Ben Stein misses his own point
posted at 5:35 pm on April 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 12 Next »
Even as you deny the quesiton you are accepting the the latter case by giving the reason you consider murder intrinsically wrong.
If man (or some other rational being) didn’t exist murder wouldn’t be possible, so your question is moot.
phronesis on April 30, 2008 at 8:56 PM
This quote is taken out of context, which is easy to do. He’s talking about bad science(i.e. not proven, see Orgin of Species, etc.) that is then taken an Ideologies and worldviews come from. Which is exactly what the Nazi’s and Eugencist did.
jp on April 30, 2008 at 8:56 PM
I am not a Christian but I agree.
Religion should be taught in philosophy or history class. To pretend religion has not been an important factor in the human experience is simply dishonest.
I think it should be explored in that context.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Christians have done bad things. So have atheists (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Hitler…) Two questions for you though. 1) By what authority do you claim that the Christians, or any body, were “bad”? Another way of asking: If there is no absolute moral authority, how can you have the audacity to claim that someone else is doing a “bad” thing?
2) What does the Christian doctrine state about committing “bad” things? It says they are “bad,” right? What does atheistic doctrine state? “Will to Power,” right? “Beyond Good and Evil,” right? If no one can tell me what to do, then, really, existentialism is the way to go.
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 9:01 PM
How is it taken out of context? I watched the full 30+ minute interview and it’s exactly what he said. There was no other context.
If you think there was please share it. Please don’t tell me what you think he meant or should have said but give me the context within that interview that is missing.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Disassociating people from any sense of accountability or morally, which evolution does, will cause and has caused atrocities… that is the point.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 9:04 PM
This is a very clever word game you are trying to play but it’s simply a smoke screen.
First of all, where did I say there’s no absolute moral authority.
Secondly, I am using the context of bad/wrong/evil in the Christian context because that’s the one Maxx was using.
And finally, again…what does the theory of evolution itself say about good/bad or right/wrong? Don’t tell me what people claim to do in it’s name, stick to theory itself. Whether or not people use that theory to justify their actions HAS NOT BEARING ON THE ACCURACY OF THE THEORY.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 9:07 PM
You’re going to cite Jeffrey Dahmer as an authority on the moral implications of evolution? That hardly seems fair. Can I cite Torquemada as an authority on Christianity?
There needs to be a corollary to Godwin’s law to deal with Jeffrey Dahmer references in threads about the holocaust.
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 9:08 PM
I didn’t say God was capricious. I was using a conditional. If murder is wrong only becuase God forbids it and it is not inherently wrong for another reason, then a God that forbids it would be capricious. Thus one has to give an account of the good beyond “the good is that which God commands” anyway. Aquinas didn’t adhere to divine command theory, which i was pointing out as problematic, either.
phronesis on April 30, 2008 at 9:08 PM
No. God did not declare murder to be wrong after Cain slew Abel (Cain knew it was wrong before he did it). Murder is wrong by implication, and in the absence of God, there is no image to be violated. God must exist for there to be an image whose destruction constitutes murder.
It’s not possible for me to kill someone in Siberia right at this moment, so does that mean it’s ok for me to kill someone in Siberia as long as I physically can’t do it? Is the wrongness of a thing predicated on its potentiality?
Is the Holocaust still wrong? It’s in the past, and as equally impossible to happen in the future.
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Whether or not that is the case has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is correct.
Should we not continue to investigate the theory because bad things might happen?
If so, you have a nice trip back to the Dark Ages, I am going to stay here in the modern world.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 9:02 PM
because he’s clearly not talking about Science, as in all Science and specifically proven Science. He’s talking about psuedo-Science, i.e. not Proven Science…things like Darwinism, Orign of Species stuff. macro-evolution to be specific
He’s not saying Newtonian Physics, Laws of THermodynamics, etc. are evil. It’s the ideology that some scientific theories produce. Like when the Nazi’s try to take the whole “natural selection” thing to its logical conclusion. Or the Columbine killers for that matter, one of them wore a T-shirt that read “natural selection” on it and was a big neo-darwinist as the basement tapes revealed.
jp on April 30, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Sure, as soon as scientists start deciding that.
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 9:14 PM
For at least the 3rd and final time…the ideologies tat some theory produces has no bearing on the accuracy of that theory.
A lot of ‘prove science’ have led to things people don’t like.
“Proven science” led to the creation of guns. Some guns are used to murder people in cold blood and some are used to protect people.
You wouldn’t blame the science that led to the creation of a gun for those murders would you?
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 9:18 PM
My question is this: why can’t it be taught? I’ve demonstrated above how evolution falls short in terms natural laws and philosophical arguments, how Design Theory compliments them, and how both are just as much forensic science as the other. So really, what’s the risk? Just what is the risk of at least pointing out the problems with evolution? Could it be that if evolution is threatened that the secular world view would also be threatened?
