Ben Stein misses his own point
posted at 5:35 pm on April 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 12 »
Except for a few jerks like Dawkins, the vast majority of scientists don’t care if someone is religious or not. As long as the religion doesn’t influence their hypotheses, methods, or conclusions, there’s no problem. As soon as someone invokes the supernatural to describe the natural, they’re no loger practicing science, and their work can not be tolerated in the scientific community.
Big S on April 30, 2008 at 6:30 PM
@ AverageJoe on April 30, 2008 at 6:29 PM
I never said it was my own. I never tried to say I was writing it. I think it was fairly obvious that it wasnt. Of couree, this is an internet discussion, and not anything of importance, so there is no such thing as plagiarism.
muyoso on April 30, 2008 at 6:31 PM
I wrote what I meant.
You are letting ideology dictate what you believe is true instead of searching for the truth and basing your ideology on it. Your correction of my comment because it does not neatly fit into an ideological container is proof of this.
Resolute on April 30, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Another small question for Big Bang believers:
90% of the universe must comprise of an as yet undetected “dark matter” for the Big Bang Theory to hold.
It must take a lot of belief to believe in this theory.
faraway on April 30, 2008 at 6:32 PM
You’re assuming I was just interested in invalidating your points on ID. AND you’re assuming that discrediting the source is never a valid strategy in debate.
davenp35 on April 30, 2008 at 6:32 PM
A post entirely devoid of all substance. As expected. And you didn’t even read my post, since I explicitly noted my stance on ID. I realize you’re enormously intellectually dishonest - at least on this subject - but at least read the simple English.
But then … you do know that you have no substance, don’t you?
It’s a very, very simple test: if the origin of life can be explained by science, then describe that process for us.
Better yet - replicate it.
This is what science does well, what it does best. Any random example serves. How about nuclear fission/fusion? A theory was developed, a hypothesis tested, the process demonstrated. That is science. How about the process whereby a virus infects a host? Again - this is science. Hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, replication.
Simple. And this is the grand irony: that evolution - the religion of Evolution that you follow - is simply not science. It is faith. Nothing more or less. What you believe and what the guy up there who believes in Noah’s Ark and the 6,000 year old Earth are equally founded solely on faith.
Or you could explain how life began.
Which you can’t. Because science can’t.
But like any religious zealot … you get enormously defensive when asked to admit what you don’t actually know.
I feel for you. It’s a quandary to deal with this sort of thing, once you’ve abandoned critical thought.
Once you start thinking for yourself again, you’ll admit the obvious: you don’t know. Nobody knows. A God might be an answer. Or some other creator of sorts. Or - wait for it - there might even be a valid, scientifically supportable answer.
But it doesn’t exist today. And followers of the Church of Evolution are, for the moment, nothing but immensely amusing followers of their own brand of faith.
Preach on, brother. Preach on.
Professor Blather on April 30, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Posting something under ones nickname without a link, or at least a reference attributing it to another source is either lazy or a clear attept to appropriate the credit for the words for oneself. A simple quote tag or reference to SciAm would have been sufficient.
AverageJoe on April 30, 2008 at 6:34 PM
You can never prove something. You provide evidence that something is true. Also your argument regarding use of motivated cognitions can just as easily be applied to you.
davenp35 on April 30, 2008 at 6:35 PM
I watched the movie, and I did think that some of the comparisons that Stein did seemed ludicrous.
I am also bummed out to see that they may have misled some of the inteviewees in order to get them on camera.
(although I can’t imagine what Michael Moore did to get some of his interviews. Especially in Bowling for columbine when he tried to interview Charlton Heston.)
The one thing that stuck with me is when Stein was talking to Dawkins and asked him to explain the origins of life on this planet. Dawkin’s answer was “aliens.” Stein even double and triple checked to make sure Dawkins was serious and Dawkin said yes over and over again.
disco on April 30, 2008 at 6:36 PM
“Dark matter” is not a matter of faith, but a hypothesis derived from the need for excess mass to describe the observed structure of the universe given known physical laws. We haven’t seen it, but have predicted it based on things we have seen. Somebody might explain things better, or we might see something new, and theories will change to accomodate such things. That’s how science works.
Big S on April 30, 2008 at 6:36 PM
I think Stein deserves the benefit of the doubt until he has a chance to explain what he meant. I don’t know, but he may have been thinking…science alone…with nothing else to contain it…leads to monstrous things.
RBMN on April 30, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Only ID and other theories can help us understand the “unexplained”. Why do liberal scientists want to control this too?
Science by definition only deals with the “explained”.
faraway on April 30, 2008 at 6:37 PM
What would you consider a “missing link”? Would that be something midway between a chimp and a human?
