Skip to main content

NCSE want a High Priest of Science?

This (American) National Center for Science Education job ad spins my eyes:

The National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools, seeks candidates for the post of Faith Project Director.

Er... a what? This employee will be...

  • developing materials pertaining to evolution and religion for print and web;
  • representing NCSE to the faith community, in print and in person;
  • serving as liaison between NCSE and professional theological societies and religious organizations;
  • speaking to the press about issues involving evolution education and challenges to it;
  • counseling teachers, administrators, parents, and others facing challenges to evolution education.

All-in-all, this reads like MS hiring a GPL advocate! And here was NCSE — up to this point — carefully rattling on about science & faith being different, unrelated fields.

As an isolated raw tactic, I suppose it makes a great deal of sense; but from a more, uh, “social” perspective it reads more like the Pope taking up Islam or Richard Dawkins going Crusading.

What makes it sound even more crusaderish is this section...

A scientific background, especially in biology or geology, and experience in science education at the high school level are desirable but not necessary.

...which essentially says that science qualifications are optional, so what NCSE is really after here is a speaker or writer as a more-or-less press-agent rather than as a scientist.

That’s going to hammer NCSE’s science-only assertions quite heavily — not that it’s exactly been immune to such damage in recent years — & lead to people questioning NCSE’s key positions.

I suspect that this kind of long-term damage to their position will totally obliterate any shorter-term popularity gains NCSE might see in certain sections through hiring a “friendly” agent for proselytisation.

On the other hand, if the NCSE’s aim is simply to raise confusion then I think they can consider that part to be done. (-:

I guess it serves my spinning head right if I read some organisation names too literally — although the job description does conflict with the NCSE’s previous stances (& some unmistakeable statements from their representatives), regardless of their name.

Oh, well... like so much else in life, I guess we’ll see — sooner or later — how this finally works itself out. It’s far from the craziest thing in the news today...

Comments

Leon RJ Brooks said…
mrda, the uniform is kind of implied for people who claim one thing and do another.

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...