Ben Stein misses his own point
posted at 5:35 pm on April 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
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 »
Yes, forensic science is forensic science; ergo, forensic study of gravity, the study of evolution, and study of design theory are all forms of forensic science. Evolution, which necessitates abiogenesis, concerns origins and development, just as design theory does. Gravity concerns neither origins nor development.
Now, micro-evolution is studied in genetics, agriculture and medicine. I agree. Funny thing though- of all the accomplishments, the species barrier has not been broken. Now, in concern to the antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria: sure, some mutated bacteria cells among the batch exposed to antibiotics do survive, but the question is, how well do they survive once the antibiotics are removed from the system? This concept is known as the “Fitness Cost.” The mutated bacteria, which must now compete with the original strain of bacteria once the drug has been removed from the system, is overwhelmed by the original strain. The genetic code of the resistant bacteria is not better, but rather weaker and defective, resulting in a weaker ability to reproduce, hence its overtaking by the original strain.
Transitional forms: if evolution were true, we’d expect to see gradual change between the species. Instead, we see sharp, distinct lines between species. The absence of these transitional forms is known as the “missing link.”
And just to throw this out there: if the least complex organisms should be at the bottom of the geologic column, then why are trilobites so close to the bottom, a multi-cellular creature(some with eyes)? Not to mention the rest of the Cambrian explosion.
No evolutionist on here yet has refuted the claims I’ve made concerning the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis, First Cause arguments, irreducible complexity, absence of transitional forms. Design theory fulfills all of these things. Again, which takes more faith?
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Oh, my goodness. Look at this. I’m gone for two days and the evolutionists turn this house into Bourbon Street! *sigh*
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 1:34 AM
I left it out due to relevance. At the time, sure, he could find no such case. Biochemistry was not a prominent field during the writing of his book. He had no awareness of the inner workings, the chemical reactions involved with the functions of the human eye.
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 1:37 AM
Intelligent design isn’t necessarily about god. The designer could have also been a unicorn, a leprechaun, several unicorns, or any unspecified, all-powerful being*. As I write this, the scientists at the Discovery Institute are holding daily prayers and bible-study sessions to unlock the profound mysteries of life. They’ll be happy to answer all your questions just as soon as their lawyers figure out a way to get past the first amendment. Until that time, they ask that you renounce satan and embrace god… er… science.
*but not God, seriously.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 1:41 AM
Oh keep spinning Send_Me, you deliberately misquoted in an effort to radically change what he said.
BathTub on May 1, 2008 at 1:42 AM
It’s getting late, even on the West coast, but I have to get out a final thought. In the interest of harmony, I hope creationists will give it some serious thought:
Dover, baby. Dover, Pennsylvania.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Ed, I watched the whole interview and Ben Stein was not saying that science itself was evil. Far from it. While I would agree with you it is ideology perverting science that leads to horrors such as the Nazi concentration camps, um, really, the only thing Ben could have done different here is use a different word than science to make his point. I think you need to put his quote into context. By that part of the interview they had just finished talking about Hitler and his attempt to build a human racial ladder based on his evolutionary thinking during WW2. Hitler believed that Blacks, Jews and Semitic people were at the bottom of ladder, while at the top were the White Aryan race - the Nordics and Germans - who he called the master race. You ought to read Mein Kampf and see how many times Hitler refers to racial crossing, superior races, or higher races. The major theme of the book is Germans are a superior race. All Ben was trying to explain was that “science” riddled with evolution theory, has, and can, lead to horrors like the Holocaust. It’s very simple. Maybe he could have used a different word than science to make the point, but that’s all.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 1:48 AM
Wikipedia makes this one crucial error: from where did the genetic material come and what organized it? It makes the eye sound as simple as stacking a few wooden blocks together. Again, over countless generations, what would cause the parts to come together which make the following possible:
Biochemist Michael Behe (yes, an ID proponent) states this:
“When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)
GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
My explanation is just a sketchy overview of the biochemistry of vision.”
