Eugenie Scott, a Golden Retriever de Darwin, 'falou e disse': "Falem de evolução, mas não das suas fraquezas'

terça-feira, julho 28, 2009

Eugenie Scott, a Golden Retriever de Darwin, recomendou aos cientistas que falem da evolução, mas não falem de suas fraquezas epistêmicas... E ainda dizem que os críticos e oponentes d Darwin é que não entendem o que é ciência, como fazer ciência y otras cositas mais.

Quando porta-vozes evolucionistas eminentes como Eugenie Scott (Linda!!!) manda um recado desses aos cientistas, tem alguma coisa errada com a Nomenklatura científica e com a Grande Mídia: falem da evolução, mas não abordem suas fraquezas. É a 'síndrome ricuperiana' há muito tempo aqui anunciada: "O que Darwin tem de bom, a gente fala; o que Darwin tem de ruim, a gente esconde".

Ciência qua ciência não lança mão desse expediente abjeto, e discute-se publicamente a robustez epistêmica de suas teorias. Mas isso a Nomenklatura científica não quer.



By Eugenie Scott August 1st, 2009; Vol.176 #3 (p. 32)

Watch your language! It’s a common message from Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education (, an organization dedicated to promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scott recently spoke with Science News writer Susan Milius.

So you urge scientists not to say that they “believe” in evolution?!

Right. What your audience hears is more important than what you say.… What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.

You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you “accept evolution.”

How does the language used to discuss new discoveries add to the problem?

To put it mildly, it doesn’t help when evolutionary biologists say things like, “This completely revolutionizes our view of X.” Because hardly anything we come up with is going to completely revolutionize our view of the core ideas of science.... An insight into the early ape-men of East and South Africa is not going to completely change our understanding of Neandertals, for example. So the statement is just wrong. Worse, it’s miseducating the public as to the soundness of our understanding of evolution.

You can say that this fossil or this new bit of data “sheds new light on this part of evolution.”

So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?

Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.


Read more here/Leia mais aqui.


Thomas Huxley, o buldogue de Darwin...

Richard Dawkins, o rotweiller de Darwin...

Eugenie Scott, a Golden retriever de Darwin...

Que linhagem evolutiva canina...