Ben Stein misses his own point

posted at 5:35 pm on April 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

John Derbyshire finds a rather disturbing comment from Ben Stein in an interview he did with TBN earlier this month, promoting his new film Expelled: The Movie. In explaining his reaction to researching the Holocaust by visiting Dachau and Hadamar, Stein railed against the distortions of Darwinian theory that led to the systematic eugenics murders and genocide of the Nazi regime. However, Stein misses the target by a mile when he says this at about the 28-minute mark:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

I found a lot to recommend about Expelled, but this leaves me wondering if Ben Stein missed the point of his movie. Science does not lead to Dachau; ideology perverting science led to Dachau. The Holocaust occurred when raving anti-Semites and materialists latched onto scientific theory as a philosophy, making it into a rationalization for what they would have done regardless.

How could Stein say this without a hint of irony? The best themes in Expelled take Academia to task for the same destructive sin. Instead of pursuing all paths of scientific pursuit, the academics have imposed their philosophy and their ideology against religion as a means to keep anyone from testing the theories of random, accidental beginnings of life. In a similar manner to what’s seen in the global-warming debate, dissenting voices are excoriated as heretics and idiots, rather than letting the science speak for itself.

Instead of making the proper point that Stein makes in the movie, he now suggests that science itself is evil. That’s absurd. Scientific knowledge has for centuries gone hand in hand with the quest to come closer to God through understanding His creation, as Stein’s own movie argues. The application and expansion of science has led to huge advances in life, health, knowledge, and living standards. Can evil acts come from scientific advances, and can some scientists be evil? Of course — as with any other profession, but the acts come from overt human actions, not from the science.

The pure scientific method ignores ideology in favor of reproducible results, which leads to knowledge — not genocide. Expelled wants Academia to stop applying ideology to science, which is absolutely correct. Stein’s quote above discredits that message and makes the effort sound like an argument against science altogether, and Stein’s broad accusation against scientists is grossly unfair. It sounds like Stein is applying his own ideology instead of supporting the scientific method.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12

I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs.

So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.

Ann Coulter – June 2006
On Evolution

Maxx on May 3, 2008 at 9:04 PM

I find hilarious that a fundamentalist christian could use as an example, without the slightest bit of irony, that cargo cults prove the falsehood of a scientific theory such as evolution, and provide, by implication, proof of biblical creationism.

JFS61 on May 4, 2008 at 7:48 PM

JFS61 on May 4, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Glad you liked it.

Maxx on May 4, 2008 at 8:15 PM

My Church’s teen group went to a screening of the movie today-I imagine that they will find it quite interesting.

Doug on May 4, 2008 at 9:29 PM

apacalyps
Typical response. The evolutionist when faced with something they have no answer for will change the subject (popular tactic) it’s what’s called using “cry baby excuses”.

And you are being disingenuous again.

You asked me to answer your question about abiogenesis.

You also stated that if I told you what I thought abiogenesis was, you would “answer” it.

Instead, you keep posting more and more questions.

You cannot even follow your own stated intentions.

Not my fault you cannot conduct yourself in the manner you stated you would or in a rational manner to begin with.

Rant and insult me and those you appear to hate all you like, but the reputation you are damaging is not mine.

Gene Splicer on May 4, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Squiggy
Of course. It’s called “war”. Ever heard of that? We didn’t start it, but we damn well better finish it.

War is committed to defeat a nation that threatens your existence or has committed and act of war against you.

Claiming that we need to convert them by force sounds more like the holy war or jihad we are supposedly fighting against.

Again, we should defeat barbarians but not become them.

Gene Splicer on May 4, 2008 at 10:45 PM

Squiggy
You’re lying. I haven’t once mentioned ID or CS.

Not at all. You denounce evolution in favor of creation mythology. That is the foundation for ID and what Stein and the likes of those mentioned want taught in schools.

So tell me. Would you be against ID or Cs being taught in school?