Your question assumes that the plants and animals we see today are “finished species”, and for evolution to occur, there should be some identifiably intermediate forms visible today.
We do see intermediate forms today. They’re everywhere. All species on Earth today - including humans - are intermediate forms. They are all midpoints on a continuum and each looked different 500,000 years ago, and will look different 500,000 years from now.
The system doesn’t allow for crossovers. Chimps won’t become humans, and humans won’t become chimps. Each will develop along its own independent path and the two are likely to be even more different from each other in the future (assuming both survive) than they are today.
Therefore, you won’t find a “missing link” that shows both chimp and human characteristics. That’s not how evolution works.
Cicero43 on April 30, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Sounds like the religion of evolution has prophesies!
faraway on April 30, 2008 at 6:39 PM
That is exactly right. The problem with the theists is that they apparently cannot stand not knowing. So it has always been: When you can’t explain something, invent some unknown, unnatural (or super-natural) entity or entities to explain it. The ancients explained thunder and lightning this way. The ID people explain the origin of life the same way: God did it.
This is the fallacy known as ‘the god of the gaps’. Fill in the gaps with diety. It stops inquiry in its tracks, but I guess it is emotionally satisfying to people who cannot countenance looking into the unknown.
Science is different: science contemplates the unknown, and attempts to understand it, with empirically testable hypotheses and theories. The assumption is that there is no final answer; we’ll keep expanding our knowledge, but we’ll never know everything.
I have no doubt that eventually we will understand how life originated on Earth. But now we just don’t know. There are plenty of people investigating the problem, and there are plenty of theories and a lot of speculation, but right now we don’t know.
The question is: Do want to just close the book and say “God did it; no need to look further,” or do you want to keep the book open and see what happens next?
MrLynn on April 30, 2008 at 6:41 PM
on the money!
Kaptain Amerika on April 30, 2008 at 6:41 PM
davenp35 on April 30, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Rhetorical question. Good point though how does it discount what I’m saying?
Weebork on April 30, 2008 at 6:42 PM
1. huh? so, half fish half mammals are where?
2. huh? thought you science dudes came from monkeys
3. I have seen some, they are liberals. Rev Wright thinks he knows some as well.
faraway on April 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Here is what I saw, and see about this whole thing. It goes to the fundamental problem of science: it cannot deal with intelligence. Science is based on repeatable, verifiable facts that do not change. Thus, it becomes naturalistic, because you can’t repeat God in an experiment. So science by it’s very nature is limited.
The study of science, quite properly, does not include religion or God. Thus, intelligent design by it’s nature cannot be scientifically proven. Or disproven, for that matter.
The trick is this, and where people go wrong: when you assume that the naturalistic view of science encompasses all truth. This is fundamentally false. For example: let us posit that an angel came and visited someone with a message. That man wrote that message down and published it. What is the truth? The man said he got a message from an angel. He is, for purposes of this analysis, telling the truth–there really was an angel.
But scientifically, you can’t test that. That is outside of the realm of science (or history, I might add). So, the conclusion by those for whom science governs all truth is that the man was sick, or lying, or had brain issues–everything but the truth, which is an angel actually exists and gave the man a message. Science, since it forecloses the truth by it’s naturalistic determination, will say that since some people in the past had brain issues and thought they saw an angel, this man must have as well. Thus, Science will lead you astray in that case, IF and ONLY IF you assume that all truth must be based in science.
Now, about evolution: no one knows. If God had meddled with a few genes here and there during a time period, that’s not “natural selection” but how could you tell? In fact, that’s intelligent design.
The problem is that we take all truth as requiring a scientific basis, which quite plainly implies that all truth is only from a material point of view. That view, by design, excludes intelligent beings, such as God.
So what should be taught in schools? Intelligent design? I’m torn, because it is not science. But science isn’t the be-all end all of truth either. In fact, it is only a tool, and probably a quite limited one at that.
So for me, I’d say that “science describes evolution, which is a description of a logical process. There is nothing science can tell us about whether such process was intelligently driven or not, nor indeed can science tell us that. But here is how we think the process worked:” And then go into DNA, etc.
Vanceone on April 30, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Sorry. Thought your questions were serious.
Cicero43 on April 30, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Interesting you would say that. I would say that the ID objection to evolution claims is that they introduce a deus ex machina of random chance over millions of years to explain everything.
So what if the only way characteristics can be inherited is for genetic mutations, which are rare, and the vast majority of those are harmful. So what if for some things to evolve would therefore require multiple mutations coincidentally occurring at the same time. Random chance over billions of years can explain anything. Throw in “natural selection” to explain why any useful mutations that happen to occur would be perpetuated for all time, and you’ve got yourself a theory that COULD explain it, but can never be verified.
