Nick Matzke interview in the SF Chronicle
Jason Spaceman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no microscopes at the National Center for Science Education
in Oakland. They don't look at the small picture. They are watching
the big one -- the ongoing war between evolutionists and creationists.
Nick Matzke, 30, is both foot soldier and tactician.
On the organization
We are the only nonprofit that focuses on the creation-evolution
debate in the U.S. We oppose efforts to teach creationism and various
other attempts to suppress or weaken the teaching of evolution.
On creationist theory
The key issue is supernatural intervention in the history of life.
Creationists are attempting to legitimate that as a scientific view.
On evolution
The big idea in evolution is common ancestry. Organisms are related to
each other if you go back far enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/07/CMGHULJMFK1.DTL
J. Spaceman
Frank J
Nice article, but why on earth does it *end* with the sentence "I don't
think science has all the answers, for sure."?
I don't disagree with the sentence of course, but as a "last word" it
only feeds anti-science sentiment.
Googler
Frank J wrote:
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > There are no microscopes at the National Center for Science Education
> > in Oakland. They don't look at the small picture. They are watching
> > the big one -- the ongoing war between evolutionists and creationists.
> > Nick Matzke, 30, is both foot soldier and tactician.
> >
> > On the organization
> >
> > We are the only nonprofit that focuses on the creation-evolution
> > debate in the U.S. We oppose efforts to teach creationism and various
> > other attempts to suppress or weaken the teaching of evolution.
> >
> > On creationist theory
> >
> > The key issue is supernatural intervention in the history of life.
> > Creationists are attempting to legitimate that as a scientific view.
> >
> > On evolution
> >
> > The big idea in evolution is common ancestry. Organisms are related to
> > each other if you go back far enough.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Read it at
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/07/CMGHULJMFK1.DTL
> think science has all the answers, for sure."?
I think one answer could be that Mr. Matzke is an honest person and
preferred to end with a factual statement rather than with unsupported
speculations.
>
> I don't disagree with the sentence of course, but as a "last word" it
> only feeds anti-science sentiment.
What actually "feeds" anti-science sentiment are unsupported
speculations. I fail to see why a factual statement would act in any
such way. Perhaps you can explain.
Pip R. Lagenta
I sincerely doubt that Nick Matzke was allowed any input as to how the
article would come to an end.
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
nickm...@gmail.com
Hey guys --
Yeah, the interview happened in November, it was 20 minutes and then
they excerpt little bits for their short "Facetime" piece. So my nice
long discursions on these topics were a wee bit whittled down, although
in general I do think it's true that science does not have all the
answers *as a general matter* -- science does not answer all questions
about art, politics, relationships, whatever. I also don't think
science answers ultimate questions, e.g. the existence of God or why
does existence exist. But science does of course show that certain
views are bollocks, like creationism in its various guises.
I've blogged a bit more here -- I was more concerned about what my
roommates will think...
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/facetime_in_the.html
Frank J
I agree with Pip. This is likely the editor making sure that the
article has a sensationalist ending. I doubt that Nick is pleased with
how his factual statement was taken out of context.
>
> >
> > I don't disagree with the sentence of course, but as a "last word" it
> > only feeds anti-science sentiment.
>
> What actually "feeds" anti-science sentiment are unsupported
> speculations. I fail to see why a factual statement would act in any
> such way. Perhaps you can explain.
Most readers have already been fed many misrepresentations of science.
Many of them will read the article hastily, remember just the final
sound bite, and think "hmm, 'evolutionists' are having second thoughts!"