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 9:20 PM
only you ed would right so much on one phrase from ben.
Wow
you bored, nothing else better to do.
just wandering
kara26 on April 30, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Well, I’m a professional geologist and I work extensively in the field of paleontology in my job, and I’ve never been either an atheist or agnostic for a single second of my life.
I simply don’t see what all the hoopla is about.
Religion and science are two separate fields and should be kept that way. Science does not provide us with the deeper meanings of life, and religion is not a scientific practice.
Believe me, this argument does not do either discipline proud.
TexasJew on April 30, 2008 at 9:21 PM
You’ve made my point for me. And you are the one that mentions the holocaust. Hitler was an evolutionist, just like Dahmer he anticipated no accountability for his actions but of course Hitler’s atrocities were horrific in scale. This is Ben Stein’s point as well. Yet evolution is all you want to teach the little kids. Awful !
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Ed says this at one point: Instead of pursuing all paths of scientific pursuit….
The problem is, ID isn’t scientific. It can’t be tested and retested in labs around the world. Therefore, it is not science, it is at most philosophy…the god of the gaps.
I think it is sad that so many of you think that morals are impossible without a god. Are you all so evil that you need the fear of hell to keep you from doing bad things? I’m an atheist and I am very moral and good. I do nice things for people because I feel it is the right way to live. I don’t need a scary, vengeful god to threaten me with eternal hell fire to be a good person.
Everyone talks of the Christian god as if he is this benevolent being. He is the worse, most evil serial killer in the history of the world! He kills everyone and some in the most horrible ways.
And he’ll leave you in hell forever? Even a parent forgives their kid that commits crimes…how can you worship something so stupid?
Just my two cents…
:)
StacyInTucson on April 30, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Ok, what is it you want then? Legally you can’t teach creationism in the schools. Scientists aren’t going to back down on a theory that has been important to the field of biology for the last 150 years, either. A compromise means you give up something to get something. What are you willing to give up and what do you want in return?
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Oh, and I’m Jewish, of course, and I don’t blame the field of chemistry for coming up with Zyklon B to kill much of my family.
The larger field of chemistry (ie, pharmaceuticals) also has made medicines to save billions of lives (including my daughter, my wife, and myself and probably ..you) and is not responsible for a few pathological monsters who decided that a rat poison and fumigant was a dandy way to murder men. women and children.
TexasJew on April 30, 2008 at 9:28 PM
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.
That’s exact what Stein MEANS - just not in exactly the same words you want.
thareb on April 30, 2008 at 9:29 PM
http://instapundit.com/archives2/018611.php
jp on April 30, 2008 at 9:31 PM
1) Evolution states nothing of “right/wrong,” which is my, and Nietzsche’s, point. Anything is justifiable.
2) You’re right, what people do in the name of any particular theory has no bearing on the accuracy of that theory. I’ve had four arguments here, each referencing another facet of the debate: A) That evolution is amoral, B) That if our origins are amoral, then no one can establish an absolute moral law, hence cannot make any moral judgments, C) That evolution fails to address the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis, First Cause Arguments, Irreducible Complexity, and lack of “missing link” evidence, and D) that evolution and design theory are both forensic science in that they make interpretation of the past based upon present facts, due to the fact that in both cases neither can do any experimentation in the past since no one was there. My resulting question is this: since they are both products of forensic science, each with their own conclusions, why can only one be taught in schools?
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Bingo
see the Stein/RC Sproul interview thats been posted here several tims in the previous Expelled thread.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&q=stein+sproul&ei=0×0ZSM-NL4OcrwLii7zzBw
jp on April 30, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Ok, whatever. You’re right. Fight fascism with fascism. Lets censor evolution, so we can all go back to the peaceful bliss of the freaking dark ages. Do you honestly think the Nazis were a bunch of choir boys until they were exposed to the scourge of Darwinism?
I think we should stop exposing our kids to movies like Expelled: Godwin’s Law, the Movie. It’s obviously melting the brains of impressionable Christians.
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 9:35 PM
That’s how you want to interpret what he said but it has the unfortunate element of not being what he said.
Take another look at what he did say.
He didn’t saying anything about “anti-Semites and materialists ” he said “scientists” and “where science leads you”.
I am open to him saying he misspoke but don’t tell me he didn’t say exactly what he said.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 9:40 PM
So we should continue to teach a theory that all good evidence says is wrong, deny God, and tell our children there is no eternal consequence for any of there actions? Don’t try telling Mr. Rohrbough that.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 9:41 PM
It also says nothing about the capital gains rate, who should win American Idol or who the 5th Cylon is.
Except I believe that it can be observed in short life span spices like fruit flies. Can ID provide any examples of observable evidence?
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 9:44 PM
I couldn’t find (and wasn’t going to spend a lot of time trying to) the actual video, but based on that transcript, I feel that Stein deserves the benefit of the doubt and we need to consider the possibility that he has simply said “science” when referring to “big science” or the “scientific establishment”, or whatever other name you’d like to use.
While I tend to make the distinction clear when talking about it – creationists/IDers are VERY pro-science, we’re just not in to the dogma/religious quackery that is constantly referred to as “science” just because it was done by people who have degrees to show that they are scientists.
Again, I haven’t seen the video, nor can I read Stein’s mind, but given the fact that he made a movie about it… I think I can give him the benefit of the doubt and think it’s pretty easy to assume he’s not saying “science is evil”, but instead that he’s referring to the “don’t question Darwin!” scientific establishment. An easy slip, especially sense they (the Darwinists) constantly insist this is a battle of religion vs. science (so they dismiss us and never have to answer legitimate scientific questions). They constantly insist that Darwinism “is science” while everything else is religion, and their friends in the media help perpetuate this myth, instead of actually seeing what the other side has to say.
I’d like to hear Stein’s reaction and see if my assumption about what he meant is right… if not, then it was an incredibly stupid and incorrect thing to say. But again, he’s a smart guy, and given that he made a movie about this, does anyone think he’s dumb enough to totally contradict it now and shatter his own credibility. Isn’t it more likely a case of using “science” to refer to the “scientific community”, especially sense people from that community do this regularly?
RightWinged on April 30, 2008 at 9:49 PM
I’d like for you to quit with the canard that “scientists don’t want creationism/ID taught in the classroom.” Ideologues don’t want creationism/ID taught in the classroom, and the creationist/ID people only want both to be taught side by side. It’s only the ideologues like Dawkins et al. that are being Manichean about the issue.
But to answer your question, there is no compromise that can be made. You own the issue, lock, stock and barrel. The laws are on your side. The educational establishment is on your side. The academic establishment is on your side.
The only reason why creationist/ID folks still have an ear after 150 years of rigid, doctrinaire adherence to biological materialism is because it doesn’t have the deafening ring of truth that all the other hard sciences do. Gravitation makes sense. Thermodynamics makes sense. Heck, even relativity makes sense when you think about it. Goo-to-you Evolution just doesn’t make sense. Life from non-life? Humans from rocks… just because? Time + matter + chance == Mozart?
Makes as much sense as Hillary and Bill getting smoochy with each other.
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Here’s the link. It’s the April 21st show.
I understand wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt but watch it. He doesn’t just say ’science’ he says “scientists” and “where science leads you”.
I hope he comes out and clarifies this statement. If he does believe this, he’s pretty much a crank who can be ignored in my mind.
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Win Ben Stein’s Sanctimony!
Jim Treacher on April 30, 2008 at 9:59 PM
I’d like to see how you test and retest “millions of years” of evolution in a lab. You use your dating methods, fossil comparisons/reconstructions, etc. using present-day artifacts. Unless you’ve found a time warp, you have not tested the past, but only the remains. If you’re testing the remains, as evolutionists and design theorists do, then you are using forensic science. How is evolution and design theory different?
How did you arrive at the conclusion that you are so very moral and good? When you ask if “you all” are evil, on what do you base such moral judgments? Do I need to fear hell to do good? “Need” and “want” are irrelevant. If there is a God, then what difference does it make if I “need” or “want” anything anyway?
1) You’re applying God’s law for man back onto Him. Man can kill another man, but has no ability to create nor restore a human being from death. Man does not have the authority, except for certain circumstances, to kill another man. God has these abilities and promises them for those who choose to follow Him. He has the authority to kill us, and can, and promises to restore us.
2) God does forgive us, but we must ask Him to do so. It’s not that God “leaves” us in hell in that He sends us there. Rather we’ve earned it. We are not Holy. He is.
Question for you: What would you prefer? A) To have no choice to do evil, but to live as moral robots destined to only doing good? B) To live in a world with no good or evil, no love, no hate? C) To live in our present world, with a choice to do good or evil, and accept the pain and suffering resulting from evil devoid of any hope of Salvation from God?, or D)To live in our present world, with a choice to do good or evil, and accept the pain and suffering resulting from that evil, but have hope in the forgiveness of God? Christianity is the only religion that offers forgiveness absent of works.
If God offered a thousand ways to get to heaven, we would ask for one thousand and one. He offers to change our hearts, to change our minds, to lead us to Heaven.