It’s never more obvious than when you ask where life came from. The only thing science definitively says on that subject is that it didn’t come from inanimate objects, which is exactly what a completely naturalistic theory of evolution requires.
tom on April 30, 2008 at 6:46 PM
It doesn’t. It just adds to the discussion.
davenp35 on April 30, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Science can only explain things after they have been tested and proved.
Science can NOT explain the unknown.
faraway on April 30, 2008 at 6:47 PM
A very good friend of mine has both an M.D. and a PhD. from Duke University Medical School, does top-notch medical research, and is a born-again Christian.
So, who still says science and religion are simply not compatible?
Anyone…
Anyone…
Red Pill on April 30, 2008 at 6:49 PM
To bad movies aren’t like an Anime fansub were you can make a V2(version 2) and fix mistakes..
>:}
Chakra Hammer on April 30, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Hehehe…good one!
Say, how many posts did this topic get on that last post, I seem to remember it being over 2k, what was the final total?
This is obviously a very debatable and hot topic, keep em’ coming Ed!
As I said in the previous post on this subject, believing in evolution does no necessarily rule out ID. After all God has to work within the laws of nature (even if he created the laws himself) the difference being is God understands the laws of nature much better than we ever will (especially if he created those laws himself) and can therefore manipulate them and use them to create whatever he desires.
So if evolution was one of the laws of nature God had to work within in order to create, no one (not even scientists) can prove or disprove if God manipulated and used the laws of evolution or not, therefore if the theory of evolution is valid it does not necessarily prove ID as invalid or disprove the existence of God.
This is why I don’t get upset by the scientific theory of evolution, but what does upset me (as is the point of the film) is when scientists attempt to suppress and ridicule anyone that suggests the possibility of ID because doing so impedes discovery.
Could you imagine if all the great scientists the world has ever known gave up at the slightest hint of suppression and ridicule! If they had given up we would not be nearly advanced as we are now and for this reason alone no one should ever allow others to discourage or suppress them from exploring their theories and hypotheses, no matter how fantastical or improbable it may seem to others, to do so is to go against everything science stands for, which is to advance mankind.
JMHO…
Liberty or Death on April 30, 2008 at 6:53 PM
explore all paths until their respective natural end, and until a path is completely disproved you continue to entertain the possibilities of said path. personally I don’t understand what’s so hard to see in life forms evolving to fit their environment, it’s every where you look. the plant we saw the other day linked here, that mimicked a wasps sexual organs to trick wasps to flying onto them… you’re telling me that had nothing to do with evolution? that being said… it does not mean God could not have created the entire set in the play of life. we just can’t know that quite yet, maybe ever… that does not mean we stop looking.
Kaptain Amerika on April 30, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Are you doubting evolution?
How was each species created then?
faraway on April 30, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Oh… I see, I’m “delusional” because I believe what mainstream advocates of evolution themselves have said about the purpose of evolution.
Well muyoso, if that’s what makes a person delusional and scary, then its your own people that are delusional and scary… not me, because I’ve only quoted them. Read below.
(these are YOUR people talking…. NOT ME)
Now who’s delusional and scary?
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 6:54 PM
‘Dark Matter’ is inferred by lots of different methods. The easiest and most direct way to infer it is to study the differential rotation velocities of galaxies.
Faraway, there are lots of reasons to think that ‘dark matter’ exists, and I just gave the easiest example. Yes, it is at this time theoretical, and no, we have not as yet detected it if it does indeed exists.
So what do we as scientists do? Do we continue to try and improve our detection capabilities to somehow prove/disprove the existance of ‘dark matter’?
or…
do we throw up our hands, claim it as unknowable, and attribute it to God?
HeIsSailing on April 30, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Red Pill,
I know lots of competent doctors who are Christians. They don’t let their religion interfere with their work though. When was the last time your MD friend of yours prescribed an exorcism to cure a patient?
Seriously though, there is a reason it is called *natural* science. The second the supernatural intervenes, science ends.
HeIsSailing on April 30, 2008 at 6:59 PM
faraway:
With all due respect - if this is what you think evolution by natural selection is, you need to educate yourself.
HeIsSailing on April 30, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Maxx those quotes don’t prove or even imply a conspiracy by evolutionists to destroy religion. They are simply saying they think that’s the logical outcome of accepting evolution.
It doesn’t imply any sort of bad faith effort to create a theory to achieve that outcome.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Then explain how some of the greatest and most renowned scientist of history were devout religious people? Would you like me to provide you a list?
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Maxx:
yet many, many Christians also hold to evolution. Somehow, they make their faith fit with natural science. Ask Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, and devout believer.
HeIsSailing on April 30, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Maxx:
This is true, but how many mixed their religious beliefs into their scientific theorems? For instance, can you tell me how Newton fit his Christian beliefs into his ‘Principia’?