I’m not convinced that this could happen by chance.
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 1:50 AM
I’m not mean … you’re just an imbesol.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 1:51 AM
What a valiant remark.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Call it what you will. You still have to answer the charges presented against evolution in terms of irreducible complexities such as the eye, the bombardier beetle, the ear drum, the meninges of the woodpecker, etc.
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 1:54 AM
I watched the whole interview to and you are absolutely right…if Stein had used different words than he did, he would have said something different.
The only small, tiny problem is he actually used the words he did…”science leads you to killing people.”
I am open to him saying he misspoke but he said what he said, his supporters wishes to the contrary notwithstanding.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Ahchoo. Excuse me.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 1:56 AM
For those asking what Design Theory is: here you go.
Have a good night, fellow Americans. I’m pleased that such a conversation could stay just that, a conversation: devoid of ad hominem unpleasantness.
Send_Me on May 1, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Send_Me all of your of charges are classic creationist claims that have been refuted time and time again, you’re already willfully ignoring the explanations that are out there, so why should people take the time to convince you? My previous post was just to point out your own admitted deceit.
BathTub on May 1, 2008 at 2:03 AM
Is this thing on?
EVOLUTION DOES NOT REQIRE ABIOGENESIS!!
It does not matter if the first cell was magicaly created by God, developed by abiogeneis or was accidentally sneezed from the nose of a time-travelling Dr. Who - the Theory of Evolution deals with what happens to that cell and its descendants AFTER its creation.
How many micros make a macro?
Because not enough time has passed. Life has been on this planet for billions of years and we have been studying it from a genetic perspective for mere decades.
It is called “Punctuated Equillibrium”. Species evolve in response to changes in their environment. If the environment does not change much, neither do the species. When the environment changes rapidly, the species change rapidly in response. If the environment changes faster than the species can adapt, extinction.
Trilobites are close to the bottom because they are very primitive animals, as one would expect.
If God created all life at the same time, why are there no mammal bones in the Cambrian deposits?
If God did not create all life at once, then why? Why did he condemn so many species to extinction?
Probably because that old creationist cant has been refuted so often it goes without saying. The laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant to a discussion of biological evolution because A) they refer to energy states, not organization or information and B) they only apply in a closed system which the Earth definitely is not.
New packages for the same tired old creationist arguments. If you lot are still befuddled by thermodynamics, I really don’t have the time to walk you through all of these.
Deus ex Machina explanations usually do.
I think the “Deus” part should give you a clue.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 2:11 AM
It’s like a sauna in here.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 2:18 AM
I’m surprised out of all the things to comment on about the movie, there wouldn’t be more focus on how the film reveals how teachers, students and scientists are being “expelled” and persecuted for questioning Darwinism. Ben Stein did a wonderful job, with courage he spoke up for alot of people who just can’t, that is a story in and of itself, yet as we see with this post, the criticism is against Stein. I wonder if we should be surprised? Or does it not substantiate the whole point of the movie?
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 2:38 AM
Apacalyps, you are an embarrassment.
Sigy on May 1, 2008 at 2:52 AM
“Intelligent design” in a nutshell.
I have never met or even heard of a scientist who in good faith (no pun intended) questioned the theory of evolution. The only questioning of the theory of evolution comes from people with inflexible or misunderstood religious beliefs (e.g. fundamentalist Muslims, Jews and Christians) who believe evolution to be contrary to those beliefs. You don’t start at a conclusion and search for evidence and still get to call yourself a scientist. That makes you an ideologue.
Mark Jaquith on May 1, 2008 at 4:10 AM
Spinning in my computêr chair:::::::weeeeee
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 4:14 AM
This just in:
Ben Stein mispoke.
End. Of. Story.
…………….::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Beep, beep!
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 4:22 AM
Because people who believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old tend to have the mentality of Truthers when confronted with actual science… so in any of these threads you will inevitably start to get all the Darwin=Hitler stuff, complaints about carbon dating being a Masonic/Satanic/Illuminati conspiracy, quotes from Jeffrey Dahmer, and the like.
