WE learned about this from a post at the National Center for Science Education: New videos of Eugenie C. Scott on-line.
This one is Barbara Forrest talking about the creationism law in Louisiana. The other two videos at that link — listed in the right margin — are also good, but we couldn’t find Scott on the first video, so this one is our favorite. [Addendum: They may have fixed the link to the first video -- Scott's talk is there, starting at 7:00, after an astounding 2-minute introduction.]
Barbara provides a great deal of background and historical context which is essential to understanding Louisiana’s anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism “Academic Freedom” bill, now known as the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). It allows unspecified “supplemental materials” — wink, wink — to be used in science classes.
This one, the third at that link, is Kenneth Miller. He talks about the history of the intelligent design movement. Good stuff! After you’ve seen him and Forrest speak, you’ll understand why the creationists were so outclassed in Dover. The last half of it is a panel discussion, and that’s where you’ll see Scott.
This is the other video with Eugenie Scott — you’ll have to scroll down to find it: In the Beginning – Explanations from Science and Religion . It’s about the science vs. religion topic generally. All the speakers are pro-science, some being atheists, some not.
The whole video is good. It’s a panel discussion, and it lasts an hour. If you want to be selective, Eugenie Scott’s first brief talk starts at 4:30. And again at 16:40. Again at 22:20. And 29:10. “We don’t teach in history that Lee surrendered to Grant, and Grant surrendered to Lee, and then let the students decide.” And 39:00. And 42:30. “Just because you can explain something with natural causes doesn’t mean there’s no god.” And 53:00. “Science has to inform theology about the real world.”
Lots of good weekend viewing here.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
3 responses so far ↓
Frank J // 14-November-2009 at 10:32 am
Miller’s comments about Rick Santorum are enlightening. Santorum has undoubtedly heard of Miller, but I don’t know if he has actually paid attention to Miller’s scientific or philosophical arguments. From what I have read about Santorum, Miller, not the DI scam artists, is just what Santorum needs to calm his fears about the “implications” of evolution. If Santorum can truly give “equal time” to Miller – not Dawkins et al who only fuel his irrational fears – and still side with the DI, then he is beyond hope.
Frank J // 14-November-2009 at 11:24 am
While there might be some hope for Santorum I doubt there is any for Bobby Jindal. Near the end of her talk Barbara Forrest noted how Jindal ignored the warning from his Brown University biology professor (Miller). Which more importantly means that he did not defend his decision, much less try to defend an alternate scientific explanation on its own merits. Jindal knows that he has no credible defense for either, but the big question is whether he thinks he is fooling God by “pleading the fifth.”
The Curmudgeon // 14-November-2009 at 11:56 am
Frank J says: “… then he [Santorum] is beyond hope.”
That seems to be true of virtually all adult creationists.