Gene Splicer on May 4, 2008 at 10:49 PM

right4life
whats amusing is that you are unable to argue evolution with me. the things I’ve posted that disprove evolution, you and you evolutionist friends, are unable to dispute.

You cannot disprove nonsensical claims regarding a theory that have nothing to do with that theory.

yeah because you ‘tolerant’ darewiniacs are really a bunch of nazis.

Yeah, that a rational way to win and argument or rational debate. Call the opposition Nazis.

and what you do to people like sternberg proves it.

Yes. Simply because we refuse to accept the uneducated claims from a creationist, claims that contradict and violate his own written word, or embodies it, that means we are in the wrong.

It is very telling that you rally with such rage against those you disagree with. You have no compunction in claiming all manner of deficits when it come to those you hate or oppose and seem to think this is the actions of the righteous.

If this is what your religion represents, then it is the last thing we need to have taught to our children in school.

Feel free to teach them whatever you wish in private.

Gene Splicer on May 4, 2008 at 10:58 PM

right4life
same old lies, still nothing to back them up. no surprise!!

Same parroted claims from the closed minded and the ignorant who thinks that their god and their particular flavor of the xian faith created all.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=248

common law
n. the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage, which began to develop over a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom. Together with a book on the “law of the monarchy” by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia’s work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.). When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery), which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer’s bible. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana, which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of Common Law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute.

But I’m sure this site is simply unreliable or biased in some fashion.

Our legal system originated from the pagan Vikings.

Our form of government originated from the pagan Greeks and Romans.

Nowhere in the xian bible will one find the principles of religious freedom, religious tolerance.

So do tell me again just how this is a xian nation by design, form and function.

You ignore the very real fact that only in a secular society can everyone have the freedom and choice to pursue their faith as they see fit and as they desire.

But I’m sure that is just my evil libertarian view.

Gene Splicer on May 4, 2008 at 11:32 PM

Gene Splicer at 11:32PM

Actually, the opposite is true, but I’m sure you’re quite accustomed to opposing the truth.
1) The founding fathers credited the Bible for originating the ideas that our nation was built on.
2) In the OT there was religious intolerance–God created the the nation Israel, so he had a right to have conditions for living there–it was a theocracy. But the New Testament has no recommendation for governmental intolerance whatsoever.
3) The most secular governments in history have been moderately to very oppressive, not free.

jgapinoy on May 5, 2008 at 12:08 AM

jgapinoy
Actually, the opposite is true, but I’m sure you’re quite accustomed to opposing the truth.

If it is fact, then personal comment are moot.

1) The founding fathers credited the Bible for originating the ideas that our nation was built on.

As a collective? Odd how a large portion of them being Deists. Deists do not believe in the god of the xian bible or the xian bible for that matter. Can you imagine if a politician today did what Jefferson did to the bible?

And why, if they credited the xian god or the bible for the origin, was god never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

Why then build a nation with a religious establishment clause?

2) In the OT there was religious intolerance–God created the the nation Israel, so he had a right to have conditions for living there–it was a theocracy. But the New Testament has no recommendation for governmental intolerance whatsoever.

So that means that the Ten Commandments are not longer valid? That religious law that states ” no god before me”?

3) The most secular governments in history have been moderately to very oppressive, not free.

You mean communistic or similar do you not?

A truly xian nation would not be a tolerant nation.

Anything not deemed as xian or viable as such would be frowned upon to the point that oppression would occur.

I need not look too far for proof of such a mindset or potential. On this very forum we have had one representative of the faith declare their opposition as morally corrupt and that they need to be locked up. All over a debate regarding scientific principles they rally against due to the fact that they threaten their religion and faith.

Gene Splicer on May 5, 2008 at 12:36 AM

So tell me. Would you be against ID or Cs being taught in school?

