Quantcast

«

»

Jun 06 2012

Congratulations to Eugenie Scott

Genie has been announced as the recipient of the 2012 Richard Dawkins Award, which will be delivered at the Denver meeting of the Atheist Alliance of America on Labor Day weekend. Everyone be there to applaud wildly!

28 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Stephanie Zvan

    Wait. They don’t just give this to Genie every year?

  2. 2
    jesuslovesbags

    I’m sure she’ll be quite happy to accept the award

  3. 3
    Irène Delse, on dry land among seabirds

    Yay! This one was vastly deserved!

  4. 4
    Sastra

    “The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.’

    Solid, solid on the science. Admirable.

    It is interesting that she is being given this award — and more interesting, perhaps, that she is accepting this award. Heh.

    I will be there. Eugenie Scott always gives excellent talks. This looks like it’s going to be a really good convention.

  5. 5
    thorjonsson

    Someone who truly deserves this award, and many more, shes amazing!

  6. 6
    gragra, something clever after the comma

    She’s fighting the good fight. I heard her on Diane Rehme last April up against some monkey from Tennessee. Her patience and grace under pressure is amazing in the face of the kind of stupidity she has to come up against.

  7. 7
    pentatomid

    Yay Genie!

  8. 8
    madscientist

    “raise awareness of the nontheist life stance” (whatever that means) via accommodationism? Meh. I won’t be there.

  9. 9
    Daniel Fincke

    Yeah, I’m not crazy about her accommodationism. She throws philosophy under the bus for the sake of getting people to accept evolution.

  10. 10
    marcus

    I sense deep rifts in the force.

  11. 11
    Sastra

    Daniel Fincke #9 wrote:

    Yeah, I’m not crazy about her accommodationism. She throws philosophy under the bus for the sake of getting people to accept evolution.

    I’m not crazy about it either. But apparently she’s not so concerned with being nonthreatening as to turn down an award associating her with — and representing — “the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.” If she had accepted the Templeton Prize or a ‘Francis Collins Award’ for reconciling science and religion we’d probably be pissed that the director of the NCSE isn’t at least remaining ‘neutral’ on the debate. Hey, maybe this will piss off the accomodationists.

    It does raise awareness of her “nontheist life stance.”

  12. 12
    MG Myers

    Congratulations to Genie! She’s absolutely awesome!

  13. 13
    Markita Lynda—threadrupt

    So, PZ, are you going to be there?

  14. 14
    machintelligence

    He’s on the speakers list, so I assume he will be. I intend to be in the audience, since I’m a local and won’t have to travel for this one!

  15. 15
    McCthulhu, now with -25% less fat.

    Eugenie Scott is like a one woman army against all the cretins of creationism. For that alone she deserves a plethora of awards. I’m sure Richard Dawkins had some good reasons too, as long as the awards aren’t handed out on elevators.

  16. 16
    pedantik

    An excellent choice for this award. A MUCH better choice than Maher. Congrats, Eugenie!

  17. 17
    Scientismist

    I am sure they could do a lot worse, but I definitely do not want to be there, for the sake of my blood pressure. I have in the past been ignored by local Humanists when they were controlling the questioning at a lecture by Ms. Scott, and more recently lectured by Greg Laden and blocked from posting by Jerry Coyne for my lack of proper obeisance to the saints of accomodationist and faitheist orthodoxy.

    I will just say this: The public understanding of evolution is ill-served by evolutionary scientists and philosophers who fail to understand naturalism, Bayesian probability, and the importance of true quantum randomness. Or worse, like Scott (as I found when I did get to talk to her after the lecture), do understand, but want to cover it up for the sake of P.R.

  18. 18
    A. R

    Good for Genie!

  19. 19
    julietdefarge

    An excellent, timely choice.

    But…I followed the link under “recipient,” and WTF is up with that picture of Jessica Alquist? Looks like she’s posing for a calendar.

  20. 20
    Sastra

    Scientismist #17 wrote:

    I have been …. blocked from posting by Jerry Coyne for my lack of proper obeisance to the saints of accomodationist and faitheist orthodoxy.,

    Huh? Really? Because WEIT is such a hotbed of accomodationist and faitheist orthodoxy, I suppose.

  21. 21
    Ichthyic

    Because WEIT is such a hotbed of accomodationist and faitheist orthodoxy, I suppose.

    yeah, it’s Nick Matzke’s favorite place to hang…

    oh wait, what’s the exact opposite of “favorite”?

    yeah, that.

    :)

  22. 22
    Ichthyic

    do understand, but want to cover it up for the sake of P.R.

    ok, I’ll bite on the stinky cheese bait…

    what do you mean?

  23. 23
    Ichthyic

    lectured by Greg Laden

    link?

    I find Greg’s ‘lectures’ endlessly amusing.