HeIsSailing on April 30, 2008 at 7:04 PM
What Stein reveals in Expelled is that Collins would risk her standing, even tenure if she were even to mention ID in a paper. That is the main thrust of Stein’s film.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on April 30, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Ed -
Don’t you see why that’s exactly what’s wrong with creationism? It doesn’t lead to knowledge, it asks us to suspend the search for knowledge altogether. It’s an assault on science with the singular motivation to preserve the god of the gaps for worship. Creationists aren’t just telling scientists how to do their jobs —
they’re telling God how to do his job.
Don’t you see how dangerous this is for both religion and science?
Creationists have not done any science, refuse to do any science, then demand that their philosophy of the origins of life be taught in classrooms without ever having produced a scientific argument that stood up to scrutiny. Scientists aren’t convinced of the creationists’ claims because the claims themselves are unconvincing, not because of some institutional bigotry against religion. You can’t seriously expect scientists to allocate scarce resources to produce useful results if you don’t afford scientists some form of professional control over what is and is not science.
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Drew, below is what I actually said, it was muyoso trying to put words in my mouth, phrasing it as: “conspiracy theory against religion.”
But below is what I said and what I stand by.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 7:20 PM
How could anyone answer that except Newton himself. And I didn’t know Newton was religious….
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 7:24 PM
This debate isn’t about creationism, it’s about ID.
davenp35 on April 30, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Absolutely true, some Christians believe evolution, I have no argument with that. I don’t know how they can believe evolution without calling God a lier, nevertheless some Christians believe evolution, that’s true.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Then by this very definition ID has no place being taught in science class.
phronesis on April 30, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Okay, I take you at your word that you don’t think there’s a conspiracy against religion but….
No, the whole idea of evolution is to explain certain things about life on Earth.
You may not like the scientific or ideological conclusions they draw but that doesn’t mean they are engaged in a bad faith effort to do anything but conduct a scientific exploration.
Those quotes you used still only speak to what those two people think is the logical outcome of accepting evolution not some nefarious use for it.
That’s just nuts. Science is neutral. That evil people use it to justify evil things says nothing about science but a lot about the people who use it to justify their actions.
Lots of people were killed in the name of religion long before Darwin. Does that mean religion is inherently dangerous?
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 7:35 PM
So science leads you to the showers to get gassed, eh Ben? My goodness. I have just lost all respect for you.
SoulGlo on April 30, 2008 at 7:35 PM
The whole idea of evolution is to explain the diversity of species on earth (Darwin named his book “the origin of species” and not “the origin of life”) and the similarities in certain features between species. It’s very specific that way.
I’m not conceding that the theory of evolution was responsible for the holocaust (which is a historical argument and not a scientific argument), but for the sake of argument, so what? Are you saying that the idea of evolution is too dangerous to pursue? You’re comfortable with that as an American?
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 7:37 PM
ID is creationism. It’s a little less specific about the creator, sure, but creationism nonetheless.
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Although I am sympathetic to claims that the academy is not open to new or disruptive ideas, if Stein really said that science leads to killing, that simply doesn’t follow. I’m sure we’ll hear more from him in coming days about that statement.
I will agree that science does not STOP killing.
furytrader on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 PM
To merely pursue, no. This is America and people are suppose to be able to pursue any idea they choose. But it’s a shame our children in the public schools are denied that right. It’s evolution ONLY in public schools you know.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Theistic Evolution
jediwebdude on April 30, 2008 at 7:50 PM
The idea that evolution is ‘random’ is a commonplace error. Mutations are random, to be sure, but not rare, and though usually deleterious, not always. But natural selection is not random, and exerts a powerful force by acting on reproductive success. It is quite easy to demonstrate how natural selection can yield enormous complexity in fairly short (geological) time, especially with creatures that have a short lifespan and breed at fast rates (e.g. fruitflies). Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker two decades ago designed a little computer program on an early Macintosh that neatly demonstrates how natural selection can produce quite astonishing results.
Science does not, and cannot, rule out the possibility that there may be other kinds of ‘truth’ that cannot be discovered, or understood, by the scientific method. Indeed, that is a more profound theological viewpoint than the simplistic ‘god of the gaps’ arguments we get from Creationists and the like.
Many theists will argue, for instance, that there is a personal, ’spiritual’ way of knowing that does not depend on the five senses, and that is deep and personal, peculiar to the human psyche. Such an argument, which I respect, does not conflict with science, though conceivably science might one day be able to explain how the capacity for such ‘knowledge’ or ‘intuition’ evolved, and even show where it is located in the brain. Even then there would be no conflict, as the theist could say that while the capacity for spiritual understanding arose naturally, as did binocular color vision, it enables humans to experience a kind of reality that other animals cannot.