Watcher on May 1, 2008 at 4:35 AM
Thanks for your comments. In watching the interview it appeared to me Ben was very comfortable with the person interviewing him, and when that happens we can let our guard down — you’re not as careful choosing your words. Every single one of us speaks differently when we are chatting with friends and family as opposed to groups or in public. You let your guard down. Right? Of course you do. That’s all that’s happened here. Ben Stein is not against science… lol… He does not believe “science” is evil. To assume such a thing I believe is a little far reaching and quite possibly taking his quote out of context.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 4:48 AM
PS — Oh, yeah, the other thing: Considering the fact that most branches of science were started by Bible believing Christians, it seems rightly absurd to suggest that Ben would be against science.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 4:53 AM
The last time my dad saw a scientist, a practitioner of medical science to be exact, it saved his life.
What Benny says here is counterproductive at best, life threateningly dangerous at worst.
It’s like every hardcase atheist in the world’s argument against religion, the whole “Religion’s killed more people than anything else in the history of man!” line of BS, that exposes their ignorance of basic history. Men fought wars, slaughtered innocents, and defiled the world looooong before he developed the concepts of religion or science.
It goes back to what Ed said, it wasn’t science that gassed the Jews at Daccau, just as it wasn’t religion that brought about The Crusades, or Jihads, or the Inquistion.
It was men. Wicked, frail, imperfect men, who twisted scientific theory or scripture to suit their own perverted goals towards their own ideas of justice, or a perfect world, or an expression of faith.
SuperCool on May 1, 2008 at 5:47 AM
What is clear, if you watch the movie, is that science without religion/with a perverted ideology/without morals/without conscience leads to Dachau. I never thought he intended it to mean that Science was the motivating source of evil. But it was clear that he felt that the use of Darwinism to say some people are fit to survive and others are not led to the Holocaust.
Spike72AFA on May 1, 2008 at 5:53 AM
People should at least start by looking at the list serious creationists admit you shouldn’t use. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
BathTub on May 1, 2008 at 6:57 AM
Another excellent site for consideration of a creation model.
http://reasons.org/
The scientists on this site have been defending their creation model with other scientists respectfully and scientifically for years.
mugged by squirrels on May 1, 2008 at 7:08 AM
Great, Ed. Stein makes an emotional over the top statement so lets discredit him and his movie. Man, conservatives just love to eat their own.
peacenprosperity on May 1, 2008 at 7:25 AM
Academic politics are dirty and cliques do form, particularly in the humanities, leading to faculties where certain points of view are marginalized or not at all represented. If one should decry the fact that valid studies are excluded for political reasons we might all agree. However no one would pretend that Riemannian geometry should be taught by the Department of Music and similarly there should be nothing wrong with presenting creationist or designer ideas in a philosophy or theology curriculum but this stuff is not science and should not be presented as such.
Annar on May 1, 2008 at 7:45 AM
Ed, when things have shifted so far one way, sometimes you need an equal and opposite force to swing them back to balance. Thats what I think when I read Ben’s quote.
MechEng5by5 on May 1, 2008 at 8:42 AM
And in the context of what he was talking about…I agree with him. Science without a God centered foundation of morality does lead to the kinds of things that happened at Auschwitz.
MechEng5by5 on May 1, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Intelligent Design is not Creationism.
Who, having seen EXPELLED: Intelligence, missed that point?
