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 »
and where do you think there theory came from, the Orgin of Species. From that the Big Bang theory and “lightening strking a mud puddle”, the most common explanation neo-darwinst give.
just actually watch the movie and listen to the full interviews with Stein. He states plainly Darwin himself was brilliant, its his religious followers that have taken the unproven portion of his science, the foundation, and taken it much further.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM
the larger point is that its mathematically impossible…macroevolution that is.
there is nothing unscientific about asking how the information got into DNA for example. Asking how you can scientifically get ’something from nothing’ and so forth.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Impossible is a big important word that shouldn’t be thrown around simply because you or we don’t understand something.
Yes, science is about asking and trying to answer questions but answering them by saying ‘we don’t think could have just happened so someone or something did it’ is rather unscientific.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM
“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?”
Pretty much mainstream Evolutionary theory: as life developed it gained complexity and began to specialize. Populations evolved into the diverse species we see today over billions of years (as showed in the fossil record).
I do not regard the Theory of Evolution as atheistic; as an agnostic I cannot rule out the idea of a creator who started the whole process or even guided the evolutionary process (like the monolith in 2001).
The sturm and drang over Evolution is almost completely (in my experience) caused by fundamentalists who see it as contradicting the Biblical account of creation in Genesis (although many ID proponents go to great pains to disguise this motive).
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 1:44 PM
no trick, just truth, and it hurts, doesn’t it?
oh yeah like book in the scopes trial!
At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/an_uncivic_biology.html
evolution is inherently racist. Darwin was a racist. truth hhurts
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 1:45 PM
and of course in those 120 million years their niche never changed…uh huh…but other ‘niches’ did, so basically you make evolution the intelligent designer. too funny!! evolution KNOWS when something needs evolving!!
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Are you saying that a theory should be accepted as true until there is sufficient enough time to prove it’s not? Isn’t that like saying you’re guilty until you’re proven innocent? Or which came first the chicken or the egg? And does it matter?
Yes, life has been on this earth for billions of years and although we’ve only been studying genetics in it’s current form for “a few decades”, the human race has been pontificating about the source of human existence for thousands of years. Are you trying to tell me the writings of Socrates isn’t relevant to educational study in this era? Well, to be sure, colleges are going that way, yet previous philosophers and scientists are no less relevant today than they were one thousand years ago. To say otherwise is to sound like those wonderful judges, lawyers, or politicans stating the U.S. Constitution is a ‘living’ document or outdated to the current times and requiring massaging to fit with the Modern World. I say to them: “Yea? And I still watch the movie 300 and get a tingle of hope that maybe some of our leaders will grow up to act like that.”
Sultry Beauty on May 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Of course not. Most of the evidence for Evolution is forensic in nature, because the process is too slow to observe in most circumstances.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Which religion is the correct one? Which of the commenters in this thread will your god allow into heaven when they die?
Watcher on May 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM
You either confuse, don’t understand or are willfully ignoring the difference between ‘the origins of species’ and ‘the origins of life’ and now you apply the same idiocy to the difference between ’species’ and ‘race’.
I really hope you are not representative of the typical ID or creationist supporter.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM
the fossil record does NOT show evolution, sorry.
In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21#IDA2DWZO
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM
this is the standard darwiniac line: you don’t understand.
when are you going to evovle some new lines? and yes Darwin used the term RACE in origin of the species, and he meant race, not species. and his subsequent statements, and those of his supporters, leave no doubt about the inherent racism in evolution. deal with it.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Are you a creationist?
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM
this is such a dodge. the only reason evolutionists run from abiogenesis is because the problems are so difficult. when they thought miller/urey solved it, it was a ‘triumph of evolution’ please.
its simple, either life was created or it evolved by a self-replicating molecule becoming alive somehow. to try to avoid the issue of origin is disengenuous. but its like the entire theory of evolution
1) assume life
2) assume information
3) assume evolution.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM
yes
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Thank you for the straight answer.
I think that pretty much brings to a conclusion my portion of our discussion. I see no point in discussing this kind of material with someone who believes in creationism.
It’s not because I am affraid too, I simply respect people’s faith too much to try and talk them out of it. I’ve found once someone accepts creationism, it’s simply two people speaking a different language with no hope of finding a common point to communicate with each other.