For me, this is an interesting speculation, but nothing more. Others may decide for themselves, but do not misrepresent what we have discovered about life and its history. Get a college-level textbook on evolutionary biology and learn what it’s really about, and how much it has progressed since the early, contentious, and relatively ignorant days when Darwin and Wallace first propounded the theory of evolution by natural selection.
MrLynn on April 30, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Ummmmmmm, not true.
davenp35 on April 30, 2008 at 7:56 PM
The very of idea of a ciriculum precludes teaching every idea under the sun. If everything were equally valid and worthy of being explored we might as well give abandon textbooks and teachers entirely, give kids access to a computer with internet access and let them find anything they desire.
phronesis on April 30, 2008 at 7:56 PM
While we are at it why don’t we get Rev. Wright to teach an alternative history of the AIDS virus in history or biology class? Don’t our children have the right to know alternative theories? Wanting things to be verified or falsified by empirical evidence is just a tool of the white man’s oppression.
phronesis on April 30, 2008 at 8:01 PM
What is the logical conclusion of evolution in terms of morality? As a macro-evolutionist, how can one claim any moral absolutes, such as claiming that Hitler was evil, if there is no law giver, no “creator”? You can’t have it both ways. Without a “Law Giver”, there can be no absolute moral authority, hence no absolute laws condemning what Hitler had done. I believe this is Stein’s message (based upon the given statements.)
Now, this is not to say that all macro-evolutionists are going to commit Hitler-type acts; however, it does mean that a macro-evolutionist can claim no more moral authority in condemning Hitler’s actions than Hitler himself can claim unto himself to commit the acts that he did.
Now, scientifically and logically speaking, how can macro-evolutionists claim their theory is true when it breaks three very well established laws: 1) First Law of Thermodynamics, 2) Second Law of Thermodynamics, 3) Law of Biogenesis? Philosophically, how do you explain First Cause/Ontological arguments? Simply stated, “Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but only changed.” From where did the first energy come? If all things within a closed system go from order to disorder without the input of directed energy, how can macro-evolutionists claim that, physically and genetically, we are advancing? (Survival of the Fittest is a tautology, and name one genetic mutation that’s beneficial.) And, as Pasteur found, if life cannot come from non-life, from where did the first life come? Every effect has a cause, ergo what was the First Cause? How do you explain irreducible complexity, as Darwin noted would destroy his theory? How do you explain the absence of the missing link?
Which takes more faith, to believe we evolved from dirt or that we were created by a Designer?
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 8:03 PM
So why bring up the holocaust at all? It’s obviously not relevant, unless you’re arguing for censorship of evolution. Can we come up with a compromise that respects your religious beliefs but still lets scientists decide what belongs in our science classrooms?
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 8:04 PM
I’m not saying “science” is evil, I’m saying replacing God with science is evil. Especially the junk-science of evolution and I believe that is what Stein is saying also. The reason such a replacement is evil is because you have now displaced all moral authority with nothing … vapor.
See what evolutionist Jeffry Dahmer had to say.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Science leads to Dachau like Stein leads to intelligence.
profitsbeard on April 30, 2008 at 8:06 PM
That’s great that you think that but it’s not what he said.
But the question still remains…how do you explain the fact that there were lots of mass killings long before Darwin when religion was held in higher esteem than science?
Why is science held responsible for evil people doing things in its name but religion isn’t held to similar account for evil done its name?
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Our answer to the Great Question is the only logical one. Our Science is great. [walks away from the table and stands before a wall] Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins who finally freed the world of religion long ago. [a painting is shown, with Dawkins in it] Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future. [More of the painting is shown: Mrs. Garrison appears] But it wasn’t until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you. [turns around] Prepare all the troops! We will level the United Atheist Alliance to the ground!
VinceP1974 on April 30, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Evolution is the first step in an ideology. All religions, atheistic and theistic alike, must be able to answer the following questions: 1) Origins, 2) Purpose, 3) Morality, 4) Destination. Evolution is merely the first step in the process for atheism. Again, what is the logical progression of thought here: If we evolved from nothing, there is no purpose in life, no morality other than what the individual decides for himself, and there is no hope of any form of afterlife.
If we were created, then that deity defines our purpose, defines our morality, and destines us for some form of afterlife.
That is the importance of this issue.
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Why is murder wrong?
According to Darwinian Evolution, murder is wrong for the murderer because to commit it risks getting caught and punished by society, and to society it is wrong because a potential productive citizen has been lost. There is no intrinsic value to human life beyond its impact on society. Humans are no more intrinsically valuable than dogs or flies; our value is determined a posteriori.