Gene Splicer on May 4, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Yes. I suppose it should be mentioned, as in “the most likely cause of the perfection of the universe is an intelligent designer”, but no, not taught. And if you would open your eyes (as I did after decades of arguing for everything you believe) you would see it too. From the tiniest cell to entire galaxies, nothing else is even remotely possible (there’s just too many things that must be balanced or it all falls apart).

And I’m against teaching evolution also, just as I’m against teaching anything built on such a flimsy house of cards. The only other “science” even remotely similar is “global warming”, and that’s complete junk science – i.e. pick and choose which facts you’ll call real and discard anything else. Neither testable nor provably false: in other words, not science. Sound familiar?

And by the way, which beginning do you believe in – the soupcon of primordial chemicals magically coming to life, or the equally believable alien seed theory?

Squiggy on May 5, 2008 at 5:44 AM

“…I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State…”
Thomas Jefferson

As has been shown in this thread the wall of separation mandated by the constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court when it has been attacked, needs to be continuously guarded and reinforced as the armies of the superstitious continuously seek ways to have their unrepentant Yahweh injected into the lives everyone.

By far the most dangerous attack at present is the attempt to corrupt science by the introduction of crypto-religion in the form of creationism or Intelligent? Design into the public school system. Teaching this idiocy to the young is akin to child abuse.

Annar on May 5, 2008 at 6:21 AM

Squiggy

Yes. I suppose it should be mentioned, as in “the most likely cause of the perfection of the universe is an intelligent designer”, but no, not taught.

Excellent then. That is the goal of people like Stein.

And if you would open your eyes (as I did after decades of arguing for everything you believe) you would see it too. From the tiniest cell to entire galaxies, nothing else is even remotely possible (there’s just too many things that must be balanced or it all falls apart).

That would be your personal opinion, but not mine nor one shared by others, both researchers or laymen.

It has been mentioned before that the attitude and view you profess would stifle research. After all, why bother to investigate many of the things we do if all is of a god’s design and will?

And just because something seems impossible complex to our level of knowledge and understanding for the moment, human history has proven that such an outlook in temporary and only based upon what do not know at the time.

I’m sure our forefathers thought that many of the things and common events we take as fact today to be beyond human knowledge or capability.

And I’m against teaching evolution also, just as I’m against teaching anything built on such a flimsy house of cards.

And again, that may be your opinion, but, like it or not, evolution is considered one or the cornerstones of our current scientific understanding. Your disagreement with it and similar claims made on this tread are simply nonsensical if taken to their logical conclusion. That would mean that every scientist performing research based upon the idea of common decent and who supports evolution is either deceiving themselves or part of a grand conspiracy. And again, what of the theist who also support common decent and evolution and perform research?

The only other “science” even remotely similar is “global warming”, and that’s complete junk science – i.e. pick and choose which facts you’ll call real and discard anything else.

This is anther untenable claim regarding the argument against evolution. Unless theories share a field of research or commonality, you cannot lump them together for approval or dismissal. Even if they do share a commonality, every theory must stand on its own.

You are also trying to compare evolution, a theory with support from very diverse fields or research and study, to what has now become the ideology of climate change that lacks the same diverse support or history of standing up to tests over time.

Neither testable nor provably false: in other words, not science. Sound familiar?

Again, that is simply not so. Evolution is testable, has been tested and still is falsifiable.

Global warming in and of itself is testable and verifiable or falsifiable, but with the transformation of global warming into the ideology of climate change, it is no longer just a scientific study or pursuit and therefore not comparable to any theory.

And by the way, which beginning do you believe in – the soupcon of primordial chemicals magically coming to life, or the equally believable alien seed theory?

You mean abiogenesis or biogenesis. Given the past of our planet, either is possible especial after the finding what we believe to be rock from Mars on Earth.

Gene Splicer on May 5, 2008 at 11:37 AM

You mean abiogenesis or biogenesis. Given the past of our planet, either is possible especial after the finding what we believe to be rock from Mars on Earth.

