New article.
New page
{{Biography
| name =
| image=
| born when=24 October 1945
| born where L=United States
| died when=
| died where L=
| relatives={{Relatives
| father L=
| mother L=
| spouse =Thomas C. Sager
| partner L=
| date=
| where L=
}}
| religion= {{Religion bio
| affiliation L=Secular humanism
| conversion date P=
| under L=
}}
| politics=
| succession= {{succession
| hdg=Executive Director of the [[NCSE]]
| term=
| start date P=1986
| end date P=2013
| prev L=
| next L=
}}
}}
'''Eugenie Carol Scott''' (1945—) is a [[secular humanism|secular humanist]] and the Executive Director of the [[National Center for Science Education]], a leading anti-creationist organisation.
She was appointed to this role in 1986, and in 2013 announced her retirement by the end of the year.{{ref|[http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/ncses-scott-to-retire-0014832 NCSE's Scott to retire], NCSE, {{date|May 6th, 2013}}.}}
== Creation-evolution controversy ==
Unlike many other anti-creationists,{{ref|see [[Suppression of academic dissent#Vilification]]}} Scott has generally tried to keep the debate over creation vs. evolution a civil one.{{ref|Casey Luskin, [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/farewell_to_eug072571.html Farewell to Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of National Center for Science Education], ''Evolution News and Views'', {{date|May 28, 2013}}.|name=Luskin}}
Scott, although an atheist, has tried to paint evolution as compatible with Christian views, including enlisting evolution-believing Christians to help her fight.
This has put her at odds with other atheists who are more forthright regarding pointing out the anti-biblical consequences of belief in evolution.
[[Casey Luskin]] cites the case of the American [[National Association of Biology Teachers]] which issued a statement about evolution which included descriptions of it being "impersonal" and "unsupervised", which portray evolution in a way incompatible with [[theistic evolution]]ary views.
Scott convinced the association to remove those descriptions, and in doing so earned the wrath of over 70 evolutionary biologists who pointed out that "evolution indeed is, to the best of our knowledge, an impersonal and unsupervised process."<ref name="Luskin" />
In 2009, the 150th anniversary of the publication of ''[[Origin of the Species]]'' by [[Charles Darwin]], Scott argued that the term "Darwinism" should be retired, partly because "evolutionary has expanded well beyond its foundations", and partly because of, she claims, "the hijacking of the term by creationists to portray evolution as a dangerous ideology -- an “ism”".
Yet the term remains in common use by evolutionists.{{ref|Mike Keas, [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/term_limits_eug072281.html Term Limits: Eugenie C. Scott and the Retirement of "Darwinism"], ''Evolution News and Views'', {{date|May 17, 2013}}.}}
Much of Scott's rationale for opposing creationism is her belief that "science must explain using ''natural'' causes" (her emphasis).{{ref|Eugenie C. Scott, [http://ncse.com/rncse/23/1/my-favorite-pseudoscience My Favorite Pseudoscience], ''Reports of the National Center for Science Education'' 23(1), Jan/Feb 2003.|name=favorite}}
Scott apparently realises that people allowed to hear all the evidence might end up questioning evolution, so does her best to avoid this happening.
{{quote|In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.|ref={{ref|[http://creation.com/eugenie-scott-admits-if-students-heard-criticism-of-evolution-they-might-not-believe-it Eugenie Scott admits: if students heard criticism of evolution, then they might not believe it!].}}}}
Even when the evidence is from evolutionists, Scott can have concerns.