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 10:07 PM
“If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazis liked to say, “of blood and soil.” I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
Victor Franco, Austrian neurologist, psychiatrist, and Holocaust survivor, from his book “Man’s Search for Meaning”
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Just look at how the international Left are trying to use politicized science, Global Warming, to shape policy and other things. “Global warming” is a scientific theory.
same for another politicized science, Eugenics, which came from Darwinism.
jp on April 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I see. Scientists are actually clamoring to teach and study intelligent design, but they’re too afraid to stand up to Richard Dawkins.
I really have no idea what you’re talking about, but it’s not evolution.
If you’re not interested in talking compromise, all I’ve got left to say is:
Dover, Pennsylvania, baby. Eat it, creationists.
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Hey, did everyone here that? Maxx want you to know all the good evidence says 100+ of evolutionary biology is wrong so you know, let’s wrap it up and go home.
As for Mr. Rohrbough…there’s no denying he and others suffered terribly but that’s not exactly the basis for scientific inquiry is it?
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 10:23 PM
What would Rosie O’Donnell say?
My collie says:
If Stein were permitted to respond to Ed’s criticism, I am fairly certain that he would qualify his remarks and explain that he was not talking about science in general or the scientific method, but rather about the WAY that science has been practiced by the Nazis of academia — the fanatic priests of Darwinian dogma that have unfairly victimized innocent, competent scientists.
CyberCipher on April 30, 2008 at 10:24 PM
1) The lifespan of a creature shows the limitations of its genetic code, nothing more. I’ve never seen a living fruit fly turn into another species, nor can it. The genetic material is not there to do it.
2) Yes. For starters, biochemically. The human eye, bacteria flagellum, human ear drum, and many others. Darwin acknowledged this in his “The Origin of Species” as potential problem. How can something like the human eyeball evolve if all the necessary components for sight are needed from day one? If you have all the pieces except for the optic nerve, you can’t see, right? So what would have caused something as complex as the eye to evolve all at once with no intermediary steps? The only way for the eye, or ear drum, or a bacteria flagellum, and many, many other examples, to work is for the total package to arrive intact.
Another piece of evidence is this: the fact we are here. If the universe had a beginning, which it must have, in order not to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics (that is, universe would be at 100% entropy, which means no chemical reactions) or the concept of First Cause, then one must ask, how did the first matter/energy get here?
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Send_Me, I like what you have to say.
gmbdds on April 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM
The motor of the flagellum isn’t irreducible given that subsets of its proteins can serve other purposes.
dedalus on April 30, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Yeah, what he said.
phronesis on April 30, 2008 at 10:47 PM
John Derbyshire is very much against ID and thinks evolution is beyond question, so it’s hardly surprising he “found” a comment.
The question really is, does this comment betray an anti-science attitude generally?
I doubt it, based on a general lack of evidence apart from the single comment.
I think this is not much more than a “gotcha” from people who were looking for one.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 30, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Thanks for the link Drew… but it still didn’t really clarify anything for me. Based on the fact that his movie is all about being pro-UNBIASED science and getting the agenda driven BS out of the “scientific community” (or at least exposing it), it would be stupid for him to now say “science is bad”. Again, if he is saying that, he’s being stupid and he’s wrong. But just like with “global warming” we constantly hear from “scientists” and the “scientific community” that it’s all “science” and everyone who doesn’t agree is religious, etc. It’s very easy to slip in to their language and refer to mainstream science/the scientific community as “science” and “scientists” in an interview setting, without realizing that it might come off as being totally anti-science, when his intention was to reiterate the point of his movie.
Again, look at what the movie is about, and previous interviews. He’s not being anti-science. Why would he be suddenly here? Once more, I can’t read his mind, but given the movie, and the ways the word “science” is often used by the evolution crowd to say “we do science” so they can dismiss everyone else out of hand and not have to answer real scientific questions, and his previous interviews, I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt here, at the very least.
RightWinged on April 30, 2008 at 10:51 PM
You know, Ben Stein is too smart and level-headed of a guy to really mean what he said. I suspect that he mispoke after giving so many interviews that he got punchy. I understand that a celebrity may be lined up to give seventy interviews in a day when a movie opens. I doubt I could get through dozens of interviews without my mouth getting ahead of my brain at least once.
Give Ben the benefit of the doubt, I say.
Tantor on April 30, 2008 at 10:54 PM
You’re absolutely right. But what put the pieces together? Just because a protein can function in a certain way, does not mean it’s in the place to do it. For example, the letter “A” appears many times in the dictionary. But, in order to make sense, in order to work properly, someone had to put the letter “A,” and all of the other letters, in the right places. If a letter is misplaced, the message no longer makes sense. And that’s just a dictionary. Imagine how complex a cell is.
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Stein needs to clarify his remarks if he meant differently than that sounds. If he did mean otherwise, I’m not surprised that Crouch was too stupid to take the interview in that direction.
aikidoka on April 30, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Your original quote:
Not all scientists have a say in what is taught. There are many thousands of scientists that would gladly teach ID and evolution.
I really have no idea what you’re talking about, but it’s not evolution.
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 11:14 PM
The internet must be a tough place for someone who doesn’t recognize sarcasm.
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Bah, hit the wrong button.
The point I was going to make was this: Evolution is predicated on life coming from non-life. Its clear implication is that we came from stardust and rock through natural means over many millions of years.
Time + matter + chance are the sole cause of any and all biological processes seen today. That is the point of the biological materialism being taught as scientific fact right now. The implications I made were comical, yes, but no less accurate.
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 11:19 PM
For folks that suck at trying to convey it, too, it seems. :)
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
He’s saying that Darwin caused the holocaust. He is making a direct causal link between the study of evolutionary biology and mass murder. How is that not anti-science?
Stein deserves the benefit of someone’s foot kicking him in the… nevermind.
You know, it’s not as if eugenics was uniquely Darwinian. The eugenics movement could have come to the same conclusions that Hitler used to justify the holocaust based on the ideas of animal husbandry – which had been around for like 10,000 years before Darwin. When can we expect Stein’s gripping new documentary about the evils of keeping livestock?
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Well there was one old guy who said that he saw God create everything but they locked him up.
MB4 on April 30, 2008 at 11:29 PM
All the life and all the creation around you is the observable evidence Drew. Overwhelming isn’t it?
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Animal husbandry does not equate Men to dogs (or apes). Evolutionary biology does.
Man is the product solely of genetics and environment, blood and soil. Man is an animal, no more no less, and to treat one man as better than another is no different from treating one animal (dog) better than another (cockroach). To say that it is somehow wrong to treat men differently, or that it is right that all men be treated equally, is a social construct; which is also nothing more than a product of evolutionary development. Should society as a whole evolve to Hitler’s way of thinking, then such behavior then becomes right.
Again, Dachau was not wrong. It was just recessive.
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Sure, but you make it sound so banal. The universe is brain-suckingly ginormous, and it’s been around for what may as well be eternity. So, yeah, there’s some crazy stuff going on in our tiny corner of it. I know this all goes back to God, it really needn’t, but it does. What’s wrong with thinking God created life according to natural laws? For that matter, what’s wrong with just letting us silly science nerds think what we want? Why bring intelligent design into it at all? It’s just going to confuse the h%^& out of a lot of kids, as if they’re not confused enough.
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Direct causal link? No. However, if evolution is true, then one can reach the conclusion that no one can make any moral judgments. It’s not a causal link, but it does allow for such behavior since moral relativism is the only moral system that works if evolution is true. Causal, no. Correlative, yes.
If evolution is true, then we should, to remain consistent, embrace it’s logical conclusions. My challenge is that if Design Theory is true, for people to do the same.
Send_Me on April 30, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Faith isn’t the same as proof Maxx.
Confusing, isn’t it?
Drew on April 30, 2008 at 11:40 PM
No faith is required to observe we are here. Much faith is required to believe evolution was responsible.
Maxx on April 30, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Err, no. Darwins theory of evolution has nothing to say regarding the origin of life, only with the origin of species. You (and most creationist/ID proponents) either do not understand this or are deliberately creating a false straw man to score rhetorical points.
Abiogenisis is the theory you seem to be referring to.
Doc Mike on April 30, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Because it is banal.
Oh really. You ever run the numbers for the random chances for the development of life, much less complex forms of it? That’s ginormous.
Ever heard of Occam? He’s got this razor…
Because this about you not letting me think what I want. You already get to think what you do. Plus you’re allowed to get tenure, and scientists like me have to keep our heads down.
Yeah, I’m a scientist. Yeah, if I ever said what I say here in my department, I’d probably get canned.
Telling kids that they are the product of intentional design is not going to confuse them.
spmat on April 30, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Nonsense. Evolution could be the method by which God guides the development of life. If God created the universe in such a way that intelligent life was not just possible, but inevitable – woven into the very laws of physics – then I think that does him far more credit than the simple, primitive accounts of creation recorded by the worlds’ religions.
Evolution and Gravitation are both amoral scientific theories, and neither poses a threat to moral order or the idea of God.
Doc Mike on April 30, 2008 at 11:53 PM
You don’t need Darwinism to think of people as animals, especially if they happen to look or act differently than you do. Look at human history and tell me how the inhuman cruelty of the holocaust was novel for our species in any respect but its horrifying efficiency. May as well blame chemists for inventing gases, manufactured with the singular intention of murder.