They may share things in common, just as Intelligent Design may share things in common with observations by the mainstream scientists stuck on Darwin. But Intelligent Design is NOT the exactly same science as either Creationism that matches fundamentalist Protestant literalist Christians nor exactly the same science as Darwinian Evolution that has entirely become a world in and of itself within/without all of reality.
maverick muse on May 1, 2008 at 9:00 AM
If fools created an entire way of life in which we all must conform, SOCIOLOGY, then let there be the Intelligent Design branch of science. It isn’t that those studying intelligence deny science, as they are scientists themselves. Having recognized errors in judgment, willing to accept that theory remains theory with or without the majority rule of thought, they have their own theory that approaches the same scientific questions from a different perspective. Leave it to fools to demand ONE THEORY ONLY; the evolutionists suffer the same stunted mentality as the Medieval Christian Hierarchy, just on the opposite side of the scale. Failures within the evolution theory that has been indoctrinated as fact will be researched with an appreciation of the intelligence of matter, the foundation of science. The opportunity to determine what makes something tick should not be denied because of the direction from which the scientist approached the subject. If the Intelligent Design scientists discover truth from their studies, fine. If not, fine. But to deny them the opportunity is not fine. Prejudice is not fine in science.
maverick muse on May 1, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Ben Stein is talking about Junk Science…darwinism for example which shaped the worldviews of the nazi’s, Eugenicist and of course the Columbine killers. the whole “natural selection” thing.
same can be said of the science of “Global Warming”, from which many are shaping their views of the world from. That man and industry are bad and must be stopped to ’save the earth’…blah blah.
He’s not talking about true science, like the laws of thermodynamics or physics or chemistry.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Captain,
Saying “Expelled” has a whole bunch to recommend it is like saying “Bowling for Columbine” is an accurate portrayal of gun violence.
First things first, and it’s a big thing: Evolution has nothing to do with the Holocaust. I challenge anyone who made that claim to back it up with fact. Can’t do it.
Even if it did, how does that invalidate the theory of evolution? Doesn’t, that’s how.
Also, thanks to “Expelled”, it’s been confirmed that ID is unquestionably an attempt to backdoor religion into science class. Not just any religion, mind you, but Christianity.
Calling ID science is akin to calling Loose Change thought provoking.
Krydor on May 1, 2008 at 9:52 AM
you obviously haven’t seen the film or read very much science, epstimology, statistics, etc.
btw, Stein is a Jew, not a Christian.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Amazing - OK, not really, but still bothersome - that someone like Krydor can make the laughable claim that evolutionism was not used to justify the Holocaust. There was a fellow who wrote a book in German - and the title wasn’t Mary Kate - read it.
corona on May 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM
jp, just ’cause the Nazis and their ilk claimed they used Darwinism (”natural selection”) doesn’t make it so. Half the point of fascism was/is to give it a glosscote of science, to make it more palatable to the peons. The top cadre in fascist societies still need the peons while they’re out of power - after that they can choose which peons to slaughter, and in which order, to prolong their stay in power for as long as it lasts. In the case of the National Socialists, they chose to start with Jews, homosexuals, and Gypsies; then moved on to include Slavs during the war. This is not natural selection, this is some goose-stepping clown in a uniform checking a box and making the selection. Natural selection as applied to humans would be along the lines of the Viking settlements in Newfoundland, where the sudden cold snap caught them mentally unprepared to adapt their ways. The locals adapted and thrived, but the Vikings refused to adapt and were wiped out to a man.
Natural selection does work though if it’s left to nature; we see the fossilized evidence for it every time we go to a museum and look at animals that went extinct before man existed. About Mr. Stein being Jewish, that’s about the one point that makes me think he really did misspeak. Still has to live with what he actually said, but he does deserve the benefit of the doubt. It’s not like he’s been saying “Science is the root of all murder” for the last 20 years or something.
Blacksmith on May 1, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Except he wasn’t hanging with a friend. He was giving a tv interview to promote a movie with a very specific point of view.
As I said numerous times last night, I am open to the possibility he misspoke but he’s going to have to come out and say that.
Until then, his words are what they are and saying among other things that, “science leads you to killing people” makes him suspect as a reputable source, to put the most charitable spin on it.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Krydor on May 1, 2008 at 9:52 AM
“Back door” religion?
LOL.
You obviously don’t know why Stein produced the movie, or else you wouldn’t be making such foolish statements.
