A Bogus Complaint
by MikeGeneIn the NYT article about Dr. Ross, Eugenie Scott, President of the NCSE, is quoted. The article mentions Dr. Case, who thinks it is frightening if universities begin enforcing belief systems. Then, we read:
But Dr. Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views "so at variance with what we consider standard science." She said such students "would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time."
Does Dr. Scott have any scientific evidence that "so much remedial instruction" would be needed? Or is she just relying on stereotypes and prejudice to score a rhetorical point? After all, just how much "remedial instruction" was required for Marcus Ross? As far as I can tell, the answer is none. Thus, note the irony. Scott's whole complaint/concern not only lacks supporting scientific evidence, but the very incident that causes her to raise her complaint completely undercuts her complaint.
Scott also adds:
That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination "on the basis of science."
Well, if you are going to discriminate on the basis of science, shouldn't you have evidence instead of prejudice to back up your discrimination?
February 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
A good question for Eugenie.
Would she give an MD and PhD to someone who believes that Jesus rose from the dead and also raised others from the dead? I mean, we don't exactly have repeatable evidence of such miracles.
Would such people require remedial training?
By the way, Francis Collins a MD PhD accepts that in the past people have risen from the dead after being dead for a 1 to 4 days.
We then have at least three Nobel Laureates who believe the same as Collins: Charles Townes, William Phillips, Richard Smalley. Oh, not to mention, probably Ken Miller.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 14, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Well, if you are going to discriminate on the basis of science, shouldn't you have evidence instead of prejudice to back up your discrimination?
You would think so given the nature of science. Then again it depends on your core concern and how far you are willing to go to advance it.
Concerning Salvador's point about what Eugenie would do about someone who believes Christ rose from the dead I think the answer is evident. She would back off for politically expedient reasons. There would be much too much of a hue and cry. However if the climate of the nation changed Eugenie would take advantage of a more hospitable reception to her agenda in my view. This would be consistent with her views of science and religion. Why confer advance degrees to those who believe laws of nature can be contravened?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 4:44 am
I'm sure it's all just a simple misunderstanding. It seems obvious to me that Dr. Scott meant remedial indoctrination, not merely remedial instruction.
Comment by Douglas — February 15, 2007 @ 4:44 am
February 16th, 2007 at 5:02 am
It looks like no one can defend Eugenie Scott's claim. So was it just an expression of prejudice?
Comment by MikeGene — February 16, 2007 @ 5:02 am