It is only because a sense of the sublime and transcendent exists in us that we balk at such a notion. That strong sense of intrinsic worth is what causes revulsion when we see pictures of Dachau and Buchenwald. But there is no physical reality to such feelings beyond glandular excretions. As C.S. Lewis points out in “Men Without Chests,” there is no difference between the sublime and the pretty; the “sublime” is a social construct. And of course Evolution would say that such a construct must therefore be an evolved trait (Dawkins’s “meme”).
What is to prevent society from evolving away from this meme of inherent worth? Is there any absolute standard that exists in absence of and irrespective to Man? To Dawkins, there is none. Should the need exist some day for society to destroy the weak, the sick and those deemed unfit, then it is society’s prerogative, assuming enough in that society are of one mind on the matter.
Thus, social programming is as much valid means of evolving social norms (redefining what is “sublime”) as breeding dogs for special uses. We are revolted by Hitler’s programming, but that’s only because we’ve been programmed differently. What he did was wrong only because his social genes weren’t strong enough to replace ours. One day, those genes might be strong enough; then they will be right, and ours will be wrong.
That’s how Evolution can lead to Dachau. Dachau was not wrong. It was only recessive.
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Ed, I always enjoy reading your posts.
I disagree.
Would you have the free time and interest to discuss this non-scientific claim further tonight?
Anti-realism is gaining popularity in scientific circles, which leads to the falsity of your last sentence.
Hi, muyoso.
I think this scholar does a pretty good job at it.
ColtsFan on April 30, 2008 at 8:14 PM
phronesis on April 30, 2008 at 7:56 PM
But that’s not a valid excuse. There are only two theories that I am aware of as to how we got here. One is evolution and the other is that we were designed. The design theory could be presented in a single sentence. The teacher could simply say: But evolution is just a theory others believe we were designed. That’s no strain on the school system to include that sentence. But no…. not even that is allowed. The kids are told by the authority figure (the teacher) that evolution is the ONLY way we could have got here. And that denies the kids right to hear the other side of the story.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 8:14 PM
There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.
- Richard Lederer
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who drown his own?
- Robert G. Ingersoll
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I was bitterly disappointed to see Ben Stein shilling for the Intelligent Design people. And that was before I heard about this utterly ludicrous nazi analogy.
Why would I want the government in charge of teaching children about God? I don’t even want them running my health care. God is simply not a scientific question, and efforts to turn him into one tend to insult theology, science or, more frequently, both.
morganfrost on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 PM
First of all the job of science is to deal with the truth or falsity of claims not their moral implications.
More importantly, here you are positing a divine command theory of morality, which is problematic even if one accepts of the existence of an interventionist God. Plato pointed out the problems with this theory 2500 years ago in the Euthyphro. Is murder wrong because God Forbids it or does God forbid murder because it is wrong? If you answer the former then morality is simply the arbitrary construct of a capricious God. If you answer the latter then murder is intrinsicly wrong and would be so with or without the command of God. Under this system God’s commands might still have epistemic significance(i.e. they could help humans understand what is right and wrong), but they do not make anything moral or immoral.
phronesis on April 30, 2008 at 8:19 PM
So no religious people ever commit crimes?
You trot out Jeffrey Dahmer, I give you Rev. Gerald Robinson. A priest convicted of murdering a nun.
What’s your point?
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s?
- Friedrich Nietzsche
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:21 PM
By that reasoning ovens lead to Dachau also, barbed wire.
ronsfi on April 30, 2008 at 8:21 PM
And I give you God.
He drowned almost all life on Earth because he got pissed off or something.
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Well… I don’t know why I’m answering you because you are so very disingenuous, but I will anyway. Of course schools should strive to teach real knowledge and not politics or inane ideas of the anti-American fringe. They should strive to educate and not indoctrinate. The fossil record alone is far more than enough to validate ID. It’s the other side of the coin to the theory of evolution and it should at least get a mention… if not taught.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 8:23 PM
1) I am not arguing actions, but rather ideology. Christians have been guilty of many crimes, much to my sadness. I ask though, what or who was at fault: the Christian or the Doctrine of Christ? Mass killings and genocide are not in any way, shape, or form condoned by Christ. Taken to its logical conclusion, what would the world be like if everyone followed the teachings of Christ? Certainly not genocide. Under an atheistic view, how was Hitler wrong? He was merely fulfilling the logical conclusion of Nietzsche, who based his theory on atheistic origins.
2) Science is not evil. The pursuit of knowledge is not evil. Evolution is no more science than Design theories. What are they both? Merely interpretations of present day facts with the past in mind, meaning this: we cannot go back in time to see how it happened. Experimentation is impossible, so what we have is forensic science. Both see the same present-day facts and make interpretations of these facts about what the past must have been like. I’ve listed the problems with the macro-evolutionist view. The Design view answers those questions concerning the laws of science and satisfies irreducible complexity and absence of missing link concerns. So again I ask, which takes more faith?