Faith and science are both very important parts of life but they have very little to do with each other and not much good comes from trying to apply one to the other. They don’t combine nicely like chocolate and peanut butter.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 2:27 PM
whats so amusing is that evolution requires faith. you cannot see it, or duplicate it, yet you believe it.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:29 PM
The fossil record shows _evidence_ of evolution.
All forms are intermediate unless they go extinct.
So you are claiming that entire populations just appear out of thin air? Explain to me the ID theoroy of the Origin of Species.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 2:30 PM
You can’t just be gracious and let it go?
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 2:30 PM
See if you can spot the flaw in this logic:
Some people who believe in evolution have expressed racist beliefs…
…therefore the theory of evolution itself is racist.
If this isn’t precisely what you meant, feel free to state your case that evolution is inherently racist in some kind of formally logical way.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Doc Mike:
Thank you for your detailed, “pro-evolution” responses to right4life. I think I benefitted from reading this comment of yours.
Setting evolution aside, do you agree that evolution cannot account for the immaterial laws of logic?
ColtsFan on May 1, 2008 at 2:35 PM
thats not what I’m saying. your flaw is your having to set up a straw man because you cannot deal with the issue.
I already have in previous posts. reading is fundamental
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:36 PM
why? because you say so? I’ve already posted data that refutes your statement. ever wonder why Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium?
Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?
Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.
I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.
http://www.powells.com/authors/gould.html
a statement of faith.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Im shocked - shocked - to find a supporter of ID is a creationist!
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Oh? Then please explain what you “really” meant when you said this:
And I will ask you again… which religion is the correct one? Which of the commenters in this thread will your god allow into heaven when they die?
Watcher on May 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Pretty much mainstream Evolutionary theory: as life developed it gained complexity and began to specialize. Populations evolved into the diverse species we see today over billions of years (as showed in the fossil record).
I think in this case our lines may be crossed. I am assuming you are referring to the origin of the species (I suppose any will do) as being an event which is different than the origin of life. Yes?
Defense Guy on May 1, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I’m not shocked to find a supporter of evolution is an atheist/agnostic.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:43 PM
You haven’t written anything to convince me that I haven’t accurately characterized your argument. If you don’t care to even try, that’s your problem…
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 2:45 PM
just what I said, evolution is inherently racist.
tell me, how many races are there?
christiantiy
Ask Him.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
watcher just quoted it.
here it is again:
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.
how many races are there?
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Correct.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Can we say that Darwinism/ID is a hot button issue on Hot Air?
kirkill on May 1, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Same show, just under a different tent.
Kind of like Climate Change and Global Warming.
MB4 on May 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM
just like evolution/atheism
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 2:55 PM
That’s not correct at all. Many religious people accept evolution.
“In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is ‘more than just a hypothesis’ and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin. “It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge’, the pope said in his message Wednesday. ‘The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory.”
Was Pope John Paul II an atheist?
MB4 on May 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Both creationism and Intelligent design make no sense unless there is a god. If the defenders of either of these ideas thinks it should be considered scientific in nature it must first give a scientific proof that god exists. A proof does not consist of simply noting that some observers don’t see how certain events could have arrived unless there is a creator. That is the same reasoning from man’s childhood that lead to the sun gods, fire gods etc.
If one chooses to accept god on faith, fine, but that has nothing to do with science.
Annar on May 1, 2008 at 3:04 PM
is Pope Benedict?
Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions,” he told a meeting of academics of different disciplines sponsored by the Paris Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
The Pope reiterated a plea, made in many speeches since his election in 2005, for mankind to be “respected as the centre of creation” and not relegated by more short-term interests.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080128.wpopescience0128/EmailBNStory/Science/
was Gould a liar?
“Darwin’s theory uses the same invisible hand, but formed into a fist as a battering ram to eliminate Paley’s God from nature. The very features that Paley used to infer not only God’s existence, but also his goodness, are, for Darwin, but spin-offs of the only real action in nature-the endless struggle among organisms for reproductive success, and the endless hecatombs of failure.” (Gould S.J., “Darwin and Paley Meet the Invisible Hand,” in “Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History,” Jonathan Cape: London, 1993, pp.149-150)
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM
then evolution makes no sense unless there is not a god
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Trivial differences in fitness don’t mean a member of any particular race has more intrinsic worth as a human being than a member of another race. Evolution isn’t some cosmic scoring system you can use to compute the exact value of a living being.
e.g. Black skin can deal with exposure to sunlight better than white skin (could be wrong, but that’s what I’ve heard). That means black skin is a nice advantage in certain environments, it doesn’t mean people with black skin are intrinsically more valuable. If you think it does, that makes you a racist, but then you could believe that without ever having heard of evolution.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 3:10 PM
oh yeah you might want to read the rest of what JPII said…..
