

    Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . (From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology)
    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....torialPage

    and as such Single_Malt,,,could you please point me to the actual substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism. It seems to be missing from any evidence I can find on the subject:

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

    Moreover Single_Malt, not to disturb your blind faith in atheism by consensus, and all that, but could you please show me where the local, within space and time, realism of materialism explains the non-local, beyond space and time, realism of quantum entanglement, that has now been found in molecular biology on a massive scale:

    Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

    Now Single_Malt, it is important to point out, that it takes actual ‘scientific’ evidence to refute the falsification of neo-Darwinism by non-local quantum entanglement, you cannot merely appeal to a ‘consensus’ of ‘experts’. That simply is not how science works!

    Music and verse:

    Todd Agnew – This Fragile Breath
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoGPG4JOcXs

    1 Corinthians 2:14
    The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

  5. Are you OK?

  6. Single_Malt, please provide refutation of the falsification of neo-Darwinism with actual evidence instead of appeal to authority!!!

  7. bornagain77, please stop spamming the board with non-relevant YouTube links and Christian music.

  8. GinoB, please stop ignoring the empirical evidence that falsifies neo-darwinism, and pretending you have any basis in reality at all to argue from for neo-Darwinism!!!

  9. Single_Malt:

    Just a question. If you are so convinced that all evidence for ID “already has been evaluated by the scientific community and overwhelmingly rejected”, then why do you come here? It seems, from what you write, that it is not do discuss.

    Then, what are you? The arbiter of what constitutes ‘good science‘? A watchdog, a guardian, a sentinel? The hubris?

    Just to know.

  10. If you are so convinced that all evidence for ID “already has been evaluated by the scientific community and overwhelmingly rejected”, then why do you come here? It seems, from what you write, that it is not do discuss.

    I think you’re reading a little more than into my post than is actually there.

    There is no question that ID has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. One can disagree with their opinion but it doesn’t alter the fact that ID (at least in its current form) has gained precisely zero traction in either the theoretical or applied sciences.

    And so when Caroline Crocker (noted for teaching scientific nonsense) pops up plugging her new organisation, the AITSE, which claims to be able to determine what constitutes ‘good science’ it deserves a critical eye.

    Then, what are you? The arbiter of what constitutes ‘good science‘? A watchdog, a guardian, a sentinel? The hubris?

    A mildly interested observer.

  11. What is this alleged scientific community and what do they have to offer as an explanation for our existence?

  12. Well it’s obvious joe, If they say ID arguments have no validity then they are a part of the “scientific community”, even if their only involvement in science comes from owning every episode of babylon 5 on dvd. If they say id arguments have possible validity then they are NOT part of the “scientific community”, even if they have PHDs, publish peer reviewed papers and work in labs…duh. :p

  13. Why yes, there you have it…

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply