Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[jaxson]

corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=

In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said the following amazing thing in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr.

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. 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.

(Full video here tbn.org/video_portal/)*

 

[brycelaliberte]

Garrr!

This is only going to deeper convict those who believe science and religion are exclusive entities, that evolution is exclusive to creation, etc.

Is it possible to get a prominent public figure who will explain that religion and science are absolutely not exclusive? Even if its obvious, someone needs to dismiss the idea that religion and science can’t work together.

 

[jaxson]

Garrr!

This is only going to deeper convict those who believe science and religion are exclusive entities, that evolution is exclusive to creation, etc.

Is it possible to get a prominent public figure who will explain that religion and science are absolutely not exclusive? Even if its obvious, someone needs to dismiss the idea that religion and science can’t work together.

Didn’t not just one but several Popes write what you are requesting?

 

[brycelaliberte]

Didn’t not just one but several Popes write what you are requesting?

I know I know, but listening to the Pope would make too much sense. Perhaps if Paris Hilton were to make such a statement, people would listen. (For two reasons; what she would’ve said made sense, and that she opened her mouth)

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Garrr!

This is only going to deeper convict those who believe science and religion are exclusive entities, that evolution is exclusive to creation, etc.

Is it possible to get a prominent public figure who will explain that religion and science are absolutely not exclusive? Even if its obvious, someone needs to dismiss the idea that religion and science can’t work together.

Unfortunately, it’s the scientists who don’t want to hear that. Remember, Pope Benedict was recently banished from speaking at a university for that very reason.

And I agree w/ Stein to a degree: science not tempered by faith, allowed to proceed unchecked, does lead to death. The Nazi’s are the obvious example, but in our own time we have embryonic stem cell research, abortion (not only new and more horrific procedures, but in many cases chosen due to scientific advances in prenatal diagnosis), and the infamous Peter Singer, advocating killing anyone deemed a “burden” or “unuseful” from a purely scientific/utilitarian standpoint. I have a beef w/ Stein appearing on TBN. If he wants to maintain some credibility, he should go on EWTN and have a discussion about religion and science. There are several shows (“Franciscan University Presents” comes to mind, but there are others) that would be ideal. He could even appear w/ Fr. Eutenhauer.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[jaxson]

Unfortunately, it’s the scientists who don’t want to hear that. Remember, Pope Benedict was recently banished from speaking at a university for that very reason.

And I agree w/ Stein to a degree: science not tempered by faith, allowed to proceed unchecked, does lead to death. The Nazi’s are the obvious example, but in our own time we have embryonic stem cell research, abortion (not only new and more horrific procedures, but in many cases chosen due to scientific advances in prenatal diagnosis), and the infamous Peter Singer, advocating killing anyone deemed a “burden” or “unuseful” from a purely scientific/utilitarian standpoint. I have a beef w/ Stein appearing on TBN. If he wants to maintain some credibility, he should go on EWTN and have a discussion about religion and science. There are several shows (“Franciscan University Presents” comes to mind, but there are others) that would be ideal. He could even appear w/ Fr. Eutenhauer.

In Christ,

Ellen

Go on EWTN? You are assuming that Stein is reasonable when it comes to Faith & Science, but this quote of his just proved he is not, and no h would not go on EWTN, at minimum because he Catholics have committed the shocking heresy in his mind of actually the possibility of some forms of evolution and believing that the Earth can actually be more than 3000 years old!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Stein’s statement is just about the craziest thing I’ve heard from anyone not under supervised care.

It would be easy to just assume Stein has gone off the deep end without water wings. But remember this guy was with Nixon through McCarthyism, Watergate, etc.

He’s just found a new way to make his talent for viciousness pay off.

 

[SeekerJen]

As a Catholic scientist, I am deeply offended and angered by Stein’s diatribe, and will now boycott his film. I hope all other religious scientists and anyone else who believes that science is a valuable tool for understanding our world will do the same. Thank you for bringing his disturbing beliefs to our attention.

 

[Orogeny]

That’s not the first time he has made ridiculous statements. The week before his “documentary” opened at theaters, he was on every national talk show that I listen to and his main talking points on every single one of those shows was connecting science to the holocaust. He made it clear that science, or as he likes to put it “big science” is evil and the reason we have atrocities in society.

Peace

Tim

 

[MaryJohnZ]

That’s not the first time he has made ridiculous statements. The week before his “documentary” opened at theaters, he was on every national talk show that I listen to and his main talking points on every single one of those shows was connecting science to the holocaust. He made it clear that science, or as he likes to put it “big science” is evil and the reason we have atrocities in society.

Peace

Tim

I watched ben Stein’s documentary and I believe he was very unbiased in his approach. he went to all sides seeking answers. He interviewed everyone and answered reasonable questions. I swa nothing in his approach that was ridiculous. I thought he was being as open as he could to scientists from different view points.
In the end he showed science is not as open to questions as it should be if it really wants to find answers. That is a fair assesment. I am sorry that you are being closed minded and unable to hear his point of view.As soon as any area of academic study puts itself above reproach there is a danger that it will wither and progress falsely or not at all. Shows how important the virtue of ‘humility’ is in all endeavors.

I think everyone should see his movie, because it makes excellent points. The link he made between Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger and racial eugenics was and is true. No one is willing to talk about that…and we NEED to talk about that.

The purgrative process rquires a sincere desire for truth and sometimes that means facing what faults honestly. I think he is only asking the science community to do that.

MaryJohnz

 

[ribozyme]

I think everyone should see his movie, because it makes excellent points. The link he made between Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger and racial eugenics was and is true. No one is willing to talk about that…and we NEED to talk about that.

The purgrative process rquires a sincere desire for truth and sometimes that means facing what faults honestly. I think he is only asking the science community to do that.

MaryJohnz

Darwinian evolution does not automatically mandate a “survival of the fittest” sense of morality.

For example, Peter Singer stated in A Darwinian Left:

A Darwinian left would: Accept that there is such a thing as human nature, and seek to find out more about it, so that policies can be grounded on the best available evidence of what human beings are like; Reject any inference from what is ‘natural’ to what is ‘right’; Expect that, under different social and economic systems, many people will act competitively in order to enhance their own status, gain a position of power, and/or advance their interests and those of their kin; Expect that, regardless of the social and economic system in which they live, most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation; Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends; Recognize that the way in which we exploit nonhuman animals is a legacy of a pre-Darwinian past that exaggerated the gulf between humans and other animals, and therefore work towards a higher moral status for nonhuman animals, and a less anthropocentric view of our dominance over nature; Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them.

I haven’t read that book yet (although I read Singer’s groundbreaking book Practical Ethics and The Way We Eat), although when we do learn about human nature, we do find some unpleasant aspects about it. For example, humans do not have an inherent tendency towards egalitarianism and possess a propensity for ingroup bias. This, unfortunately, will make it extremely difficult to defeat racism and deconstruct unjust social/economic hierarchies. I do not see how human nature is compatable with the notion of a teleological worldview.

 

[Orogeny]

I watched ben Stein’s documentary and I believe he was very unbiased in his approach. he went to all sides seeking answers. He interviewed everyone and answered reasonable questions. I swa nothing in his approach that was ridiculous. I thought he was being as open as he could to scientists from different view points.

Sorry, but that isn’t true. How many Christian scientists who reject ID were in the film?

In the end he showed science is not as open to questions as it should be if it really wants to find answers. That is a fair assesment. I am sorry that you are being closed minded and unable to hear his point of view.As soon as any area of academic study puts itself above reproach there is a danger that it will wither and progress falsely or not at all. Shows how important the virtue of ‘humility’ is in all endeavors.

His point of view is propaganda. He didn’t give you the whole picture, only that which he wanted you to see.

I think everyone should see his movie, because it makes excellent points. The link he made between Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger and racial eugenics was and is true. No one is willing to talk about that…and we NEED to talk about that.

That is all that is being talked about! He has not, at least in the interviews I heard him give, given ANY scientific evidence for ID or ANY scientific evidence against evolution. He has pulled out the guilt by association card to try and make evolution and those that accept the science behind it to be evil.

The purgrative process rquires a sincere desire for truth and sometimes that means facing what faults honestly. I think he is only asking the science community to do that.

A couple of comments on this. If you really think that the scientific community doesn’t do this, you don’t know science at all. Second, Stein doesn’t want you to “face the faults” honestly or he would have included people like Kenneth Miller in his “documentary”.

Peace

Tim

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Anything without the Church can and often will lead to horrifying results. The Church has always known this and does usually act upon that knowledge. I do not know why an intelligent man like Ben Stein would go on TBN. I do not know if the above statements were taken out of context or not. They do seem absolutist. Yet science or politics without the guidance of religion often leads to horrifying results. Does anyone seriously doubt that?

