Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian, I absolutely agree that philosophy is an important part of any education. But as I’m sure you know, scientists acting as scientists are not competent to rule on philosophical issues like personhood; they may certainly do so as philosophers. Gunmakers as designers of cop-killer bullets are not competent to rule on philosophical issues like murder. They may certainly do so as philosophers.

Petrus

Petrus,

It is hard for me to understand what you are saying here. Gunmakers who design bullets to penetrat different materials are acting under the presumption that those bullets would be used by law abiding citizens. I am sure they do not want to see them kill anyone, but at the same time they understand that not everyone is law abiding, in which case gune can be for protection and self defense. Their decision to be involved in making those bullets would have to be done along with full range of knowledge that the bullets could be used for good or for evil. If the bullet maker felt that the possibility of creating those bullets would be more harmful than good, then they would have a personal responsibility to not participate in the creation of the bullet, from my point of view… That would be a matter of conscience. Any person’s consciences should be involved in their work situation. I think they are as equally able to decide those things as anyone and they should consider what the bullets would be used for. So I believe that this is a situation where morality and technical ability should both be a part of the equartion.

In the same way a scientist need to consider what his research is bringing about, the morality of how his research is carried out and the implications of how he presents his materials. Any scientist who does not consider the moral implications of a method or outcome in their area of research would be acting irresponsibly. I cannot see how and why these two areas are so consistently divided from each other in your posts.

From Ben Stein’s point of view the scientist who put forward the theories of eugenics must have been acting with some knowledge of what might come from those theories. Sceintists who promote Darwinism must be clear that they are not drawing any conclusions about where matter comes from, nor are they excluding the possibility of a Creator. Unfortunately it seems like that is how their work is being interpreted. When i see a fish the words 'Darwin" written inside it on the back of a car I draw the conclusion that person has replaced the Christian ‘fish’, symbol of belief if God, with a materialistic view. If that is not the case, then why choose a symbol so apparently drawn from Christian iconography? Perhaps the science community should be more clear about the limitations of Darwinism and evolution inorder to show that they don’t rule out God.

God Bless,

maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian, I absolutely agree that philosophy is an important part of any education. But as I’m sure you know, scientists acting as scientists are not competent to rule on philosophical issues like personhood; they may certainly do so as philosophers. Gunmakers as designers of cop-killer bullets are not competent to rule on philosophical issues like murder. They may certainly do so as philosophers.

Petrus

Petrus,

I just saw a reference to Theology as the “Queen of Sciences”.

“[T]heology . . . may find itself the one discipline capable of integrating the otherwise unconnected disciplines that constitute the modern university. . . . ‘the purpose of the university is to find love at the heart of all things, for love is the cause of the world. This does not mean that the study of atoms is going to show that love rather than neutrons and protons is to be found. Rather, once the atomic structure has been explicated the question of how such ordering analogically facilitates the possibilities of love, harmony, beauty, and truth is vital, and is another way of recognizing the ethical and methodological dimensions of the disciplines.’” Stanley Hauerwas, “Theology as Knowledge: A Symposium” First Things (May 2006)

And in reference to barbarians post about interdiciplinary study, and scientists in the past including philosophy as a part of their course of studies…

when did this tradition change? Seems like a more healthy, wholistic way to approach education and life.

God luck on your papers…going out to PA for my daughters graduation from mercyhurst. She is n official archeologist now!

God Bless,
MaryJohnz

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Also noteworthy is the fact that key public defenders of Darwin involved in the Dover trial who were featured in PBS’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” documentary have strong ties to secular humanist groups. For example, Eugenie Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. She is also a public signer of the Third Humanist Manifesto, an aggressive statement of the humanist agenda to **create a world with “without supernaturalism” **based upon the view that “[h]umans are… the result of unguided evolutionary change” and the universe is “self-existing.”5 Similarly, Dover plaintiffs’ expert Barbara Forrest, also featured in the PBS show, is a long time board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association.

Indeed, PBS-NOVA’s star theistic evolutionary biologist Ken Miller has claimed in five editions of his textbooks that evolution works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”7 Two additional editions of Miller’s textbooks state: “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products.”8 Harvard paleontologist and author Richard Lewontin explains how this materialism is an overriding assumption propping Darwinian thought:

"[W]e have a prior commitment … to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to … produce material explanations… [T]hat materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."9

Finally, **leading Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse admits that “for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned … akin to being a secular religion” **whose main doctrine is “a commitment to a kind of naturalism.” Is it possible that there is more propping up the support of Darwinism than the mere empirical evidence?

Reggie,

I am glad to see you here! Thank goodness someone else has the same feeling about this area. Since I am not a scientist though my arguing can be very clumsy.

I found it interesting in that the other article I quoted from mentioned that one of the skeletons they worked with and which they drew an image from of what the early ancestor of man probably looked like was based on the fact the skeleton showed that the early man was hunched over. Turns out that later they analyzed the bones and showed they were ridilled with arthritist causing the possbly stooped posture and making the conclusions and early drawing of the man, as an ‘evolving creature learning to stand upright’, possibly an erroneaous interpretation.

The way madern man thinks tend to disintegarte and anayze things by breaking them down to individual parts, rather than integrating them. I believe we need to begin to integrate fields of knowledge if we really want truth.

From wikipedia on 'Theology" as the Queen of Sciences:

*During the High Middle Ages theology was therefore the ultimate subject at universities, being named “The Queen of the Sciences”, and serving as the capstone to the Trivium and Quadrivium that young men were expected to study. This meant that the other subjects (including Philosophy) existed primarily to help with theological thought.

With the Enlightenment, universities began to change, teaching a wide range of subjects, especially in Germany, and from a Humanistic perspective. Theology was no longer the principal subject and Universities existed for many purposes, not only to train Clergy for established churches. Theology thus became unusual as the only subject to maintain a confessional basis in otherwise secular establishments. *

Maybe this is one area we need to re trace our steps and go back to making Theology our ‘capstone’…

God Bless,
maryJohnZ

 

[reggieM]

Hi MaryJohnZ - thanks for your kind greeting.

I am glad to see you here! Thank goodness someone else has the same feeling about this area. Since I am not a scientist though my arguing can be very clumsy.

I think your arguments here are quite clear to me. Also, please be encouraged that there are more of us who see things this way than it might seem on this forum (where the loudest voices give uncritical praise to Darwinism and ridicule to the idea that anyone could question the supposed results of this accidental, materialistic process).

Turns out that later they analyzed the bones and showed they were ridilled with arthritist causing the possbly stooped posture and making the conclusions and early drawing of the man, as an ‘evolving creature learning to stand upright’, possibly an erroneaous interpretation.

This happens quite frequently, although it never gets any real press coverage and Darwinists do everything they can to create a smoke-screen to obscure the problem. But the fact is, these so-called “facts” of evolution are overturned constantly. I’ll show that (yet again) in my next post. We are told that “evolution is more certain than gravity” but then we see evolutionary claims “reconsidered” (in other words, refuted and dismissed) without ever hearing an apology for presenting evolution as if it could not be criticized or questioned at all.

The way madern man thinks tend to disintegarte and anayze things by breaking them down to individual parts, rather than integrating them. I believe we need to begin to integrate fields of knowledge if we really want truth.

That is an excellent point and one that we can build our spiritual and mental health on. It’s defintitely true – science breaks things apart and then studies separate components. This is why evolutionists make such glaring and ridiculous errors – because they don’t step back and look at the whole (they would have to put reality back together again to do that). They look at the individual part and conjecture about how it “might have” evolved. Some scientists who have looked that the whole fabric of nature have rejected Darwinism since accidental results can’t explain the diversity and harmony of nature.

Maybe this is one area we need to re trace our steps and go back to making Theology our ‘capstone’…

I fully agree. Our society has allowed science to dictate to theology. But theology comes first in the order of knowledge. Having first a true understanding of the nature of God and His creation, we can then do good science. Without God as the author of nature, science will continue to result in moral monstrosities as we see so often.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s an example of what I was talking about. Prior to 1970, we were assured that “evolution is a fact” without having any evolutionary understanding of “prokaryotes” (early bacteria). Then a method for claiming that those bacteria evolved was invented, and it was claimed that everything was fine – evolution was still a fact and nobody could be permitted to question it.

But then, a mere 10 years later, it was discovered that none of the claims about those bacteria were correct. The predictions made about how they supposedly evolved were falsified and scientists concluded that the “tree of life” that supposedly showed everything emerging from a common ancestor, was entirely wrong.

Again, no apologies were issued. Nobody pointed out that science had been perpuating a fraud of sorts – claiming an evolutionary path as true when it hadn’t been proven at all.

Today we still hear the same thing, even though this major problem with the tree of life remains.

The following is an extract from a science journal that explains the problem. Following that, I posted some blog comments that give further explaination.

The prokaryotic tree of life: past, present . . . and future?

James O. McInerney, James A. Cotton and Davide Pisani

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(5), May 2008, Pages 276-281.

Abstract: No accepted phylogenetic scheme for prokaryotes emerged until the late 1970s. Prior to that, **it was assumed **that there was a phylogenetic tree uniting all prokaryotes, but no suitable data were available for its construction. For 20 years, through the 1980s and 1990s, rRNA phylogenies were the gold standard. However, beginning in the last decade, findings from genomic data have challenged this new consensus. Gene trees can conflict greatly, and strains of the same species **can differ enormously **in genome content. Horizontal gene transfer is now known to be a significant influence on genome evolution. The next decade is likely to resolve whether or not we retain the centuries-old metaphor of the tree for all of life.

From the article above:
“The minimal assumption for the existence of a prokaryotic tree is the existence of a core set of non-transferable (i.e. vertically inherited) genes, but evidence suggests that such a core set of genes cannot exist.”

“Evidence accumulating during the 1990s and the earliest years of the new millennium seemed to suggest that there was no tree of life.”

“The new uncertainty at the end of the last century was different from that of half a century before. Prior to the molecular era, the absence of data caused uncertainty. With the arrival of complete genomes [my addition: e.g. a massive increase of information], uncertainty was not anymore caused by lack of data. Instead, now the very existence of the universal tree of life was on trial.”

-------------------------- blog comments ----------------------------

A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life’s early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn’t clarify the picture of how life’s major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing… Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the beginnings of life’s three kingdoms… When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But “nothing could be further from the truth,” says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well…

Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois, admits that the concept of “phylogeny” has lost its meaning in the face of molecular findings in this way:

No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.

In short, as molecular biology advances, the homology concept loses more ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses.

The **presumption **that everything has evolved from an original self-replicating cell needs to be tested, not accepted as the unchallenged default.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents;

Rabbits are not rodents, and were never considered to be rodents. They are lagomorphs, an entirely different group, and yes, they are closely related to primates as are rodents. DNA testing (which has a higher “resolution”), shows glires (rodents and lagomorphs) to be included in a clade with primates, tree shrews, and flying lemurs. Protein sequences are much shorter than DNA and so for closely related organisms they can give misleading results.

a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates;

No, but it did put echinoderms and chordates in the same clade, which is not surprising, since they are both deuterostomes and other animals are protostomes. The larvae of echinoderms are remarkably like primitive chordates, and biologists had long known that they were more closely related to each other than to other animals.

and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses.

Of course. Cows and whales are artiodactyls, and horses are perissodactyls. Ungulates are polyphyletic; the two groups are no more related than rabbits and primates. Again, based on anatomical data, such as digestive systems, biologists knew that whales were closely related to even-toed ungulates.

And molecular biology has confirmed these findings.

Were we always right, based on anatomy? No. Vultures, for example, turned out to be polyphyletic, with the Old World and New World vultures being not particularly closely related.

And lesser pandas turn out to be in a clade with raccoons, with giant pandas in the bear clade (both groups form a clade with other carnivores in the outgroup)

But whoever fed you that stuff was either deliberately taking advantage of you or (more likely) was as clueless as the people he misled about these things.

BTW, the discovery that protists easily share genes by lateral gene transfer does make any phylogeny very difficult to confirm within the bacteria or archae. Such gene transfer is much less common among eukaryotes, but it greatly complicates the taxonomy of bacteria and other prokaryotes.

 

[drpmjhess]

BTW, the discovery that protists easily share genes by lateral gene transfer does make any phylogeny very difficult to confirm within the bacteria or archae. Such gene transfer is much less common among eukaryotes, but it greatly complicates the taxonomy of bacteria and other prokaryotes.

Barbarian, I feel like I’m privileged to be sitting in your master’s seminar when I read your posts!

Petrus

 

[reggieM]

Were we always right, based on anatomy? No.

A point well taken. “You” were not always right based on anatomy and many other factors. Those who criticized the theory on that basis and objected to the errors being presented as fact were proven correct.

The same holds true today. As the item I posted made clear, there are significant gaps in understanding the data that supposedly supports evolutionary theory. This has “confounded” scientists and has lead to a complete rethinking of the theory (in some cases).

We read about the major conference scheduled this summer where evolutionary theory will supposedly be “reformulated” (PhilVaz posted it).

Again, it’s too simple to point out that a “theory which is more certain than the law of gravity” shouldn’t need this kind of major “rethinking” unless it had some serious problems as it stands.

Of course science improves and changes direction over time. But this is precisely why critics of current evolutionary notions should not be ridiculed – or better said, defenders of Darwinian evolution should more openly admit (as you have here) that “we were not always right”.

I keep in mind that the vehement assertions about the “truth” of evolution were given before these “challenges” appeared that caused the theory to be “reconsidered”.

An objective observer can conclude that much of what is claimed as “fact” today, which supposedly cannot be questioned at all – will be “reconsidered” in the future and eventually dismissed.

As the article regarding the Tree of Life confusion spelled out, even the notion of tracing a common ancestor to the first bacterial life forms is impossible to consider for some scientists who are investigating that.

Again, it’s a radical departure from the “certainties” that were proposed a mere 15 years ago.

 

[drpmjhess]

Of course science improves and changes direction over time. But this is precisely why critics of current evolutionary notions should not be ridiculed – or better said, defenders of Darwinian evolution should more openly admit (as you have here) that “we were not always right”…

Biology is a lively field, with many disputes about how evolution works. Controversies abound at conferences and in journals. Critics of current thinking are welcomed, not ridiculed, if they have something substantive to contribute. But IDers just sit around lamenting about being marginalized, and saying that evolution is too complex to understand, and that there are too many gaps that we really need to fill with God. It’s understandable why these people are ignored by productive scientists, including my priest colleagues.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Biology is a lively field, with many disputes about how evolution works. Controversies abound at conferences and in journals. Critics of current thinking are welcomed, not ridiculed, if they have something substantive to contribute. But IDers just sit around lamenting about being marginalized, and saying that evolution is too complex to understand, and that there are too many gaps that we really need to fill with God. It’s understandable why these people are ignored by productive scientists, including my priest colleagues.

Petrus

Physics sees the elegant beauty in Math and sees design. Quantum theory points to God. Biology ins’t quite there yet.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Physics sees the elegant beauty in Math and sees design.

The vast majority of physicists don’t see design. Maybe they know more about physics than you do?

Quantum theory points to God.

Sounds interesting. Show me the numbers in quantum calculations.

Biology ins’t quite there yet.

Did it occur to you that maybe the reason science finds no design in nature is that it was created, not designed?

That seems to be the consensus among theists who actually study nature. Why settle for the little designer demiurge of the Unification Church, when you can have the real Creator?

 

[buffalo]

The vast majority of physicists don’t see design. Maybe they know more about physics than you do?

Sounds interesting. Show me the numbers in quantum calculations.

Did it occur to you that maybe the reason science finds no design in nature is that it was created, not designed?

That seems to be the consensus among theists who actually study nature. Why settle for the little designer demiurge of the Unification Church, when you can have the real Creator?

I will rephrase - physics sees a mind.

 

[The_Barbarian]

A point well taken. “You” were not always right based on anatomy and many other factors.

Of course. Science is, like any human activity, imperfect, and subject to errors. The remarkable thing is, how very accurate anatomy and paleontology were in determining phylogenies. As you learned, there were a few minor errors, such as in vultures and pandas. But if you compare DNA phylogenies to those obtained by anatomical data, you are immediately struck by the almost perfect fit, down to the level of families. This is, BTW, another reason people consider evolution to be a fact; confirmation by diverse sources of data is very compelling.

Those who criticized the theory on that basis and objected to the errors being presented as fact were proven correct.

No, no creationist I know about challenged either of these cases, until legitimate scientists found them. They did challenge the idea of whales and fish with legs, feathered dinosaurs, and the like. But all these were later confirmed to exist. Just because one horse won the race, doesn’t mean they get paid if they bet on a horse that lost.

The same holds true today. As the item I posted made clear, there are significant gaps in understanding the data that supposedly supports evolutionary theory. This has “confounded” scientists and has lead to a complete rethinking of the theory (in some cases).

