The New York Times reports that a group of 75 scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio has endorsed the candidacy of Tom Sawyer in his race against creationist Deborah Owens Fink for a spot on the Ohio Board of Education. That group includes Lawrence Krauss and Patricia Princehouse. Amusingly, Owens Fink tries to give the idea that she’s not really an advocate of ID creationism:
But Dr. Owens Fink, a professor of marketing at the University of Akron, said the curriculum standards she supported did not advocate teaching intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. Rather, she said, they urge students to subject evolution to critical analysis, something she said scientists should endorse.
Except, of course, the latest standards were only one in a long line of policies Owens Fink has tried to push through. In 2001, she was pushing for specifically creationist language to be added to the curriculum. It was only when the Discovery Institute suggested the “critical analysis” lesson as a “compromise” that she suddenly jumped on board with their new tactic. But this part is even better:
She said the idea that there was a scientific consensus on evolution was “laughable.”
No, that quote is laughable. The consensus among scientists in the relevant fields of study for the validity of evolution is absolutely overwhelming. You can find as many MDs who reject the germ theory of disease as you can find evolutionary biologists who reject evolution, probably more.
Although researchers may argue about its details, the theory of evolution is the foundation for modern biology, and there is no credible scientific challenge to it as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on earth. In recent years, with creationist challenges to the teaching of evolution erupting in school districts around the country, groups like the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation’s pre-eminent scientific organization, have repeatedly made this point.
But the academy’s opinion does not matter to Dr. Owens Fink, who said the letter was probably right to say she had dismissed it as “a group of so-called scientists.”
“I may have said that, yeah,” she said.
Don’t you love it when people with absolutely no background in science whatsoever (she’s a marketing professor, for crying out loud) presume to tell virtually every scientist in the world that everything they know to be true is wrong and that they’re “so-called” scientists?