Ryan Gandy on May 1, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I have no problem reconciling my belief in science with my belief in God but when Ben goes off on Darwinism as the cause of Nazism, he makes people like me look like snake handling wing nuts. Ben’s a smarter man than that, unless this is all a marketing ploy, in which case I dip a cynical capitalist cap to him. Even so, it gives legitimate ammo to the secularists to paint anyone who believes in God as a closed minded idiot.
jnelchef on May 1, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I’m going to take you to task on this.
#1…What constitutes “most” a standard Majority?
#2…What constitutes a “branch” The bigs like PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, BIOLOGY…are things like thermodynamics, medicine, or atomic physics, or oceanography, psychology, organic chemistry, ecology… etc etc…are they twigs and don’t count in your statement? Those are some pretty major distinctions to make, and I’m not sure you really have the credentials to make them.
#3…Please name the sciences and their “founders”, and their religious affiliations please (Some of those Germans have Jewish sounding names, and some that seem Arabic (WHAT ARABS AND SCIENCE?!?!?!?!?!?INFIDEL) may in fact be Jewish or Christian as well.
Once these questions are answered, then we can decide as a whole the validity of your claim. Or you can NOT back them up, and we will assume you think Christianity is Superior to all other religions(or non religions) in terms of scientific thought…then that will put you in some pretty rare company…
Maybe you just shouldn’t post so late at night…or maybe you’re just too comfortable with everyone on this board and you “let your guard down”
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 11:38 AM
but of course a true darwnist, like dawkins would NEVER admit that God could have created anything. because darwinism redefines science to mean atheism.
“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution,” (- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History 33 (W.W. Norton 1977).)
doesn’t happen, as the tuatara demonstrates.
ah yes the standard dodge of why we can’t demosntrate evolution…but of course at the same time evolution can happen quickly:
Evolution Occurs in the Blink of an Eye
A population of butterflies has evolved in a flash on a South Pacific island to fend off a deadly parasite.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070712_butterfly_evo.html
so which is it?
again, as dawkins demonstrated, darwinists are clueless about the origin of information, they just assume life, assume information, and assume evolution. even though the fossil record does not show evolution, nor can it be demonstrated in the lab. so they have to resort to obfuscation, such as saying evolution is ‘change’.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 11:44 AM
right4life
Ah, there it is; CHANGE.
maverick muse on May 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM
why do you need to have a ‘belief’ in science?
to deny the links between darwinism, eugenics, and naziism is to deny reality. even the methodists have now apologized for supporting eugenics, and they make clear the link between eugenics and naziism.
Eugenics, the belief that certain “genetic” traits are good and others bad, is associated in the public mind mostly with the extreme eugenics policies of Adolf Hitler, which ultimately led to the Holocaust.
http://calms.umc.org/2008/Menu.aspx?type=Petition&mode=Single&number=1175
and of course darwin himself said things like:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (The Descent of Man (1871) p.201)
secularists do ti all the time anyway.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM
sooooooo science cause the Holocaust? I thought it was Jews trying to dispose of their weak and disabled in a was as to garner international sympathy…
now I’m so confrused!
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Stein argues the scientific right to THINK.
Those who refuse to allow others the right to think are in the wrong, whether in the majority or not.
Prior to our contemporary tunnel vision in Academia, prior to 1850, GENIUS was recognized in those individuals who invented a novel masterpiece, NOT a description of a man who memorizes and regurgitates and duplicates ad nauseum with nothing magnificent to show for all the effort to conform. Hence, when Darwin came up with his thoughts, the world acclaimed his “genius”. But insofar as his thoughts do not answer the initial question, and insofar as his theory is not fact in reality, those who require the entire world to conform to Darwin’s thoughts and none other do the world injustice, and stunt science, their own “god”, to the realm of a broken record.
maverick muse on May 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM
so you think Hitler just came up with this idea without any cultural context? the whole eugenics movement is applied evolution.