“There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories.”
“The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought.”
“Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God.”
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM
tell that to the evolutionists.
so you admit to the ‘difference in fitness’ thanks for affirming evolution is inherently racist.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 3:13 PM
What you quoted in no way changes the meaning of what I quoted. Pope John Paul II clearly accepted evolution. He believed in other things too of course, obviously.
MB4 on May 1, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Okay.
This is just a tiny sampling of the many famous scientists who were also strong Christians and Bible believers. At the very mininum, they were creation scientists. Lists have been compiled, and the names are impressive.
Physical Astronomy - Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Electric Generator - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Chemistry - Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Law of gravity - Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Pasteurization - Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Telegraph - Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872)
Antiseptic Surgery - Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
Electric Motor - Joseph Henry (1797-1878)
Thermodynamics - Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Scientific Method - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Systematic Biology - Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
It was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose research led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison. Although men were engaged in scientific inquiry well before Christianity, the real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science. My point was that since many of our branches of science were started by Bible believing Christians, it seems rightly absurd to suggest that Ben Stein believes “science” is evil. Contrary to what Ed suggests, Ben mispoke in his interview. Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
You’re right on this one. It was late and I was tired. I know I was tired because at one point I began to imagine a bear falling into the ocean and becoming a whale, the evolution theory started to make sense to me… but then just like that, my head snapped up from my slumber, and I came back to reality.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Thanks for affirming that you are an intellectually dishonest troll.
Watcher on May 1, 2008 at 3:21 PM
MB4
But misrepresentation and quote mining proves evilution is bad!
Can you not see that!?
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Actually “Intelligent design” makes no sense unless there was a not all that good or not all that bright god.
MB4 on May 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Fitness isn’t the linear concept you seem to think it is. You can’t say “A is more fit than B,” that doesn’t make any sense. Maybe you could say, “A has a greater chance than B of surviving long enough to reproduce, given a certain environment.” But there are too many factors in modern society that have nothing to do with genetics that influence survival to even say that much.
Dude, stop trying to play gotcha and think about what I’m saying - “worth” and “fitness” are two entirely different concepts. It’s entirely consistent to both believe in evolution and to believe that all humans have intrinsic dignity and deserve respect.
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 3:25 PM
What the hell are you talking about?
What did I misrepresent?
What do you want me to do, quote nothing about Pope John Paul II unless I quote everything the man ever said? Pope John Paul II also like cats. What I quoted clearing showed that he accepted evolution. It was in response to someone equating atheism with evolution, which is clearly ridiculous, as I showed from just that one prime example.
MB4 on May 1, 2008 at 3:30 PM
MB4,
Be less defensive. The comment was about the tactics of Right4life.
I can see why you might be a bit frustrated with the mindset he/she represents.
Just keep in mind that a person who operates on such misrepresentations and quote mining as he/she does is not being, as it has been noted, intellectually honest.
Such a person has their blind faith and will denounce everything else.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I watched some of the videos from the guy (Kent Hovind)linked to in your screen name.
Are you a young Earther as well? Do you really believe there were no Neanderthals, only humans who were hundreds of years old and their skulls just grew that large over the course of their life?
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I’m never on defense, always offense.
You and I may have had one of those “failure to communicate” thingies.
What we got here is… failure to communicate.
- Captain, Road Prison 36 (Cool Hand Luke)
MB4 on May 1, 2008 at 3:39 PM
MB4,
Exactly.
Although I commend your effort, I do believe they are wasted on a person of such a mindset as right4life.
Gene Splicer on May 1, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Evolution makes no statement about how life itself began and thus is not dependent on the existence or non-existence of god.
Annar on May 1, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Still, it doesn’t mean a person cannot feel comfortable and let their guard down. You’re not going to nitpick someone’s every last word and take them out of context like the media do are you?