CDL

 

[The_Barbarian]

**Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them. **

In sort, libertarian. The essential notion of Marxism is the perfectability of Man. This is why Darwin was banned from the Soviet Union. Man can overcome his natural state, but he cannot remove it.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Sorry, but that isn’t true. How many Christian scientists who reject ID were in the film?His point of view is propaganda. He didn’t give you the whole picture, only that which he wanted you to see.That is all that is being talked about! He has not, at least in the interviews I heard him give, given ANY scientific evidence for ID or ANY scientific evidence against evolution. He has pulled out the guilt by association card to try and make evolution and those that accept the science behind it to be evil.A couple of comments on this. If you really think that the scientific community doesn’t do this, you don’t know science at all. Second, Stein doesn’t want you to “face the faults” honestly or he would have included people like Kenneth Miller in his “documentary”.

Peace

Tim

Dear Tim, I am not a scientist, but my daughter is training as an archeology student at Mercyhurst in PA and she agreed that the science community is not as open to questions as it should be. believe me she has heard the Darwinian view in her classes.

I am sure there are extremist on the Creationist side, but I felt Ben Stein was merely asking for the science community to be open to putting ALL questions out on the table. That was what I walked away with as a non-scientist.

And as to him discussing Planned Parenthood and eugenics, it was a breathe of fresh air!..I haven’t seen that openly discussed anywhere in the main stream media. It was healing for me to hear someone say it and that by itself made the movie worthwhile.

The fact that I could only go see this movie in one theater in the entire area of Southern New Hampshire further points out how prejudiced people are and threatened by someone bringing out these points. Michael Moore and his ilke never had such problems gettying his ‘documentaries’ in the theaters and I doubt they had half the value of Ben Stein’s film. It opened a discussion…or it could open a discussion, if it were allowed to be heard. from what I saw, it was being allowed.

maryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

I watched ben Stein’s documentary and I believe he was very unbiased in his approach. he went to all sides seeking answers.

Like any good propagandist, he carefully avoided showing the majority of Darwinians (who are theists) and focused only on Darwinian atheists.

As you know, he desperately wants to portray Darwinism as atheism, and it would have completely invalidated his argument if, for example, he included Ken Miller.

He’s done a bad parody of Michael Moore. Whatever truth is in his film has been polluted by his numerous dishonesties.

 

[jaxson]

Look people, newsflash: Almost EVERYONE 100 years ago was on the eugenics bandwagon. Religious, non-religious, black or white, whatever political persuasion… back in those days you can find promotion of certain eugenic ideals from everyone from scientists to business men to Popes and so forth. It’s like how blood letting for many centuries was a universal accepted practice and fact.

 

[Orogeny]

Dear Tim, I am not a scientist, but my daughter is training as an archeology student at Mercyhurst in PA and she agreed that the science community is not as open to questions as it should be. believe me she has heard the Darwinian view in her classes.

Ask your daughter if she has ever been to a scientific conference. If she has, she knows how questioning science is.

I am sure there are extremist on the Creationist side, but I felt Ben Stein was merely asking for the science community to be open to putting ALL questions out on the table. That was what I walked away with as a non-scientist.

What questions are not allowed? God? If you know of any science that can detect God, bring it up. It will be discussed.

What about those who want to teach palm reading is physiology classes? Should we be open to that? What about astrology in astrophysics departments? Be careful what you ask for when you ask that ALL questions be put on the table. Remember, a lot of those questions have been asked and answered.

Peace

Tim

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Actually I think the title for this forum is a bit “propagandist” as it implies that Ben Stein’s general message was that 'science is evil; and I don’t think he said that at all…

He just said all questions should be out on the table.

The comments comparing Michael Moore and ben Stein did not address the fact that Michael Morre’s films were in theaters, despite the fact they were pure propaganda while ben Steins have been blocked in my area at least, and I believe that is because Planned parenthood practically runs our schools and is a huge poilitical player in our legilslature. I have friends who have described their presence like “coven of witches”…gleeful over every anti-life decision. That scares me much more than Ben Stein’s movie. i believe it, as I have seen these people in action.

 

[Humanum_Genus]

Darwinian evolution does not automatically mandate a “survival of the fittest” sense of morality.

For example, Peter Singer stated in A Darwinian Left:

I haven’t read that book yet (although I read Singer’s groundbreaking book Practical Ethics and The Way We Eat), although when we do learn about human nature, we do find some unpleasant aspects about it. For example, humans do not have an inherent tendency towards egalitarianism and possess a propensity for ingroup bias. This, unfortunately, will make it extremely difficult to defeat racism and deconstruct unjust social/economic hierarchies. I do not see how human nature is compatable with the notion of a teleological worldview.

You’re quoting a wacko like peter singer now?

Peter Singer is one demonic creature, who has no respect for human life whatsoever.

Ben Stein is far more credible than Peter Singer will ever be.