I agree.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 11:59 AM
now I’m so confrused!–beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 11:55 AM
You have yet to study and much to learn.
Whether or not you are very young, you are ignorant.
maverick muse on May 1, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I agree with that Ed, but I believe what Ben Stein meant is that where Science leads without God is to a Dachau, or as we see in America today, Global Warming Hysteria (twisting Science to meet their political needs). And abortion, and enviro-greeny-ism, and atheism. That’s where it’s leading NOW, in our society.
kirkill on May 1, 2008 at 12:04 PM
very true, its what passes for ’science’ these days. it reveals the totalitarian nature of those who push darwin. It has become a religion for them, and they act like radical imams, any dissent is to be crushed.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Actually Hitler took many of his antisemitic feelings from Music treatises published by Ricard Wagner decades before.
Hitler was just a pervert. He was a sick sick man, saying that Darwin is the reason for Hitler’s Holocaust is akin to saying Jesus Christ is the reason for the Inquisition.
are you willing to make that connection? I for one would be a whole lot more comfortable saying Hitler was just a sick sick man.
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Or I’m referencing another thread on the front page for some light humor…either or…..
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 12:08 PM
its obvious you have never done any research in this regard:
The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”
The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”
John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”
In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=
here, educate yourself:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/the_historical_connection_from.html
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM
the truth is often uncomfortable.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:12 PM
The problem with progressive liberals is that they are ignorant of everything, including their self-righteous INAUTHENTIC intentions. Their instant gratification cosmos is whatever they know, as little and warped as that is; and they would have us all be limited by their ignorance with them in misery. Too lazy to read history including historical sources, they adhere to word-of-mouth sourced newly doctored PC revised versions “relevant” to their inaccurate mold. They learn all from the MSM. “You can’t trust anyone over 30″ idiocy digs its own mass grave.
maverick muse on May 1, 2008 at 12:12 PM
very true. I’ve noticed the left, and have you noticed how darwinists are usually FAR LEFT, never let facts get in the way of their ideology.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:16 PM
So you are unwilling to condemn Hitler as a Mentally Ill individual? You are instead willing to blame ideas, not men for the deaths of 6 millions men women and children…well, that sounds like a liberal talking to me….”Oh Hitler wasn’t a BAD guy, but then he got into that Darwin” Puh-leeeeeeeeeeez. Why don’t you go hug the ACLU, they’re always looking for more apologists.
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Firstly, let me address 1 thing. I’m not an “ist” of ANY kind. I, unlike the VAST majority of posters on this board, am totally open to virtually any argument, and will concede points when made (That will be new).
I’m not on the left, I’m not on the right. I’m on whatever side makes sense to me on any given issue. I’m on MY side. I’m not going to be a Yankees fan simply because I live in NYC!
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Be specific! If your beef is with Dawkins, direct your criticism at him. Making false claims about the Theory of Evolution only make ID supporters look at best ignorant, at worst willfully dishonest.
No it does not! Darwinism DOES NOT SPEAK TO THE ULTIMATE ORIGINS OF LIFE! It only conflicts with theism if said theism proposes a fundamentalist young-earth deus-ex-machina creation scenario.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 12:25 PM
From trolling Wikipedia, a quote from Mr. evil* neocon mastermind himself, Leo Strauss
* I’m using evil as a compliment since our creationist friends have told me it is impossible for me to be moral.
phronesis on May 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM
you must be a lib, thats ignorant beyond belief. ideas have consequences, deal with it.
continue in your ignorance.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM
oh ok, go ahead and show me where an evolutionists attributes creation to God. you can’t.
really? so why does the NAS have a:
Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, National Research Council
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11919#toc
why does Ayala say this:
It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. (Francisco J. Ayala, “Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 104:8567–8573 (May 15, 2007).)
sure sounds like evolution deals with origins. after all the book is entitled:
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
but of course not origin of life, right.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:39 PM
The basis for ID is ultimately statistics and mathematical pattern logic. There are too many interlocking, required parts of a biological system to have occurred by chance. We can’t even build computer chips that come near to the complexity of a single cell.