But even if I concede that Darwinism shares some complicity in the holocaust, how is this relevant to biology? Its an important social lesson that hopefully has taught us once and for all the value of human life (I hate to admit that looking at our world its clear too many haven’t learned), but its irrelevant to the question of where life came from and how it got to be so varied. So why go there?
RightOFLeft on April 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM
They evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Even Pope John II seemed to have accepted it, although with some “add ons”.
EVOLUTION AND THE POPE
MB4 on May 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Err, no. The two are linked in most curricula of modern biological education.
spmat on May 1, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Then your beef is with modern biological education, not the Theory of Evolution.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 12:10 AM
In the context of the point of his movie, science minus a creator or intelligent designer DOES lead to killing people. Darwinism is a perfect example.
Amy Proctor on May 1, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Whereas science (say, aeronautics) plus belief in a creator (say, Allah) inevitably leads to peace and harmony.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Boy I really learned something from this whole thing…apparently nothing bad ever happened and people were never killed in large numbers before 1859. Then this Darwin guy showed up and morality disappeared and lots of people were killed.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 12:16 AM
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
MB4 on May 1, 2008 at 12:20 AM
False analogy. Evolution speaks to origins. The law of gravitation does not. Gravity we can test. Evolution we cannot. Different types of science. One is forensic science. The other is not.
There are many philosophical, theological and scientific points I could bring up here, but I’ll just say this: taking a broken theory and adding God as a sort of Band-Aid is nonsense. As I’ve listed before, evolution breaks numerous physical laws, which I suppose God could “override,” but this fails the evidence test. We see no evidence for evolution today. We see no “missing links” within the fossil record, nor do we see any living “missing links” either. Every organism we see is a distinct species unable to transform into another, new, species. This is counter to the countless transitional forms Darwin expected to see upon future discoveries within the fossil record.
If God did use evolution, then the perception that God is a tyrant would seem plausible, since the only way to grow would be through suffering and death. Thankfully, as I’ve said, there’s no evidence for that, in science, or the Bible for that matter.
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Has it occurred to you that if there is no “Darwinism” what has lead to killing people?
God is a perfect example, as if there is/was an “intelligent designer”, aka God, then guess who/what is responsible – it would be the “intelligent designer”, aka God, who screwed up big time or actually wanted killers. With total power, goes total responsibility.
MB4 on May 1, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Before I head to bed I’d just like to remind people of what started this:
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Let’s keep in mind that last part is stupidity on a stick.
You may spin about ‘context’ and ‘what he really meant was’ but unless or until he corrects the record the most charitable way to put it is that what Ben Stein says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 12:29 AM
If you get canned for merely believing intelligent design, I would stand behind your right to believe what you want 100%. I’ll just say this: as a scientist, whatever you think about evolution, you must know that there are precious few biologists who think intelligent design is remotely scientific.
I’ve seen various estimates. There’s the problem of not knowing what the simplest self-replicating molecule is. Interestingly, the creationist estimates consistently assume molecules that are far more complex than necessary. Dishonest, no?
What’s simpler: God created the universe and all its laws in its entirety in a single instant, knowing those laws would inevitably lead to intelligent life
or
God first created the universe, then popped in after a while to create each species separately (allowing for periodic mass extinctions and new species).
It will if you tell them so in a science class. It’ll confuse them about science, and it’ll confuse them about religion. Just keep the two separate, that’s all I’m saying. Teach one in Sunday school, teach the other in biology class, why isn’t everybody happy? I don’t get it.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Why do some people seem to think that Evolution, which tends toward cephalization (growing intelligence), cannot, on its own, develop a natural “morality”? One which would tend to preserve the best of animal and human emotional and intellectual developments?
Since God’s own “morality” has demonstrably evolved since the Old Testament days, why would it be impossible to conceive that a creature, in a naturally Life-generating Universe, might also be able to decide to become a “moral” agent by its own native intelligence and harnessed willpower?
And by the accumulation of small decencies and the deepening appreciation of the stability that such things give our Civilization?
And have such an “invention” (morality) become one of the keystones and crowning glories of Evolution?
Recognized and honed by studying the unfolding of noble examples in nature. Like the maternal and paternal instincts for the nurturing of children and their daily self-sacrifice for their offspring’s survival, which our species would observe, over eons, and use to strengthen our own sense of a natural “morality”?
Morality is not logically excluded from the world just because there is no Flood-threatening, hell-damning deity hovering behind the scenes and steering its cowed creatures toward whatever such a “moral dictate” might mean. (Is it “moral” to be ordered to “love”?)
Science may find that what we mean by “morality” could be a kind of psychological “immune system” and latent source of self-transcending imaginative power.
And that a God is not required for us to be decent or loving.
Only an appreciation of our own humane awareness and of the fabric of all Life, flowering from the inner truth of our total relationship to one another, gene to genius, through unifying DNA.
profitsbeard on May 1, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Excellent Post.
