Ben Stein withdraws as UVM commencement speaker after outcry over intelligent design

Here’s yet another version of Science=Hitler, you are a neo-luddite. The theory set the world aflame with discussion and was debated discussed disected all across the world. There’s a reason it won favor, and that reason was centuries of continuing discoveries and proofs that all support the theory. There’s a reason those “arguments” are long discarded. Should we resurrect the arguments for a flat earth while we are at it?

Obviously you have a deficient education since your instructors never taught you the futility of reading into statements things that aren’t there.

Lets break down your statements here by their most important points:

The theory set the world aflame with discussion and was debated discussed disected all across the world.

The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Darwin died in 1882, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. The debate was over well before his death.

Gentlemen scientist of his day were already predisposed to evolutionary arguments through the work of men like Lamarke, Hooker and Lyell. The only challenge to Darwin’s theory was the details of Natural Selection, not the overarching theory itself. All previous evolutionary arguments had, at some level, acknowledged religious possibilities of intervention by a higher power. In that regard they were very simular to the ID theories being given today.

Darwin was the first to postulate a theory of evolution that was completely devoid of the possibility of God. This was a (pardon the pun) Godsend for Gentlemen of the day, because a watered down version of the anti-religious sentiment that made the Terror so terrible had made its way into Protestantism, particularly in England. Hume and other philosophers were challenging religious belief, and politicians were questioning the role of religion in public and political life. Darwinism was jumped at without any serious challenge to the theory, only challenges to the details of how it worked. Even Wilberforce wasn’t arguing against evolution, just Darwinism’s non-deistic aspects.

There’s a reason it won favor, and that reason was centuries of continuing discoveries and proofs that all support the theory.

Nooooooooooo… The reason it won favor was the fact that scientists of the day were not specialists in one field, but jacks of all trades.

A “proper gentleman” was expected to dabble in different fields of science, art, literature, and politics. What happened is Darwin’s theory was found to be adaptable to other fields of study. In some cases there is some use, say sociology, for looking at possible cultural traits in a Darwinian light.

But in a few cases, the application and modification of Darwin’s theory proved disasterous. The worst was in the field of Eugenics and Social Darwinism. But those weren’t the only ones; Marx sent a copy of Das Kapital to Darwin for endorsement, because he saw possible application of Darwinian theory to economics.

There’s a reason those “arguments” are long discarded.

Yes, and its an illegitimate one at that. And that is my point. Darwinian theory was insulated from the kind of scientific rigor that was needed to hone the argument to a fine edge while flaking away the rust. It never had a real challenge, and ID provides us with a chance to give Darwin a run for his money.

But that would upset the applecart, and we can’t have that, can we? Michael Ruse wrote a paper once in which he stated that some evidence for the development of diferentiation of species pointed in a non-materialist direction, but that exploring that avenue further was unacceptable. Why? If that is the direction the evidence led why not explore it? That is what science is SUPPOSED to do, right?

Not when the left over residual politics of the 19th century are still intertwined with the theory of evolution. And wanting to get rid of THAT is most CERTAINLY an NON-LUDDITE attitude. Numbnutz.

papabryant on February 4, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Wrong, there’s been observable speciation in our lifetimes.

Speciation primer

Wrong, this is nothing more than an attempt to re-define the term.

papabryant on February 4, 2009 at 11:58 AM