Just one example… DNA was the single biggest smoking gun discounting macro evolution. Here you have a biological construct that stores MASSIVE amounts of information… so much that only recently have we been able to store an entire strand within a super-computer for analysis. But the mere presence of such organized information, in set patterns, replicated and duplicated trillions of times in a single creature, with entire organized processes for unzipping, reading the information… then creating new structures and transporting them to where they need to go… right when they’re needed…
We can’t even come close to that level of complexity and organization. Building the space shuttle… child’s play. Tracking objects throughout the solar system… even simpler. Predicting every minute change of every single stock for the next 50 years… getting closer. Duplicating the complexity and organization of just one cell… impossibly difficult.
And yet some people still think it happened by chance. Sorry, mathematical probability doesn’t work that way… and that’s how ID came about.
dominigan on May 1, 2008 at 12:39 PM
No one will ever see this but I really miss Bryan. Are Ed and AP the same person?
8straight on May 1, 2008 at 12:40 PM
it obviously does. evolution has an entire world view associated with it, no sin, no need for a savior, no redemption, no God. and the evolutionists admit this!
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
evolution is atheism, of course it is in conflict with other religions.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:41 PM
The fact that Hitler, a Catholic who never renounced his faith, used his understanding of Evolution in the form of eugenics to ‘justify’ the holocaust has no bearing on the validity of evolution as a science.
Remember the Roman church (there were no evangelicals then) used religion to justify the inquisition. Should one take that to mean that Christianity is false?
Annar on May 1, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Here’s one major flaw in that theory…all those things you say are easy and child’s play? They were impossible for thousands and thousands of years. They were unfathomable right up until the point we figured them out.
For ID to work you have to accept that understanding how a cell works will be forever beyond our intelectually ability.
Which pretty much puts you in the position of someone living 200 years ago contemplating the ‘child’s play’ that is the Space Shuttle.
Just because you or we don’t understand now it doesn’t mean there’s some supernatural power at work. It means we don’t understand it now.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 12:45 PM
its not just ’science’. its an entire worldview, and that viewpoint has consequences, terrible consequences.
evolution is not science, it cannot be duplicated, and when put to the test, fails.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/pnas;101/43/15376
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM
just more proof that evolution is a faith
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I am getting the idea you don’t understand that word proof as well as you think you do.
Scientist pursuing evolution don’t claim to know it all or that they ever will. They are simply not willing to say, ‘hey we don’t understand it now so it must be some supernatural force, let’s go home and get a beer’.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 12:49 PM
dominigan,
If life was designed, when was it designed? Does ID hold that each species was designed and created independently? Was there one creation event, or are they scattered throughout history? How did trilobites come into being, and what happened to them? Why are mammals only found in the uppermost layers of the geolocial strata?
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 12:51 PM
here’s the evolutionist’s ‘proof’
1) assume evolution
2) observe a fact
3) tell a just-so story that incorporates the fact into evolution.
when all else fails:
4) wave the magic wand of time
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:51 PM
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Why wont you say Hitler was an awful awful man? At this point that’s ALL I’m trying to get you to do, but you won’t..Do you think it will somehow weaken your argument?
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 12:52 PM
are you sure about that?
SYDNEY, Jan. 22 (AP) - (Kyodo)—Paleontologists have discovered the Australian platypus is up to 40 million years older than originally thought, making it the world’s oldest known family of mammals.
New research conducted on the fossil jaws of an ancient platypus, published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows the mammals were around at the time of the dinosaurs — as long as 120 million years ago.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UAM2HG0&show_article=1&catnum=0
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:53 PM
its like saying the sky is blue, its rather obvious.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Again, be specific! If your argument is with the “world view” of some evolutionists, then attack that world view. Making false claims about the Theory of Evolution just makes you look foolish and dishonest.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM
your inability to read and acknowledge the quotes I used to backup my position make you look ignorant. What I quoted is what evolutionists say about evolution. trying to say evolution is somehow ‘pure’ and exists apart from its supporters is foolish.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 12:59 PM
here’s another claim you won’t like
evolution is inherently racist.
the position of its supporters from darwin to watson, make it clear. inherent because the races could not evolve together, there must be one race that is more ‘fit’ than another.
and yes, Gould admits this:
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM
40 million years is the blink of an eye in geological time.