{{quote|I asked [Eugenie Scott, from the National Center for Science Education—the NCSE] what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting? She responded that people confuse self-organization with intelligent design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive.|ref={{ref|Suzan Mazur, quoted by Walter J. ReMine, [http://creation.com/review-altenberg-16 Desperate attempts to discover ‘the elusive process of evolution’], Journal of Creation 26(1):24–30 April 2012.}}}}
=== Misrepresentations ===
Scott has repeatedly misrepresented the [[Intelligent Design]] movement as a form of [[creationism]], referring to it as "[[Intelligent Design Creationism]]".{{ref|Eugenie C. Scott, [http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum The Creation/Evolution Continuum], NCSE, {{date|December 7th, 2000}}.}}<ref name="favorite" />
One of Scott's "contributions" to the controversy is to portray the creation/evolution issue as a "continuum" with "Flat Earthers" at one extreme and atheistic evolution at the other.{{ref|Eugenie C. Scott, [http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum The Creation/Evolution Continuum], NCSE, {{date|December 7th, 2000}}.}}
Young Earth Creationism ([[Biblical creation]]ism) is only two steps from the Flat Earthers (Geocentrists are in between), on the rationalisation that Charles K. Johnson, the former head of the [[International Flat Earth Research Society]], was supposedly a strict biblical literalist, and used biblical references to support that view.
The fallacy of this "guilt by association" is shown by the fact that Daniel Shenton, the leader of [[The Flat Earth Society]], is an evolutionist.{{note|Shenton also believes in [[Global Warming]], a position that Scott and the NCSE now also actively support.{{ref|Natalie Wolchover, [http://www.livescience.com/14754-ingenious-flat-earth-theory-revealed-map.html Ingenious 'Flat Earth' Theory Revealed In Old Map], ''LiveScience'', {{date|23 June 2011}}.}}}}
Scott says that "… scientists must be willing to change their explanations when they are refuted. Viewed in the light of [this] basic tenet[] of science, “creation science” fails miserably.".
However, creationists ''have'' changed their explanations when they are refuted.{{note|Apart from the case discussed, other examples are retracting claims of a Japanese trawler finding a [[plesiosaur]] carcase and the claim that the [[c-decay|speed of light]] has changed dramatically.}}
In support of her claim, Scott adds that
{{quote|For decades now, creationists have claimed that the amount of meteoritic dust on the moon disproves evolution. … More accurate measurements of the amount of meteoritic dust influx to the earth are degrees of magnitude smaller than the original estimates cited by creationists. … the dust on the moon argument still is touted as “evidence against evolution”. If this were a normal scientific theory, it would have been abandoned and forgotten long ago, an empirical stake in its heart, but this creationist zombie keeps rising again and again.|ref=<ref name="favorite" />}}
In fact creationists had rejected the argument a decade before Scott wrote this in 2003.{{ref|{{author Andrew A. Snelling}} and David E. Rush, [http://creation.com/moon-dust-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system Moon dust and the age of the solar system], ''Journal of Creation'' 7(1):2–42, April 1993.}}
Scott also falsely attributes the [[God did it]] argument to creationists:{{quote|Because scientists have not yet reached a consensus on how the first replicating molecule came about, creationists argue, this is an intractable problem that should just be attributed to “God did it”.|ref=<ref name="favorite" />}}
The "God did it" argument is the argument that God must be the explanation for anything that we can't explain by other means.
Creationists do not make that argument.
The do claim that God created life, but not on the grounds that it can't otherwise be explained, as Scott alleges.
Scott falsely claims that creationists present themselves as strictly scientific, when they are not:
{{quote|“Creation science”, for all its surface attempts (especially in its presentation to the general public) to claim to abide by a strictly scientific approach, relying solely on empirical data and theory …|ref=<ref name="favorite" />}}
In fact biblical creationists emphasise that revelation (the biblical account) has prime authority, and that scientific evidence is merely consistent with this.
Scott also misrepresents ID arguments.
{{quote|ID harks back to the 1802 position of clergyman William Paley that structural complexity (such as the vertebrate eye for Paley or the structure of DNA for his latter-day bedfellows) is too complicated to have come about through a natural process. Therefore it must have been designed by an “intelligence”. The “intelligence” of course is God …|ref=<ref name="favorite" />}}
The ID argument is not that structural complexity is "too complicated" to have occurred naturally, but that biology shows evidence of being designed.
Also, ID specifically avoids identifying who the designer might be.
== Religious Views ==
As a child, Scott attended a [[Christian Science]] Sunday school, as her mother and grandmother were adherents.
With her older sister she switched to a [[Congregational]] church until the end of high school.