I’m quite aware of what I mean. I’ll bet I was studying this stuff before you were born, and I probably had the same smarter-than-thou attitude you have now.

Saying “either is possible” is just another way of saying “I have no idea” (which is fine in most cases, but it’s dodging in this case). The fact is – there is no plausible theory of how life can arise spontaneously and there never has been one. The only scientific study I know of (which keeps getting quoted) had pre-cursor chemicals hit with simulated lightning to form lipids, or at least something resembling lipids. In other words, it formed into little balls of oil that physically resemble a cell. The “results” are touted as “proof of concept”. But you want to know why it went no further? Because it couldn’t (and it wasn’t for lack of trying). They could keep making their little oily balls but nothing else. That went on for years, but only the initial “findings” were ever published. And even that wasn’t truly peer-reviewed.

And that was before they knew how complex a cell is. It is so amazingly complicated, there is no possible way for it to “magically” form, no matter how many mega-years you give it.

As for “climate change” and evolution, they are comparable, in that neither has any real evidence in favor of it. Just a bunch of circumstantial evidence that sort of, kind of appears to support it (as long as you don’t look at a bunch of other evidence that points in different directions). And if even one little bit of that circumstantial evidence points another way, it all falls apart, as in “a house of cards”. None of the hard sciences are even remotely comparable. They actually throw out theories that don’t stand up to scrutiny. That’s why they’re real science, and evolution isn’t.

Oh, and by the way – about the rock from Mars (I presume you are speaking of the one that had tiny formations that resemble protozoa). Those are bubbles. Once it became clear that’s what they were, it went off the radar of all the mainstream media – not interesting anymore. Just like Lucy is no longer interesting. Your bag of tricks is shrinking fast.

Squiggy on May 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Squiggy

I’m quite aware of what I mean. I’ll bet I was studying this stuff before you were born, and I probably had the same smarter-than-thou attitude you have now.

First of all, I was clarifying the comment to be clear on what I was commenting on. Not like any theist on this forum has a habit of distorting what is posted.

Secondly, ss far as studying “this stuff” before I was born goes, that is questionable at best and highly irrelevant at worst. Time spent studying a subject does not equate to mastery of a subject.

And lastly, you assume “smarter-than-though” attitude since I do not give automatic credit to your claims based upon nothing but religious faith.

Saying “either is possible” is just another way of saying “I have no idea” (which is fine in most cases, but it’s dodging in this case).

Not at all. I answered your question. You asked which one I believed in and I stated either was possible.

The fact is – there is no plausible theory of how life can arise spontaneously and there never has been one.

Again, according to you, but you, as many other theists, must have an answer that meets your unbalanced scale of examination or you dismiss it.

And again, science can operate perfectly fine without knowing everything. Your religion cannot, but that does not mean everything else has to operate by the same crippling terms your religion does.

The only scientific study I know of (which keeps getting quoted) had pre-cursor chemicals hit with simulated lightning to form lipids, or at least something resembling lipids. In other words, it formed into little balls of oil that physically resemble a cell. The “results” are touted as “proof of concept”. But you want to know why it went no further? Because it couldn’t (and it wasn’t for lack of trying). They could keep making their little oily balls but nothing else. That went on for years, but only the initial “findings” were ever published. And even that wasn’t truly peer-reviewed.

Then you have not studied “this stuff” as long as you claimed you have. This is a rather old theistic argument about the pre-cursors and you ignore more modern information about the discovery of amino acids in space and reported throughout our solar system.

And exactly what do you mean that the original experiment into the creation of amino acids “wasn’t truly peer-reviewed.”?

And that was before they knew how complex a cell is. It is so amazingly complicated, there is no possible way for it to “magically” form, no matter how many mega-years you give it.

Again, according to you, but you fully believe that it was “magically” created by some supernatural being.

Complexity does not mean impossible to create or from and complexity does not mean that an intelligence had to be present. That is an assumption on your part.