I don’t think he needs to come out and say he mispoke because it’s silly to think Ben Stein believes science is evil. It’s obvious he meant men corrupt science. For example, have you met Ota Benga: The man put on display in an American zoo as an example of an evolutionarily inferior race?
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 3:46 PM
the list is alot longer than that. Its no coincedence that all the major advances in science came after the Reformation in the 16th century. Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive, never have been.
one important Scientist you left off was Sir Francis Bacon - Scientific Method. a devout Christian, whose worldview and pressupositions of the world(that there is a Rational God who controls the universe, the God of the bible)…and thus past events are indicative of future events. We can wake up assured that the Sun will come up in the morning. Atheist/Naturalistic Scientist can not, yet use the Scientific Method anyway. They are Irrational.
a Naturalist/materialist Scientist would need to invent their own version of the Scientific Method. It would need the pressupostion that past events are not indicative of future events and that everything is constantly evolving and changing by pure chance. Under this view there is absolutely no logical reason to assume the Earth will continue to rotate around the sun and Scientific Laws will remain fixed. They should be evolving randomly afterall.
See David Hume’s problem of Induction.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 3:50 PM
its pretty obvious Stein was talking about Junk Science. Things like Global Warming and Eugenics. Both politiczed, both Junk Science and both are examples of a “science” pushed fwd by Scientist, shaping the worldviews of others and creating Ideologies. Which is Stein’s point, it led to the Holocaust as a “good” and its leading Al Gore to trying to destroy the economy for the “good” of the planet, etc.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 3:52 PM
YES, I am a young earth creationist, that is correct, sir. After weighing all the evidence and reviewing the creation/evolution subject thousands of times, I believe and can say with all certainty that the Bible is infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the living God. The universe was created in six literal, 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago as revealed in the creation verses of the Bible (see Mathew 19:4; Exodus 20:11; Genesis 1 & 5 etc……) The earth is not billions of years old. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing. Evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense.
Now that I’ve answered your question, answer mine. Are you an evolutionist?
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM
The Holocaust was a direct continuation of the persecution, murder, and genocide perpetrated by Christians against the Jews in Europe since the middle ages. Without science, we would never have been able to crush the axis.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Bryan Preston wrote an article he posted last year in his “God of the Genome is the God of the Bible” thread.
His point was that the Bible is completely compatible and infallible to “old earth” theories. using Einstein’s theory of relativity. i.e. 1 earth day could be millions of Universe days. It was a fascinating article.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 3:58 PM
hate to tell you but the statement:
whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God.
is totally denied by evolution. one or the other is right, both cannot be.
Dawkins has described John Paul II’s views as “fundamentally” antievolutionary, and as “obscurantist, disingenuous doublethink.”
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Hitler hated Christians, read Mein Kampf.
he was a devout Darwinist as was the whole Eugenics movement.
jp on May 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM
whats ridiculous is to deny the truth.
The real core of Darwinism . . . is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaptation, the design of the natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention. (Mayr, E., “Foreword,” in Ruse M., “Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies,” [1982], Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1983, Third Printing, pp.xi-xii)
— Ernst Mayr Ernst Mayr, evolutionary biologist
evolution equates to atheism.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Where do you think that tradition of hatred and scapegoating came from?
1205: Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that “the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord…As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ’s death set free…”
bullet 1215: The Fourth Lateran Council approved canon laws requiring that “Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress.” They also had to wear a badge in the form of a ring. This was to enable them to be easily distinguished from Christians. This practice later spread to other countries.
bullet 1227: The Synod of Narbonne required Jews to wear an oval badge. This requirement was reinstalled during the 1930’s by Hitler, who changed the oval badge to a Star of David.
bullet 1229: The Spanish inquisition starts. Later, in 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorizes the use of torture by the Inquisitors.
bullet 1236: Pope Gregory ordered that church leaders in England, France, Portugal and Spain confiscate Jewish books on the first Saturday of Lent. 1
bullet 1259: A “synod of the archdiocese in Mainz ordered Jews to wear yellow badges.” 1
bullet 1261: Duke Henry III of Brabant, Belgium, stated in his will that “Jews…must be expelled from Brabant and totally annihilated so that not a single one remains, except those who are willing to trade, like all other tradesmen, without money-lending and usury.” 2
bullet 1267: The Synod of Vienna ordered Jews to wear horned hats. Thomas Aquinas said that Jews should live in perpetual servitude.
bullet 1290: Jews are exiled from England. About 16,000 left the country.
bullet 1298: Jews were persecuted in Austria, Bavaria and Franconia. 140 Jewish communities were destroyed; more than 100,000 Jews were killed over a 6 month period.
bullet 1306: 100,000 Jews are exiled from France. They left with only the clothes on their backs, and food for only one day.
bullet 1320: 40,000 French shepherds went to Palestine on the Shepherd Crusade. On the way, 140 Jewish communities were destroyed.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM
1321: In Guienne, France, Jews were accused of having incited criminals to poison wells. 5,000 Jews were burned alive, at the stake.
bullet 1338: The councilors of Freiburg banned the performance of anti-Jewish scenes from the town’s passion play because of the lethal bloody reactions against Jews which followed the performances. 9
bullet 1347 +: The Black Death originated in the Far East. China, Mongolia, India, central Asia, and southern Russia have all been suggested as the source. 10 Mongol invaders brought it to Caffa in the Crimea (modern-day Fedodosiya). Defenders from the city later spread the disease throughout many Mediterranean ports. 11 Rats initially carried the Black Death; theyr fleas spread the disease from the rats to humans. As the plague worsened, the germs spread from human to human. In five years, the death toll had reached 25 million. In England, two centuries passed before its population levels recovered from the plague. People looked around for someone to blame. They noted that a smaller percentage of Jews than Christians caught the disease. This was undoubtedly due to the Jewish sanitary and dietary laws, which had been preserved from Old Testament times. Rumors circulated that Satan was protecting the Jews and that they were paying back the Devil by poisoning wells used by Christians. The solution was to torture, murder and burn the Jews. “In Bavaria…12,000 Jews…perished; in the small town of Erfurt…3,000; Rue Brulée…2,000 Jews; near Tours, an immense trench was dug, filled with blazing wood and in a single day 160 Jews were burned.” 5 In Strausberg 2,000 Jews were burned. In Maintz 6,000 were killed…; in Worms 400…” 3
bullet 1354: 12,000 Jews were executed in Toledo.
bullet 1374: An epidemic of possession broke out in the lower Rhine region of what is now Germany. People were seen “dancing, jumping and [engaging in] wild raving.” This was triggered by enthusiastic revels on St. John’s Day - an Christianized version of an ancient Pagan seasonal day of celebration which was still observed by the populace. The epidemic spread throughout the Rhine and in much of the Netherlands and Germany. Crowds of 500 or more dancers would be overcome together. Exorcisms were tried, but failed. Pilgrimages to the shrine of St. Vitus were tried, but this only seemed to exacerbate the problem. Finally, the rumor spread that God was angry because Christians had been excessively tolerant towards the Jews. God had cursed Europe as He did Saul when he showed mercy towards God’s enemies in the Old Testament. Jews “were plundered, tortured and murdered by tens of thousands.” The epidemic finally burned itself out two centuries later, in the late 16th century. 4
bullet 1391 : Jewish persecutions begin in Seville and in 70 other Jewish communities throughout Spain.
bullet 1394 : Jews were exiled, for the second time, from France.
bullet 1431 +: The Council of Basel “forbade Jews to go to universities, prohibited them from acting as agents in the conclusion of contracts between Christians, and required that they attend church sermons.” 5
bullet 1434: “Jewish men in Augsburg had to sew yellow buttons to their clothes. Across Europe, Jews were forced to wear a long undergarment, an overcoat with a yellow patch, bells and tall pointed yellow hats with a large button on them.” 1
bullet 1453 : The Franciscan monk, Capistrano, persuaded the King of Poland to terminate all Jewish civil rights.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 4:01 PM
1478: Spanish Jews had been heavily persecuted from the 14th century. Many had converted to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition was set up by the Church in order to detect insincere conversions. Laws were passed that prohibited the descendants of Jews or Muslims from attending university, joining religious orders, holding public office, or entering any of a long list of professions.
bullet 1492 : Jews were given the choice of being baptized as Christians or be banished from Spain. 300,000 left Spain penniless. Many migrated to Turkey, where they found tolerance among the Muslims. Others converted to Christianity but often continued to practice Judaism in secret.
bullet 1497: Jews were banished from Portugal. 20 thousand left the country rather than be baptized as Christians.
bullet 1516: The Governor of the Republic of Venice decided that Jews would be permitted to live only in one area of the city. It was located in the South Girolamo parish and was called the “Ghetto Novo.” This was the first ghetto in Europe. Hitler made use of the concept in the 1930’s.
bullet 1523: Martin Luther distributed his essay “That Jesus Was Born a Jew. ” He hoped that large numbers of Jews would convert to Christianity. They didn’t, and he began to write and preach hatred against them. Luther has been condemned in recent years for being extremely antisemitic. The charge has some merit; however he was probably typical of most Christians during his era.
bullet 1539: A passion play was forbidden in Rome because it prompted violent attacks against the city’s Jewish residents. 9
bullet 1540: Jews were exiled from Naples.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 4:01 PM
same old darwinaic lies. you just can’t deal with the truth of what evolution is. so you have to use those same old tired lies. laughable.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:01 PM
1543: In his 20’s, Martin Luther, had expected Jews to convert to Christianity in large numbers. Distressed by their reluctance, he developed a hatred for Jews, as expressed in his letters to Rev. Spalatin in 1514, when he was 31 years of age. He wrote:
“I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, as all the prophets have predicted….For they are thus given over by the wrath of God to reprobation, that they may become incorrigible, as Ecclesiastes says, for every one who is incorrigible is rendered worse rather than better by correction.” 6
In 1543, he wrote “On the Jews and their lies, On Shem Hamphoras” :
“…eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!…What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?
bullet First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire,…
bullet Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed… They ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like Gypsies.
bullet Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught.
bullet Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more…
bullet Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews…
bullet Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. All their cash and valuables of silver and gold ought to be taken from them and put aside for safe keeping…
bullet Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the axe, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses as in enjoined upon Adam’s children…
To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews.” 7
bullet 1550: Jews were exiled from Genoa and Venice.
bullet 1555-JUL-12: A Roman Catholic Papal bull, “Cum nimis absurdum,” required Jews to wear badges, and live in ghettos. They were not allowed to own property outside the ghetto. Living conditions were dreadful: over 3,000 people were forced to live in about 8 acres of land. Women had to wear a yellow veil or scarf; men had to wear a piece of yellow cloth on their hat. 8
bullet 1582: Jews were expelled from Holland.
bullet 1648-9: Chmielnicki Bogdan led an uprising against Polish rule in the Ukraine. The secondary goal of Bogdan and his followers was to exterminate all Jews in the country. The massacre began with the slaughter of about 6,000 Jews in Nemirov. Other major mass murders occurred in Tulchin, Polonnoye, Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, etc. Jewish records estimate that a total of 100,000 Jews were murdered and 300 communities destroyed.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 4:01 PM
QED
phronesis on May 1, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Educate yourself jp.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers3.htm
You think Hitler invented antisemitism? Sounds like it.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 4:03 PM
as I’ve already stated this is disingenuous. evolutionists sure does a lot of assuming…
1) assume life
2) assume information
3) assume evolution
when in doubt:
4) wave the magic wand of time
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Hitler twisted science to his own selfish purposes like Theists twist morality to theirs.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 4:05 PM
QED indeed. And they whine when you state the obvious truth that ID is a Trojan horse for creationism.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 4:05 PM
educate yourself:
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=
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/the_historical_connection_from.html
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:06 PM
I love this site.
Persecution of Jewish Physicians by the Church:
Medicine in Europe during the Middle Ages found itself restricted by the Christian Church. The church taught that it was irreligious to seek a natural cure from a physician when one could obtain supernatural help from a priest. Some church leaders criticized medical schools because they taught that diseases and disorders came from natural means and not from the evil efforts of Satan.
With medicine in such ill repute among Christians, much of the leadership by the 10th century was provided by Jews and Muslim scholars. Jews were largely responsible for founding the medical Schools at Salerno and Montpellier in the 10th century.
Pope Eugene IV, Nicholas V and Calixtus III forbade Christians from using the services of a Jewish physician. The Trullanean Council in the 8th century; Béziers Council & Alby Council in the 13th century; Avignon council & Salamanca Council in the 14th century, the Synod of Bamberg in the 15th century; the Council of Avignon in the 16th century, etc. also ordered Christians to not seek healing from Jewish physicians and surgeons. This continued even into the 17th century when the city of Hall in Würtemberg (in what is now Germany) granted some privileges to a Jewish physician “on account of his admirable experience and skill.” The clergy of Hall complained that “it were better to die with Christ than to be cured by a Jew doctor aided by the devil.”