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Eh, high school and college biology was awhile ago but I don’t remember anything about the motivations of murders being part of the class.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Why would some all powerful being create creatures capable of reason and then demand that they act in a manner contrary to their creation?
- Josh Charles
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Fine, but since ID cannot be verified of falsified empirically, it doesn’t belong in science class. Have a comparative religion class or a speculuative philosophy class and teach it there.
phronesis on April 30, 2008 at 8:27 PM
That Dahmer believed evolution, thus nothing to hold him accountable for his actions. This is what I mean by the evil of replacing God with junk-science/evolution. Dahmer said it clearly…. read what he said again.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 8:27 PM
I always take these things personally - when atheists are broadly painted as lacking in morals, or that they value their fellow man about as much as dog poop in the yard.
I don’t believe in God, but I believe we all have great value. It is not right to kill another person without just cause (said person is attacking you/family or the like). Why? That person is just as valuable as I am - I don’t want somebody knocking me off for no good reason either. We have value for many reasons: we can reason, have independant thought. We feel emotion, we are capable of communication, we have created societies. I don’t have all the answers for how this came to be; honestly, it’s not that important to my day-to-day life.
Like Ben Stein, I had relatives marched into gas chambers during the Holocaust. Whole branches of my family tree were wiped off the face of the planet - for being Jewish, for being Polish, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I cannot blame it on science any more than I can blame it on religion. I blame it on some messed-up people perverting both the science of the day and relious beliefs, turning them into a fascist ideology that respected no life at all. I have always admired Stein, but I think he is dead wrong in his conclusion (that science leads to killing people). People with perverse ideologies, based on corrupted science, religion, or both, kill people.
the goddess anna on April 30, 2008 at 8:30 PM
From the sentence structure, I would assume he was saying “love of science” - which when compared to “love of God”.
He isn’t saying science is the issue - but the misplaced valuation of it in one’s life and worldview.
Alan on April 30, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Ed, I take it that unlike Derbyshire, YOU saw Stein’s Expelled: Intelligence. Therein, the point the “Intelligent Design” community made was that God or no God, Intelligence is in all matter. If a scientist or student identifies Intelligence with God, that is a personal matter, certainly not the point of the argument. Ther argument is in the scientific inability to prove or explain anything according to a theory that fails to define itself, Darwinian Evolution. As per Darwin, he was clever, examined things as best he could back then, but was limited in his findings, and certainly NOT definitive about specifics even as elementary as defining “species”.
That Stein expresses his own emotional relationship with science is certainly not a sin. That so many in his family were murdered by Nazis who streamlined “science” to achieve their eugenic dogma for purity leaves Ben Stein with a tender place regarding “scientists” who remove God from the world of discovery and experience and meaning not only for themselves but for all others. That anyone MENTIONS intelligent design leaves them censored and without employment THAT is not “scientific” in the traditional sense prior to 1850. So Derbyshire splices an emotive thought from Stein, and having FAILED to see Stein’s movie, having FAILED to speak directly with Stein, Derbyshire feigns to KNOW the complete context that the reader should judge based upon assumption.
Stein is not alone in presenting contemporary science/politics traced from the Darwinian (and much further back to Rousseau) disciples that demand there is no God. Actually, it is the Darwin school that has the God hang-up, demanding there is no such thing as metaphysics. What a load of crap! A thought is a metaphysical occurence and entity. A thought actually leaves a mark in the brain. But a thought is not something we remove from our brain with our hands to consume. There is meaning and order upon which the banal material responds, not visa versa in the creative process. As pointed out in the movie, Darwinian evolution is a metaphysical argument, and can only be discussed as such. That the Darwinians refute metaphysics proves their own idiocy, they refute their own premise.
Study up on Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism regarding aesthetic history of Western Civilization’s eugenics as that book provides ample chapters and notes regarding this argument, as well as the corruptive evolution of/from “God” in government.
maverick muse on April 30, 2008 at 8:32 PM
But of course evolution does not meet the requirements of being science as you defined it either.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 8:32 PM
So you are going to base what you believe on what Dahmer did or didn’t beleive?
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:34 PM
I bet he believed in evolution too.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:34 PM
No… it’s just an example… and you know that.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 8:36 PM
I did but just because some nut job justified his despicable actions on evolution doesn’t mean evolution is wrong. It means Dahmer was a murdering dirtbag.
My point in bringing up a religious figure who committed a murder is to demonstrate that just because one believes in God doesn’t make them immune from doing evil things.