And again, for someone who studies “this stuff”, you seem to have done so with a closed mind.

As for “climate change” and evolution, they are comparable, in that neither has any real evidence in favor of it.

Again, according to you, but again, you dismiss that which you see as incompatible with your religion and not based upon a rational examination.

And again, scientific theories stand alone. You simply lump both together in a simplistic dismissal rather than a rational examination.

Just a bunch of circumstantial evidence that sort of, kind of appears to support it (as long as you don’t look at a bunch of other evidence that points in different directions).

Like what in the case of evolution? You mean the pseudoscience of ID?

And if even one little bit of that circumstantial evidence points another way, it all falls apart, as in “a house of cards”.

Not so or at least not a simplistically as you claim.

Circumstantial is just that. To even start to falsify a theory, you would need a fundamental contradiction or failure.

None of the hard sciences are even remotely comparable.

Again, according to you. What hard sciences are you referring to? And in what way is evolution not supported in the same manner as these hard sciences?

They actually throw out theories that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Again, according to you. Evolution has stood up to scrutiny and has expanded to include and affect other branches of science. If it is such a flawed theory or not a theory as you seem to be claiming, how do you explain that support and explanation? And gain, how do you explain the support of theists who are active researchers?

That’s why they’re real science, and evolution isn’t.

Again according to you, but all I see are hollow claims from a person who cannot back up their claims. Where is the proof of these shortcomings? If all you have is opinion, and more snide personal comments, then you have no argument. All you have is total and blind faith in your religion.

Oh, and by the way – about the rock from Mars (I presume you are speaking of the one that had tiny formations that resemble protozoa). Those are bubbles.

Yes, I was speaking about ALH 84001, but not the possible life forms on it. If ALH 84001 is from Mars, then the possibility of panspermia is more credible. That is what I was referring to.

And they are just bubbles? Do you have a source for that or is this more knowledge form your study of “this stuff’?

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

Another line of evidence involves unusual mineral phases found beside the PAHs. These carbonate minerals form “globules” about 50 micrometers across, some of which have cores containing manganese and rings of iron carbonate and iron sulfides, and also contain magnetite and pyrrhotite. These minerals bear strong resemblance to mineral alterations caused by primitive bacteria on Earth. This diversity of minerals in such a small area, formed under the presumed conditions, seem to make a non-biological origin unlikely.

Finally, high-resolution scanning electron microscopy has revealed the presence of tiny “ovoids” which may actually be fossil remnants of tiny (20 to 100 nanometer) bacteria. If so, they are 100 times smaller than any bacteria microfossils found on Earth, except for some supposed “nanofossils” recently discovered in very young terrestrial rocks, a finding currently not generally accepted as fossil organisms.

Taken together, the findings are thought to be strong evidence pointing to primitive bacterial life on Mars. The PAHs, unusual mineral phases, and “microfossils” were all located within a few micrometers of one another, indicating a relationship which may require a biological explanation. However, much work will be done on this in the future, including searching for amino acids, other fossil structures such as cell walls, other types of fossils, and fossils of bacteria frozen in the act of reproducing. Mars is almost certain to have been warmer and wetter in its distant past, so the existence of primitive life has been a tantalizing possibility for some time, but the real search may be just beginning.

Once it became clear that’s what they were, it went off the radar of all the mainstream media – not interesting anymore.

Not really. Our media is only interested in flash-in-the-pan types of stories. Items that take more than a few brain cells to follow, like understanding the microscopic remnants on this meteorite, cause them to loose interest quickly.

Just like Lucy is no longer interesting.

Again, according to you.

Your bag of tricks is shrinking fast.

Is that why you spend so much time simply dismissing that which you find to threaten your religion?

Is that also why you post against those who believe in evolution with such contempt, condemnation and conceit?