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 4:06 PM
as evolution is for atheism
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM
wrong. he was taking evolution to its logical conclusion.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Do you want this taught in public schools and universities?
RightOFLeft on May 1, 2008 at 4:08 PM
In the general sense, yes. I qualify that simply because I do not claim to be versed in every aspect of evolutionary theory but yes, I do accept the basic tenants of it as far as I understand it.
I also accept it’s limitations and weaknesses.
I do not accept the dishonest definition some on this thread have given to the term evolutionist. I do not believe that evolution=racism or atheism or proffers an answer to the creation of life. I don’t confuse scientific theory with how people use that knowledge to build political ideologies or justify their actions.
One thing I appreciate about scientific answers is despite what others claim, scientific answers tend to be more humble and open to the idea of correction. Are there scientist who don’t fit that description? Sure. Just like their are pastors who do unchristian things. I try to separate the theory from the people.
Having watched a few of the videos you link to I have to say they are entertaining but scientifically illiterate. My favorite example being the one I sited about Neanderthals. DNA testing has pretty much proven that they are separate species from humans but that shouldn’t ruin a perfectly good story.
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Heh. Nice syntax. Go comb your eyebrows.
Did not deny that. Why choose the Jews?
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Yes, thank you jp for bringing this up.
I double checked and I think he’s 10th on the list.
Your comments are always welcome jp. Jump in any time you see fit. I appreciate the help. May the good Lord Jesus bless you forever, my friend.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 4:09 PM
but creationists don’t go sueing, silencing and harassing their opponents as you ‘tolerant’ atheist/evolutionists do.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:09 PM
after you shave your behind
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM
You knuckle draggers bore me. Science marches on while you fade away.
ronsfi on May 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM
nice talking points. too bad its not reality, as people like sternberg can attest to.
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM
you racists darwiniacs are the ones fading away. the fearful reaction of the darwiniacs shows how desperate you are!!
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Very well said.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Back when creationists were in charge they would just burn you at the stake for heresy. Ah, the good old days.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 4:15 PM
now the atheists just put in the Gulag, or the killing fields, or the gas chambers…such a momunment to evolution/atheism!
right4life on May 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM
IT’S time to equip the hotair login with a Breathalyzer.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Read Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, available in bookstores or online, e.g. http://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X
It was the amazing variety of the finches in the Galapagos Islands that led Darwin to the theory of natural selection. Biologists Rosemary and Peter Grant have spent some two decades on a single island meticulously tracking every individual bird on the island, and document amazing chances in response to changes in the environment. This is the best documentary illustration of how natural selection works that I have ever seen, and it’s eminently readable to boot.
MrLynn on May 1, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Oops! ‘chances’ should be ‘changes’.
MrLynn on May 1, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Hey, quit complaining - your Gulag obviously has DSL!
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Not sure if you buy into that jp, and I really have no desire to debate you on it, but there is no Scripture to support the idea that God used billions of years to make the world. None. There weren’t six long days of creation, billions of years, and acts of creation during those eons. The evolution theory is in complete contradiction to what the Bible teaches. Fascinating or not, he is wrong.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM
So when things are independently and repeatedly dated at anything over 6,000 years old, it’s what? A lie? A giant conspiracy?
What about DNA testing that shows Neanderthals aren’t just humans whose skulls grew so large because they lived for several hundred years?
How do you just ignore this type of facts? You don’t have to believe in evolution to believe in radiocarbon dating or DNA comparisons, do you?
Drew on May 1, 2008 at 4:55 PM
And that, precisely, is the root of the whole controversy.
Doc Mike on May 1, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I keep posting for you evilutionists that Polonium halos are solid scientific proof of the instantaneous creation spoken of in the Bible. Scientist Robert Gentry discovered them. His research was published in leading science journals. Fingerprints of Creation is a 28 minute video detailing the evidence polonium halos offer that the Earth was rapidly formed and did not cool over millions of years. A must-see for both the creationist and evil… I keep saying that, sorry, I meant, evolutionist. Grazie.
