Genie Scott: Who Pulled the Stake Out?

This video is an hour long, but it’s well worth the time. The full title is “Who Pulled the Stake Out of Young Earth Creationism?” It’s a lecture by Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education.

The first minute or two is is a tasteless introduction by someone, so if children are around you may want to slide the button to 2:16 for the start of Scott’s talk. You won’t miss anything.

Scott goes through the history of creationism from the early creation science days to the Kitzmiller case — which she discusses in some detail — and she talks about some other interesting court cases along the way.

This is definitely a great way to spend an hour.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

5 responses to “Genie Scott: Who Pulled the Stake Out?

  1. I will leave it to our esteemed host to edit the content of my comment, however, I would propose that nothing I write hasn’t been heard by tender ears in the third grade.

    “On Bullshit” is a concise philosophical treatise by professor of philosophy at Princeton University, Harry Frankfurt.

    The value of “On Bullshit” is how Frankfurt distinguishes “bullshit” from “lying.” There is intent in both acts as Frankfurt so eloquently describes. True, many creationists are “bullshitters” in the Frankfurter tradition, merely talking above their pay grade, so to speak.

    Denizens of the DI, however, are professional liars because they have the means, capacity, understanding and intent to do what they do.

    I think it’s important to understand and appreciate the difference between people simply trying to justify their personal belief system, and people with a paid political agenda.

    Frankfurt’s book is available on Amazon or at B&N, is a quick read and a handy reference.

  2. It was a good introduction to a fine lecture,
    our Curmudgeon’s inner nanny notwithstanding. 🙂

    Thanks for posting this presentation by Dr. Scott.

  3. waldteufel says:

    It was a good introduction to a fine lecture, our Curmudgeon’s inner nanny notwithstanding.

    I don’t have an inner nanny — that was just a precaution against someone’s shrieking: “How could you post that without a warning!”

  4. Thanks for posting this bro. Ms Scott’s ongoing monitoring of Creationism v3.0 is essential work, and she retains the patience and humour of…I shiver to say this….a saint.

    As you say, an hour well spent.

  5. Overall, I applaud Scott’s approach. She’s straightforward and respectful, not to mention that she gets the science right.

    That said, I do have one complaint. Scott likes define “evolution” in a very broad sense, which is potentially misleading. The principles of (biological) evolutionary theory generally do not apply to non-biological sciences. The principles of cosmology generally don’t apply well to (biological) evolutionary theory … and so forth. IMO it’s too easy for the casual listener to conclude otherwise, based upon Scott’s initial remarks.

    My complaint here is nit-picky. Again, Scott’s overall approach is excellent as usual.