Wishful (or careless) reading seems to be an ongoing ‘problem’ at the people at the Center for
the renewal of science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.
When the University of Idaho reiterated its commitment to teaching scientifically relevant theories in science classes, the Discovery Institute (DI) was quick to accuse the university of attacking academic freedom. What caught my eye however was the following statement.
Rob Crowther wrote:
The University of Idaho maintains that the edict censoring science wasn’t focused at [Scott] Minnich, but it seems that even [Eugenie] Scott found that hard to believe.
So what is it that Eugenie Scott said that led Crowther to make this statement?
Rob Crowther wrote:
[Eugenie] Scott said the school’s science faculty, who invited her, haven’t explicitly mentioned [Scott] Minnich as motivation for bringing her for a lecture titled “Why Scientists Reject Intelligent Design.”
Still, “the elephant in the living room is: there is a proponent of intelligent design on the faculty of the University of Idaho,” said Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
Eugenie Scott was commenting on the invitation by the school’s science faculty to present a lecture on “Why scientists reject Intelligent Design”. She was not commenting on the statement made by the president of the University of Idaho.
Note also that the quote ‘forgot’ to include the full statement by Scott
Still, “the elephant in the living room is: there is a proponent of intelligent design on the faculty of the University of Idaho,” said Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education. “Biologists across the country have examined intelligent design as a scientific model, and found it seriously lacking.”
In addition, the claim of “censoring science” is an exaggeration of what the president really stated, as a more careful reading of his comments would clearly indicate. For instance, the president is not censoring science, but is reiterating the University’s commitment to teaching scientifically relevant theories in science classes. How this has become, “censoring science” in Crowther’s world escapes my logic.
For the moment I will ignore the other strawmen raised in the article. Such as the claim about the experiment with bacteria. Anyone familiar with the statement from the University should realize that much of the DI’s ‘objections’ are highly exaggerated.
Then again, what else is there to do when Intelligent Design itself has been shown to be scientifically vacuous?
What is meant by the “elephant in the living room” metaphor?
It refers to the reluctance of friends, family or acquaintances (of an addicted person) to address the problems face to face.
I am not sure how Eugenie Scott’s statement about the “elephant in the living room” can be logically extended, given its context to the statement by the president of the Idaho University.
Somehow Eugenie Scott’s statement on the initiative of the science faculty to invite her to present her lecture, hs become a statement on the actions of the president of the Idaho university.
Am I missing something here?