You and Stein see a straight line between believing in evolution and murder because it removes the barrier of God. How do you explain people who believe in God and yet still commit murder?
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 8:38 PM
I don’t think there’s a simple logical line leading from “genetic variation over long periods of time leads to speciation” to “there is no god.” I don’t see any relationship whatsoever between those two statements. Yes, the fact that life arose from a natural process (not from “nothing”) and didn’t just appear fully-formed one morning means God is not necessary to explain the presence of species on Earth. –Once again, Darwin’s book isn’t called “the origin of life,” it’s called “the origin of species.” — That doesn’t mean that evolution is necessary for atheism, or that atheism is the only conclusion to be drawn from the theory of evolution.
But -
who cares? What does any of this have to do with science? I’m truly sorry you don’t like the philosophical implications of the theory of evolution. I think you’re clearly wrong about those implications. It still has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not creationism deserves to be taught as science.
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 8:40 PM
An example with what purpose?
Most people don’t give an example unless they are trying to support a larger conclusion.
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:40 PM
All things are under the purview of science, including morality, as science is the only valid means of determining cause and effect relationships among material things. Are you saying that there are things in this universe that do not have material existence (matter or energy)? Ideas, emotions, morals, social mores etc. are all material, as they exist only as palpitations or glandular excretions in the brain. They all have an explanation under science and therefore under biological evolution.
False dichotomy. It is neither. Murder is wrong because it is the act of the destruction of the image of God. God created Man in His image. That image, and the inherent injunction against its destruction, is still intact. It is only under the authority given by God to Man that Man is allowed to kill Man. Man is valuable because God made him so; and only God may do with Man as He wills. Man has intrinsic worth because he is God’s. God can never go away, so Man’s worth can never go away.
I have a question for you. If Man no longer exists, is murder still wrong?
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 8:40 PM
I’ll assume you mean the Christian God. They slip… they fall, they sin. Sometime they repent, sometimes they don’t.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 8:42 PM
I guess some would say that they really didn’t believe in God after all or the Devil cast a spell on them when God wasn’t looking.
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:43 PM
You need to read the comments from the beginning MB4 and you will see why that example was used.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 8:44 PM
You are using ‘evolution’ as a catchall. Look at your first post, you say:
Whether or not a evolutionst have standing in your eyes to condemn Hitler doesn’t mean they are responsible for it.
Assume for the purpose of this post evolution is 100% true. That wouldn’t in and of itself justify killing anyone anymore than it would handing out ponies to people.
It’s true or false on it’s merits. What people do with that information is totally separate from the validity of the theory.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 8:44 PM
The results of the Christians vs atheists in prison investigation
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:46 PM
I don’t have the time or inclination for that right now, so I will take your word for it.
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 8:47 PM
So religious people who do bad things don’t reflect on religion but people who claim to do things because of their understanding of evolution damn evolution?
That’s an awfully convenient plan you got going there.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Whether or not you kiss or kill your best friend tomorrow can be explained by science. Perhaps not now, but eventually science will be able to explain it. Why? Because you are genetically and environmentally determined. Model the genetics and the environment sufficiently, and murder becomes little different than thermodynamics.
You are an animal. A complex animal whose behavior is difficult to model, but you’re roughly the same composition of blood and soil as an ape or a pig.
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Agreed. If evolution is true, then it’s true, despite the implications. Same with a Design Theory. I was merely pointing out the problems with claiming absolute moral authority without claiming a Law Giver.
The question is a false dilemma. God states that something is “good” because it is “good,” but the reason it is “good” is that “good is an essential part of God’s nature” (to quote St. Thomas Aquinas.) Because the quality of “good” is part of God’s character, his essence, any expression of goodness in his laws to us is nothing more than an expression of his nature. If a good God says something is “good”, then it is always “good.” I’d be interested in knowing how you arrived at the conclusion that God is “capricious.” In what way is He unpredictable or impulsive? If God is, by definition “good,” then how can any expression of that goodness be considered impulsive, since it is intrinsically a part of His nature?
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Everything currently known was once unknown. In the future, science will explain some things that we can’t currently explain, just as it has explained some things to past generations that were previously unknown to them.
Buddahpundit on April 30, 2008 at 8:53 PM
For the Christians -
Can we come up with a compromise that respects your religious beliefs but still lets scientists decide what belongs in our science classrooms?
I have to ask this again because I’m sincerely interested in finding a little harmony between science and religion. It’s going to have to be a compromise, you’re not getting creationism taught as science in the classrooms. I feel badly for the Christians who have been misled by the intelligent design lobby into thinking there’s a chance in hell it will make it into the classroom. See Dover, Pennsylvania re:1st amendment. That doesn’t mean we can’t work something else out. Any suggestions?
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 12 »