So it is always. As time goes on, errors are corrected, and new data enlarges our understanding. This probably seems like cheating to creationists, who simply deny data that challenges their beliefs. But science continues to grow and change as the evidence requires.

We read about the major conference scheduled this summer where evolutionary theory will supposedly be “reformulated” (PhilVaz posted it).

Let’s make this interesting; I’ll bet you a chocolate chip cookie that none of the four basic elements of Darwin’s original theory will be changed in that or any other conference this summer. Do we have a bet?

Again, it’s too simple to point out that a “theory which is more certain than the law of gravity” shouldn’t need this kind of major “rethinking” unless it had some serious problems as it stands.

All theories, including gravitational theory have serious problems. Entire journals are dedicated to the problems in such things. But as you know, evolutionary theory is more certain than the law of gravity, because unlike gravity, the cause of evolution is known.

Of course science improves and changes direction over time. But this is precisely why critics of current evolutionary notions should not be ridiculed – or better said, defenders of Darwinian evolution should more openly admit (as you have here) that “we were not always right”.

We weren’t precisely right about the shape of the Earth, either (it is very slightly pear shaped) but that doesn’t mean we take flat earthers seriously. Likewise, revisions in the theory of evolution don’t mean that creationism is worthy of respect.

I keep in mind that the vehement assertions about the “truth” of evolution were given before these “challenges” appeared that caused the theory to be “reconsidered”.

Many flat earthers kept in mind the assertions of the truth of a round earth, before the actual shape was reconsidered. They still don’t get any respect. Can you see why.

Having a degree in bacteriology, I can assure you that they lied to you about the “certainty” expressed about bacterial evolution. It’s always been difficult. Pick up a current Bergey’s Manual, and take a look. The first edition, in 1923, compared to my seventh edition (reprinted in 1969) and the current one show that the difficulties continue. Again, you’d be more effective against science, if you knew something about it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I will rephrase - physics sees a mind.

Physics has no means to see a mind. Physicists do, if they are theists.

Science is too weak a method to support your faith. Look for other things to do that.

 

[buffalo]

Physics has no means to see a mind. Physicists do, if they are theists.

Science is too weak a method to support your faith. Look for other things to do that.

I do not need science to support my faith. True science however, will support my faith for they flow from the very same God.

 

[huckleberry]

Truly, Ben Stein is the scum of the earth. He is either stupid or deliberately evil. To say that science “leads” to immoral action is hilariously moronic. Science is neutral. People can take ideas from scientific inquiry, and then use these ideas to justify using force against others people. Duh! Certain religions posit that the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the progeny… and thus Jews get persecuted. Would Stein impugn Christianity because evil things have been done it its name?

People have been killed by snakes because they “followed” certain bible verses. Does Stein opine that this de-merits the bible?

Compared to religion, science is the more honest and humble pursuit. Science does not claim to know absolute answeres about god or anything at all, for that matter. Science is always open to new evidence. Science admits to the fallibility of humans and systematically tries to get clean results, at all times wary of bias. Whereas religion is built upon blind faith.

 

[buffalo]

Truly, Ben Stein is the scum of the earth. He is either stupid or deliberately evil. To say that science “leads” to immoral action is hilariously moronic. Science is neutral. People can take ideas from scientific inquiry, and then use these ideas to justify using force against others people. Duh! Certain religions posit that the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the progeny… and thus Jews get persecuted. Would Stein impugn Christianity because evil things have been done it its name?

People have been killed by snakes because they “followed” certain bible verses. Does Stein opine that this de-merits the bible?

Compared to religion, science is the more honest and humble pursuit. Science does not claim to know absolute answeres about god or anything at all, for that matter. Science is always open to new evidence. Science admits to the fallibility of humans and systematically tries to get clean results, at all times wary of bias. Whereas religion is built upon blind faith.

I didn’t see the movie so you can slap me down if needed. Perhaps he is claiming that science gives more power to people to do more harm.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What he said was that scientists were telling his relatives to go into the gas chambers.

It’s possible that he’s deranged and simply lives in some kind of dark Luddite fantasy, but other than that, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that he’s evil. That’s a lie of Nixonian proportions.

But then, his job was to write lies for Nixon. Hard to break old habits, I guess.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I do not need science to support my faith.

Then why not just accept it as He chose to do it?

 

[anamchrist]

One could also make the statement that religion kills people and there would be plenty of basis for that from ancient times up to the present day.