Gene Splicer on May 6, 2008 at 11:56 AM

And lastly, you assume “smarter-than-though” attitude since I do not give automatic credit to your claims based upon nothing but religious faith.

No. That was from your snotty attitude. If you actually knew anything about science you wouldn’t be so smug. You don’t even pay attention to what is said, you just paste and bloviate. I repeat – I have said nothing at all about ID, and yet you still feel the need to use it in your argument. As for my religion, I haven’t mentioned that either. All I’ve said is there is a God who created everything we know. And if you are so closed-minded that you can’t even ask the question, then you deserve the contempt, condemnation and conceit you claim I have.

Time spent studying a subject does not equate to mastery of a subject.

Yes, it pretty much does (only someone with no time spent studying something would say that). Especially when compared to someone who copies and pastes other peoples work and believes that makes him an expert. You need a lot of growing up before I’ll waste my time with you again.

Squiggy on May 6, 2008 at 6:53 PM

Squiggy
No. That was from your snotty attitude.

What snotty attitude? You are reading into my post what you want as far as emotional content or similar content.

If you actually knew anything about science you wouldn’t be so smug.

And again, you make generic and hollow claims. Not to sound “snotty”, but considering the incredible lack of detail in your claims versus the detailed replies I have given, I think I have demonstrated that I do have a firm grasp on science or as you so succinctly put it, “this stuff”.

You gave general dismissals rather than detailed arguments.

You don’t even pay attention to what is said, you just paste and bloviate.

Again, in contrast to you empty claims and reactionary dismissals. As far as “just pasting” goes, I’m sure sourcing your claims with credible references is very annoying or below your standards, but most debates do include them.

So I guess this means you did not read the linked sources or did and decided to shift the argument to other topics rather than make a cogent and rational rebuttal.

I repeat – I have said nothing at all about ID, and yet you still feel the need to use it in your argument.

You believe that creationism is fact and evolution is false. ID and CS are applicable since they are both just extensions of the creation mythos.

As for my religion, I haven’t mentioned that either.

You need not other than to denounce evolution in the most base of theistic apologetics.

All I’ve said is there is a God who created everything we know.

And by this usage of the xian god reference, god with a capital “g”, I am to take it that you are not a xian?

And if you are so closed-minded that you can’t even ask the question, then you deserve the contempt, condemnation and conceit you claim I have.

Closed minded would be illustrated by summary dismissal using simplistic arguments with not one viable source to back it up, like your claims.

You have made several claims regarding science and certain experiment shaving never been properly peer reviewed. I have asked for details regarding these claims. You have instead shifted the argument to one of criticizing your view of me and my writing style.

In other words, I have asked questions only to be ignored or have you taken it personal.

Yes, it pretty much does (only someone with no time spent studying something would say that).

So if a person plods along going through the motions of mechanical learning by memorization and recitation then he or she has equal mastery of a person who delves into the subject out of passion and/or has a natural gift for the topic according to you.

Such a claim is simply nonsensical and totally bereft of anyone who undertakes an autodidactic course in life.

Especially when compared to someone who copies and pastes other peoples work and believes that makes him an expert.

And again you are being intellectually dishonest or just intentional deceptive to try to win points in some juvenile manner.

I made my detailed arguments and backed up my claims with viable and reliable sources while you just made summary dismissals.

You can add a lack of knowledge of just how a debate or intellectual argument such as this is normally conducted to the items you appear to not have learned about. The other topic would be the science you summarily dismiss.

You need a lot of growing up before I’ll waste my time with you again.

Why, I’m shocked. Another age comment.

And don’t be so hard on yourself. It has not been a waste of time. Not for me at least.

Your simplistic replies, contempt for anything not of your faith and your contempt for those not of your faith are prime examples why our founding father has the wisdom to form a secular government.

And do tell me. If I were to start making claims about a person’s age and similar claims that you have made about or to me, would that be indicative of what you call mature?

Perhaps you can do better next time.

Gene Splicer on May 6, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12