How does ID account for the fact that the platypus is not found in strata older than 120 my?
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM
but not enough time to evolve the platypus apparently.
how does evolution account for the rapid micro evolution of the tuatara, without any macro evolution taking place?
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM
and how do you know they won’t find any platypus in strata older than 120 my?? since it was just pushed back another 40……
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Evolution, both the theory and the fact does not even address the cause of life, and as such is in no conflict with creationism.
Creationism is not science, and so far, neither is abiogenesis, which is also not evolution, but which is a competing theory (or several actually) with creationism.
The problems really start to pile up when people are willing to use abiogenesis and evolution as if they were the same thing.
Defense Guy on May 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM
uh yeah thats why darwinists sue, silence, and harass any who dare disagree with them.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 1:09 PM
uh yeah thats why darwinists sue, silence, and harass any who dare disagree with them.
People do all kinds of crazy things, sometimes because they have been led to believe that evolution does address the start of life or that there is any valid science regarding that topic. Fact is, so far there just isn’t.
Defense Guy on May 1, 2008 at 1:14 PM
That’s all very nice but in the post you responded to I didn’t make a case for evolution, I attacked a version of ID offered by dominiganat 12:39 PM. You ignored that and decided to attack some argument I didn’t make.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 1:17 PM
You seemed so reticent to state the obvious.
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Populations of organisms only change when their econiche changes. Apparently the platypus has found a stable econiche and stuck with it (like the coleocanth and other so-called “living fossils”)
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM
That’s another nifty little trick. Gould doesn’t say those arguments are right, he simply notes they have been made. Yet you use it as proof that he ‘admits’ that evolution is inherently racist.
Just more cheap and dishonest debating tactics.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM
So come on, ID fans. I’m still waiting to hear your version of the origin of species. Let’s see which theory fits the facts better.
Where did the platypus come from, and why are they never found in pre-cambrian strata?
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Cause god didn’t put them there…duuuuh….
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Hitler was not a Catholic, perhaps in early life but just read Mein Kampf and the things he said about Christianity while in power. His religion was darwinism, he took it to its logical conclusion.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Populations of organisms only change when their econiche changes.
Yes, however, in order for this to work, it requires that individuals within that population change beforehand (genetic aberations) and that those whose aberations are beneficial to a particular econiche change are those that will be best suited to pass on their change/aberation to the next generation. So, if this is true you should be able to see at least somewhat great diversity among individuals within any given population, and in cases where the change/aberation is physically observable, it might show up in the fossil record as well.
So has it? I’m asking honestly, because I don’t know.
Defense Guy on May 1, 2008 at 1:25 PM
other than his book, “orgin of species” and all?
the amount of dishonest spin to try and legitimize the neo-darwinian religion is amazing.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 1:27 PM
So come on, ID fans. I’m still waiting to hear your version of the origin of species. Let’s see which theory fits the facts better.
As a scientific field of study, I am not an ID fan, simply because it isn’t science. So then, what is YOUR theory of the origin of the species and how is it scientifically superior to the theory of creationism?
Defense Guy on May 1, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Species, not life.
beefytee on May 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM
@ Professor Blather
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
Excellent nome de plume. Very relevant.
Before you make claims of fact, try doing a bit of research first. And not preaching from an ill-informed position of dogma would also be of help.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Of course, searching for documented examples of macroevolution would be too much to ask would it not?
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Origin of SPECIES - not life itself! The origin of life is a completely different question adressed by the Theory of Abiogenesis (among others).
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 12 »