The amazing, fantastical Eugenie Scott

Apologists for Darwinism are famous for making extreme statements, but perhaps the most extreme I've come across was uttered by Eugenie Scott.

Quotes and comments;
1. Eugenie Scott can be seen (briefly) in the second C. S. Lewis documentary where she points to herself and says, ''I'm a scientist, and I don't know any evidence against evolution.''  [1.]

-  As someone who switched from evolution to a creationist perspective after reading many critiques of evolution, I'm staggered by this claim. What in the world could she mean by such a statement? Is this just another case of someone employing the ''big lie'' strategy, or can she really mean this in some way? Here are some possibilities; choose the one you think most likely.

Multiple choice
a. she can't see any evidence but she hasn't been looking
b. she's blindfolded
c. she's got a bag on her head
d. she's under the influence of heavy medication
e. she's doing a comedy routine
f. she isn't a scientist
g. she doesn't know what the word evidence means
h. she's incapable of telling the truth
i. she was the inspiration for the Pinocchio story
j. she's allergic to the truth
k. she has a phobia about being honest
l. she's really Richard Dawkins wearing a bad wig
m. she was an ostrich in a previous life
n. she's a robot under the control of selfish genes
o. she doesn't know what evolution means
p. she's taking part in a biggest lie competition
q. she's an anti-christian
r. she's an anti-creationist
s. she's an actor in a sitcom
t. she's a political hack
u. evolution is her religion
v. she believes in the big lie approach to rhetoric and persuasion
w. she believes the public is 'stupid' enough to believe her
x. she believes the lie is more effective than the truth
y. she imagines people naively think she's honest
z. being on camera causes her to make a fool of herself
Or; all of the above




- Michael Johnson

Notes; 14/02/2013
1. C. S. Lewis and Evolution [Youtube]
- Why she points to her chest is unknown at this time, but scientific studies are under way even as we speak.
- The most surprising thing about this clip is that her nose doesn't grow a foot or so as she speaks. It actually does tremble a bit as if the Pinocchio effect were going to happen but then it stops.
2. It's quite possible she's not being honest at all, and like a political hack is just giving a sound bite response to her opponents. As she's famous for being disingenuous, it's likely she's merely trying to score points; i.e. by denying there is any evidence against evolution she's more less denouncing all critics of evolution as idiots.
3. By making her statement as strong as possible she risks having it dismissed as political overstatement or even being laughed at, but she hopes to persuade [naive] people that despite what critics say, E. is undeniably correct. i.e. it's her way of degrading her opponents. The person who hears her is supposed to ask themselves, ''how could anyone question such an undeniable fact as evolution? there must be something very wrong or twisted with such people.'' (In a larger sense this is called demonizing or dehumanizing one's opponent.)
4. To my ears her statement is as strange as saying ''I don't see any evidence against the idea people are basically good.''
5. This is a person who openly advocates lying and dishonesty to her peers, so we can't be surprised at her statement, but we can wonder why she expects anyone to believe her. Though Scott fancies herself clever, she's naive and foolish to think a strategy built on lies will work long term. (It's no sin to be wrong, but it is a sin to deliberately lie and deceive; especially when this concerns the young.)
   "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." - Matt 12:36-7
6. She can only get away with such a bizarre statement in a society where Darwinists control the education system and ban all criticism of E. theory.
7. I suppose she might mean that while she's familiar with the critiques of E. theory she hasn't come across any that have prompted her to abandon the idea.
- I think it depends on what she means by evolution. If a person is convinced they live in a godless, materialist universe then some form of ''natural'' evolution (or transformism) HAS to be true. I take it Scott is saying something like, "I'm convinced materialism is true.''
8. If she's being even remotely honest here she cannot mean that she doesn't see some problems with some of the subsidiary components of E. theory.
- She's likely ignoring the OOL problem, and would [lazily] contend that it's not part of the E. theory.
9. I'm not a scientist but I don't see any evidence she's telling the truth.