  24. 24
    Scientismist

    Sastra is incredulous that WEIT might be a “hotbed of accomodationist and faitheist orthodoxy,” and Ichthyic finds Greg’s ‘lectures’ endlessly amusing. If I knew what’s good for me I’d probably just shut up, as so many seem to want, but here goes. (Again. Sigh.)

    I can link to Greg’s post, but not my comments and his response, as the comments seem to have disappeared (perhaps left behind in the move of SB to a new system — not Greg’s fault).

    A summary of our 8-part conversation that would do it justice (yes, I kept a copy) is too long to put here. Very briefly, I referenced an accomodationist speech by Scott, and Greg went ballistic and accused me of quote mining (even though I gave the full link). He asked what harm was done by Scott’s accomodation. I asked if it was a “good thing” for Scott to join with Plantinga in suppressing the NABT’s statement that evolution is unsupervised and impersonal, and for Scott to hold that science as naturalism should only be taught at home. Greg thinks she is sincere in dismissing naturalism as a mere ideology. I think she knows better, that it is an essential theory in science, and is being hypocritical in the service of PR. Either way, it is (IMHO) a problem. Greg and I disagree, but he did let me have my say (though it seems now to have disappeared along with all the rest of that comment thread).

    I got into trouble with Jerry Coyne when I criticized his favorite philosopher, Philip Kitcher, and his 1982 book “Abusing Science”. The thread was here, but you won’t find my comment, as it was removed. When I read the book 30 years ago, I was struck by Kitcher’s description of mutations as due to the “(non-probabilistic) laws of physics and chemistry,” and his assertion that evolution “does not interfere with the central Judeo-Christian message that we are objects of special concern to the Creator.” I suggested that Jerry’s ambivalent stance toward randomness (in the context of his “free will” posts) made more sense in light of his admiration for Kitcher. At one point, Jerry said he was re-considering the possibility that the biology and chemistry of the brain might be based on particles following quantum rules (along with all the rest of the physical world) so I ended by asking if he’d made any progress on that front. Jerry apparently read my post, but did not answer, and did not explain exactly what part of my post (maybe the somewhat snarky question at the end?) may have infuriated him to the point of removing my comment and blocking me from making any more. (Ironically, he continued to criticize Kitcher himself in the next few days).

    My lesson learned is that certain ideas, like naturalism as a real part of science (rather than a mere methodology; and quantum randomness as a real part of the physical world of chemistry and biology (rather than just the “micro world”), are anathema in certain parts of the atheist/scientist blogosphere. And that atheistic scientists, too, have their saints and dogmas.

    So now I will have to wait and see if I’m in trouble for heresy here, too.

  25. 25
    Rev. BigDumbChimp

    I find Greg’s ‘lectures’ endlessly amusing.

    especially on the Congo

  26. 26
    Ichthyic

    Sastra is incredulous that WEIT might be a “hotbed of accomodationist and faitheist orthodoxy,” and Ichthyic finds Greg’s ‘lectures’ endlessly amusing.

    sarcasm boy, learn u some.

    So now I will have to wait and see if I’m in trouble for heresy here, too.

    yes, for failing at sarcasm.

    your analysis of kitcher is dead on though. I was given Kitcher to read, as a trap no less, when I was a grad student and fell for it hook line and sinker. Made me feel like a real idiot as it got torn to shreds in front of me in less than 10 minutes.

    that said, what is irking me about you is calling Jerry “accomodationist” when in fact he’s about as strident an ANTIaccomodationist as there is.

    your equation of accomodationism with kitcher fans is not relevant to Jerry at all.

    as to Greg…

    yeah, like I said, you missed the sarcasm there too.

    nuff said on that.

  27. 27
    Ichthyic

    especially on the Congo

    thank.

    you.

  28. 28
    Scientismist

    Greg L. (a quote from our disappeared exchange): “The NCSE does not accomodate. The fact that the NCSE does not puke directly onto the shoes of everything that is not an atheist does not make it so.”

    Jerry C.: Erases my post and blocks any more.

    If these be examples of “sarcasm”, then I am afraid that this boy ain’t never likely to learn me some.

    Yes, Jerry Coyne is ANTI-accommodationist. He also has his own orthodox faith — in determinism and the irrelevance of QM; and woe to anyone who challenges him. Yes, Greg Laden’s Congo stories are great. But he, too, has his own orthodoxy, and a thin skin. Both, in my opinion, value “teaching” that evolution is true over “understanding” it in the context of the rest of science (including QM and naturalism). And if I am wrong, why don’t they tell me why rather than reacting with such fury? Sarcasm? I don’t think so.

    Sastra said (in a comment on the thread on JC’s blog from which I was deleted), “What distinguishes science from those “other ways of knowing” is its inherent respect for the critical opinions of other people.” Agreed. No sarcasm.

Comments have been disabled.