Richard Dawkins takes great delight in proselytizing for the Church of Evolution/Atheism. He brags on his web site about people sending him stories of “deconversion”:
Red Pill on May 1, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Amen. We should put that on a plaque and hang it in our courtrooms instead of the ten commandments.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 12:34 AM
“Bad” things have happened since the beginning, obviously. What was their motivation through? What has been the motivation throughout history? Pride? Selfishness? Power? A general disowning of God? Yes, either one or all of these things.
Then people began trying rationalizing their iniquity. The Enlightenment was a major effort in this regard. But they had one problem. They could not explain our origins without God. Then the naturalists, the uniformitarians, came along. Men such as Darwin, Charles Lyell, and others began to change things for the doubters, the men seeking a way of establishing a foundation for their godless philosophy. By developing a theory that did not necessitate God, philosophers had their opening to doubt God and behave as they wished. Nietzsche, Russell and others developed their beliefs based upon the idea that we have atheistic origins. Then men like Stalin and Hitler began to act upon these beliefs.
Did Darwin create genocide? No. He only offered up the foundation, the atheistic theory of origins, which allowed the atheistic, self-centered philosophers to do their work, hence allowing the actors of that belief to work.
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 12:38 AM
No, but you do need it to positively justify thinking that. Evolution states that man is, in fact, an animal. He became what he is by the same process that apes became what they are. Man is a product of genetics and environment, determined by blood and soil. You said yourself that God is irrelevant to that process. Man would be no different should God be in the equation or out of it; i.e. God had no hand in it.
Man is not special except insofar as he choses to be. But then, even his choices are biologically determined.
To say that Man is special, higher than beasts, that he is fundamentally, intrinsically different from animals is not scientific. It fails Occam’s razor. God did not make Man special. At best, God made “life” or the organic soup that eventually became life, or maybe just the startdust that became the planets… bah, the best we can say without some lawyer threatening us is that God maybe maybe allowed the original quantum foam that eventually, by random chance mind you, formed what became the Big Bang.
To say that God had a hand in Man’s development is an unnecessary multiplication of entities. Science tells us that Man would be what he is independent of even the existence of God. All of the causal events that made Man what he is can be explained by natural processes. Thus, man is functionally no different from a cockroach in the eyes of the universe. That he is different in the eyes of his fellow men is a convenient biological development that is just as much at the mercy of environment as our skin is. Should the environment change, so will the convenient biological development of “We hold these truths to be self evident…”
No, it isn’t a social lesson. It was wrong before the Holocaust, it was wrong after it and it’s wrong now. It is wrong because Man is special. The slaughter of 6 million men, women and children is not wrong because it’s counter to evolutionary development. It’s wrong because Men should not be killed without just cause. Ever.
/shrug
I have a beef with both. But yes, the only narrative fit for public consumption is Abiogenesis+Common Descent. Both are “science.” Life is time + matter + chance. If you say anything else in public, you are branded a religious nut and an idiot. Or fired.
spmat on May 1, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Dawkins is an a–hole. His little crusade to tie science and atheism together has done more damage to both science and atheism than I care to think about.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Darwin did not have a problem with the eye, a common creationist deliberate misquote.
I fail to understand how Darwins theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is supposed to somehow be an excuse for Eugenics, when Eugenics is the exact opposite of Natural Selection. Doesn’t make sense to me.
BathTub on May 1, 2008 at 12:45 AM
“Humane awareness?” “Inner truth?” Based upon what? Why should I respect fellow “evolved dirt?” Why should I take any moral orders from fellow “evolved dirt?”
Explain the origin of any universal truth one could apply to all human beings that is instituted by another human being. No other human being has authority over me beyond that which I have given him (i.e. a parent, a teacher, a boss, etc.)
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Evolution speaks to development, not origins. Again, the confusion with abiogenisis.
Gravity, like life, exists in the past, present and future. The study of both is forensic when applied to the past.
Evolution is constantly being tested in fields such as genetics, agriculture and medicine. Bacterial strains developing resistance to drugs is exactly in line with evolutionary theory.
The spontaneous appearance of created organism is, to my knowledge, completely unheard of.
That pretty much sums up creationism. But back to Evolution; the idea that God created evolution as a means to allow life to adapt to its surroundings does not use God as a “band aid” – as I have pointed out, Evolution does not speak to origins.
Obviously. As soon as you find a missing link, it is no longer missing. And you create two new missing links to boot.
In the geologically insignificant time span of our observations we expect nothing less.
Every species is, unless it goes extinct, a transitional species.
Well death pretty much leads to death; growth comes through adaptation and survival.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Deism.
Theism.