Later, she became a [[secular humanism|secular humanist]] and described herself as a "nontheist".{{ref|Thomas J. Oord and Eric Stark, [http://web.archive.org/web/20050309214648/http://www.stnews.org/archives/2002/Apr_features.html#2 A Conversation with Eugenie Scott], Science and Theology News, February 2004.|name=SandT}}
She subsequently became one of the "notable signers" of [[Humanist Manifesto III]].
== Education and awards ==
In 1971 Scott was a graduate student in physical anthropology at the [[University of Missouri]].
After doing some teaching, Scott became a visiting professor at the [[University of Kansas]] in [[Lexington]], in 1976.
Scott has been with the NCSE since 1986.
Scott has been granted numerous awards and honorary qualifications for her efforts in fighting for evolution.
Honorary degrees have been granted by the following universities:{{ref|[http://ncse.com/about/speakers Available Speakers], unless shown otherwise.}}
* McGill
* Rutgers
* Mt. Holyoke
* University of New Mexico
* Ohio State
* University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
* Colorado College
* University of Missouri-Columbia
* Chapman University{{ref|[http://blogs.chapman.edu/happenings/2013/05/16/science-educator-eugenie-scott-to-be-awarded-honorary-doctorate-at-ces-commencement/ Science educator Eugenie Scott to be awarded honorary doctorate at CES Commencement], {{date|May 16, 2013}}.|name=Chapman}}
Other awards from mainstream (evolutionary) scientific organisations and atheist organisations include:
* Public Welfare Medal from the [[National Academy of Sciences]]<ref name="Chapman" />
* The inaugural Stephen Jay Gould Prize from the [[Society for the Study of Evolution]].<ref name="Chapman" />
* Public Service Award from the [[National Science Board]].<ref name="Chapman" />
* Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award from the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]].<ref name="Chapman" />
* The 2012 Richard Dawkins Award from the [[Atheist Alliance of America]] and the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation]] for her "tireless promotion of science education".{{ref|GrrlScientist, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscientist/2012/sep/07/2 2012 Richard Dawkins Award goes to Eugenie Scott], The Guardian, {{date|Saturday 8 September}}.}}
* Bruce Alberts Award from the American Society of Cell Biology.{{ref|[http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/eugenie-scott/ Eugenie Scott], (2012 Global Atheist Convention publicity).|name=gac}}
* Outstanding Service Award from the American Institute of Biological Sciences.{{ref|Mary Mathias, [http://www.astc.org/blog/2013/06/03/dr-eugenie-scott-to-speak-at-astc-2013-annual-conference/ Dr. Eugenie Scott to Speak at ASTC 2013 Annual Conference], {{date|June 3rd, 2013}}.|name=astc}}
* Public Service Award from the Geological Society of America.<ref name="gac" />
* Anthropology in the Media Award from the American Anthropological Association.<ref name="gac" />
* Fellows Medal from the California Academy of Sciences.<ref name="gac" />
* Distinguished Alumna award from the University of Missouri Arts and Sciences College.<ref name="gac" />
* Distinguished Service Award from the California Science Teachers Association.<ref name="astc" />
* Honorary Membership award from the National Association of Biology Teachers.<ref name="astc" />
* University Medal from the [[University of California-San Francisco]].<ref name="astc" />
* Being named "one of 10 outstanding leaders involved in research, business or policy pursuits that have advanced science and technology", from ''[[Scientific American]]''.<ref name="astc" />
* The 1998 Isaac Asimov Science Award from the [[American Humanist Association]].{{ref|[http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/science-religion-methodology-humanism Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism], ''Reports of the National Center for Science Education'' 18(2), March-April 1998, p.15-17.}}
== Books ==
Scott has authored the book ''Evolution vs Creationism'' and co-authored ''Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools''.
== Quotes ==
*I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!<ref name="SandT" />
*… there are other ways of looking at the world, and the unexamined idea is not worth holding.<ref name="SandT" />
* Science is nothing if not practical. The explanations that are retained are those that work best, and the explanations that work best are ones based on material causes. Nonmaterial causes are disallowed.<ref name="favorite" />
== Note ==
{{note list}}
== References ==
{{reflist|2}}