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12, 287.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 5:14 PM
No, Intelligent Design does NOT determine that understanding will be forever beyond our ability. Your premise is incorrect there.
That we do not understand all things at the moment is obvious. But whether or not there is intelligence beyond ourselves is the point. I would allow for either alternative, and not deny the possibility that there is more than the obvious to recognize. You yourself refute that concept, calling it “supernatural power”, and that is your choice to limit your element to that confine. But because you choose to deny what may well be within you does not refute that there is more to you than you are aware. You simply deny your own ability to grasp the CONCEPT that there is indeed more intelligence awaiting than what Darwinians permit to be spoken or studied or thought.
How on earth do you expect to expand your awareness if you have already blocked your vision and stopped your thought process, limited to the comfortable confines of the familiar Darwinian school? Be that way if you like, but do not require all others to be like you. Then, to add insult to injury of mind, you would denounce all who see things differently than yourself as though any difference is absolutely without merit under every and all circumstances.
Academia is practicing its own Inquisition. Why would one support that as absolutely correct politically and scientifically? Is it because one recognizes no morals other than do as told, copy your teacher’s work, and get ahead in line? This Academia Inquisition via censorship is not only the ultimate ignorance, it is a mental holocaust on creative thought. Like it or not, metaphysics exists. Life is metaphysical, not only physical. “I think, therefore I am.” To deny the existence of metaphysics would be foolishly ignorant. Neurology began with speculative thought, not just dissections. You’ve locked the door, but that does not mean there is nothing behind the door. Just allow thoughtful interchange. Accept what you will. But do not force others to conform to your personal confines.
I do not believe that Intelligent Design is the same thing as Creationism, a point made during Stein’s movie by the fellow interviewed in Paris.
maverick muse on May 1, 2008 at 5:14 PM
It seems there are two choices in the Creation vs. Evolution debate. That is, the debate over the origin of life, the universe, and everything:
1. Believe observations and logical theories supporting evolution as the best theory available.
or
2. Believe a mythological story.
It’s pretty much that simple. There isn’t evidence for a creation of life in its present forms. There is a good deal of evidence that life has common ancestors. Things such as superfluous organs, commonalities like spines, feet, etc. - these and more point towards a common origin for humans, cats, dogs, reptiles, and all life. The only evidence possible that there is a God or gods is the conviction in one person’s mind that it is so. That’s just not good enough to count as a sound theory.
But of course faith has no value unless it contradicts reality. Since faith is what gets you into Heaven (if I remember my Christian High School lessons), it’s a good thing that creationism is a matter of faith.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 1, 2008 at 5:17 PM
HUH!?!
Forensic:
1. pertaining to, connected with, or used in courts of law or public discussion and debate.
2. adapted or suited to argumentation; rhetorical.
–noun 3. forensics, (used with a singular or plural verb) the art or study of argumentation and formal debate.
Isn’t that my point? That’s what Evolutionist are, argumentative debaters who throw up some ideas that seem to suit their thesis without any empirical prove while condemning Creationist for doing the same thing.
Then their are those scientist like Albert Einstein with his theory of relativity that leads us to Quantum Physics which starts to throw the world and the universe for that matter into a tissy. Watched any of the shows on Black Holes lately? Then you start getting into mathematical equations that are now starting to lean toward the reality of a parallel universe or, in essence, the universe seems to be turning in on itself and now what do you have?
And you want me to worry about something coming from nothing creating one something on top of another such as humans coming from apes? I’m still waiting for those same ape species that have been around thousands of years longer than us to start building huts, guns, and tanks and attacking us like there’s no tomorrow. I guess without Charlton Heston there will be no Planet of the Apes. So sad.
Sultry Beauty on May 1, 2008 at 5:19 PM
I think the system is too far gone for that. There are still some godly teachers left in the schools system, but really the whole thing is so broken I don’t think it can be fixed. So I don’t think creation nor evolution should be taught to children in schools. I think parents should pull there kids out. If you as an evolutionist want to teach your children the evolution fairy, fine, send them to a private school that teaches evolution, but don’t force everyone else to pay for your religion to be taught day after day dogmatically in public schools and even refuse to treat students who disagree with evolution fairly. Same thing with Christians. Get there children out and send their children to private schools.
apacalyps on May 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 12 »