Thanks for proving my point that one religious view is scientific and therefore acceptable for public consumption, while another is not. That’s why people don’t buy the canard that Evolution is “amoral.”
spmat on May 1, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Gee, so you might say that we can look at the holocaust and see the worst example of what happens when we don’t value human life? Why, it’s almost like a lesson in morality, which is exactly what I wrote.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 12:54 AM
1) “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray. page 189, Chapter VI
The human eye would fit this category.
2)Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin stated this: Eugenics is “the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally.” He believed that one could artificially accelerate evolution through this process.
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 12:57 AM
So men are the same as cockroaches and the holocaust is ok with you? That is some theory you got there.
Johan Klaus on May 1, 2008 at 12:57 AM
For the nth time, Darwin did not speak to origins! He was describing the development of life – the theory of abiogenisis was developed in the 1960’s!
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Because in many situations it confers a survival advantage.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 1:01 AM
I’ve tried not to get into people’s faith in this discussion because that’s a road that goes no where good and is really tangential to the subject. However, you and others keep making this argument about the amorality of a world where evolution is accepted or that evolution is a Trojan horse for atheism.
Don’t you see that a lot of people can turn your argument around on you? Where’s the morality in a God that let’s horrible things happen to good people? Sure you can say ‘free will’ but to many that sounds like a cop out.
How about the fact that bad people succeed at the expense of the good sometimes? Sure you can say they’ll be a day of judgment but that’s based on faith.
Evolution doesn’t have all the answers and never pretends to address a lot of the subjects you keep throwing up but there’s an awful lot more scientific proof for evolution than there is of God.
Personally, I don’t think faith and science have to be in conflict. Each has their sphere and uses but trying to prove or disprove one with the other is like trying to eat soup with a knife. Why would you when one has nothing to do with the other?
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Um, lrn2followthread kthxbai :)
spmat on May 1, 2008 at 1:05 AM
And the Spanish Inquisition thought they could accelerate salvation through the judicious use of torture and burning.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Send_Me-
What have you got against “dirt”?
It feeds you.
profitsbeard on May 1, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Send_Me did you even look at the quotes page?
.
For some reason it has this tagged to that quote.
I wonder why they would feel the need to point that out?
.
Artificial selection has been around as long as domestication of animals and plants, and was something Darwin himself was against for people. So again it’s a pretty flimsy link. Or is the link supposed to be that they were related?
BathTub on May 1, 2008 at 1:09 AM
spmat on May 1, 2008 at 12:51 AM
I don’t know where you’re going with this. Which was simpler? Deism, right? Ok, think about it – according to deism, everything in the universe acts according to natural laws, no divine intervention necessary other than at the instant of creation. Did life exist at the instant of creation? No. Does it exist now? Yes. So, according to a deistic worldview, life somehow arose from non-life, without any divine intervention. In other words – abiogenesis followed by evolution. i.e. not constant tinkering by the invisible hand of god…
Unless… are you a young earth creationist?
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 1:15 AM
Oh and Send_Me, the developemental stages of the eye is actually reasonably well understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
BathTub on May 1, 2008 at 1:17 AM
So here is a question for ID proponents. Let’s hear your theory. Flesh it out for us. So far, all I have ever heard from the Creationist/ID lot is a load of uncoordinated attacks on modern biology/geology/physics which they mistakenly label as “Evolution.”
Does ID have any coherent theory that fits the evidence better than Evolution?
For a start, what is the ID timeline? Did God descend from the heavens and specially create new species every time one appears in the geological record, or were all species created at the same time? Do you accept the 4.6 billion year ballpark figure for the age of the Earth? How do you explain the mass extinctions and the subsequent explosion of species that followed them?
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 1:20 AM
No, it isn’t a bloody lesson. Getting shocked while working on a light socket is a lesson. You learn to turn of the circuit at the breaker first.
The Holocaust was a moral abomination. A tragedy. Something that should break your heart. Hurt your soul.
It was evil. Universally, transcendently evil. Worthy of hellfire kind of evil.
This is not a sitcom. Events like the Holocaust don’t just end, then the music comes on and we learn a valuable lesson. It’s not the kind of thing you just learn from. You repent of that kind of evil, and there was plenty of it to go around, not just the Nazis.
spmat on May 1, 2008 at 1:21 AM
spmat on May 1, 2008 at 1:21 AM
I’m not going to get in a pissing contest with you over who thinks the holocaust was more evil. Funny how you can get so sanctimonious because you think I’m somehow trivializing the holocaust by trying to see what we can learn from it, yet you have no problem with Stein abusing it to demonize a legitimate branch of science.
If you can offer any defense of intelligent design as anything more than an icebreaker for young-earth creationism, I’m happy to discuss it…
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 12 Next »