Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[The_Barbarian]

Interesting stuff it appears that Stein first denied all the stuff Woodward wrote on Watergate, insisting that there was no “deep throat” informant and that Woodward just made it up.

Later, when the identity of the informant was made clear, Stein rewrote history to accuse Felt and Woodward of fostering genocide, saying that only Nixon could have prevented the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life or the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide.
Stein, Ben: “Deep Throat and Genocide”, “The American Spectator”, June 1, 2005

In fact, Nixon’s agreement with North Vietnam sealed the fate of Cambodia and Vietnam. So Stein is an old hand at this kind of thing. His lies about scientists are just recycled propaganda. Fortunately, it doesn’t seem to be working any better in the service of creationism, than it did in the service of corrupt government.

It is particularly noteworthy that he equates exposing criminal activity to participation in genocide. It’s not Nixon’s fault for being a criminal; it’s the fault of the people who brought him to justice, see?

It mirrors his more recent defense of Larry Craig (senator arrested in an airport restroom for hitting on a security officer) in which he denounced the police as Stalinist thugs for enforcing the law.

That’s how Stein thinks. Of course, that’s close to what Nixon said too, about the people closing in on him. Did Stein write that for him, or did he make it up himself? Maybe. That remains to be seen. But we do know that they made the same arguments.

 

[Mighty_Q]

Still no example of Ben Stein lying in the speeches he wrote for Nixon.

It seems like someone else besides Mr. Stein is a bit loose when it comes to truth-telling.

 

[drpmjhess]

If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life or the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide.
Stein, Ben: “Deep Throat and Genocide”, “The American Spectator”, June 1, 2005

Barbarian, from Expelled and the way he treated scientists in my organization I had drawn the conclusion that Ben Stein was merely a harmless idiot. From what you are saying it appears he may be more sinister than that.

Petrus

 

[The_Barbarian]

As you see, there is abundant evidence that Stein lied. As you know, Nixon lied repeatedly in his speeches. Stein wrote speeches for him.

As you see, Stein repeated the same lies Nixon told.

If you still think that there’s no reason to believe he lied for Nixon as he has for everything else, I’d say you were in rather serious denial.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If he had a bit of charisma, he could truly be dangerous.

I can imagine him railing against the “Dover Diktat.”

 

[MaryJohnZ]

barbarian keeps bringing up Nixon as an example of ultimate evil and corrupt conscience and yet he dances around the Nazi death camps as if they were nothing, or at least on an equal basis to the evil of wire taping, in doing this barbarian is not serious and not showing a sincere concern here about confronting and turning away from true evil.

Barbarian is very careful, about what he responds to and he never answers the questions he receives, he merely throws up smoke screens by diverting attention and putting others on the defensive.
Again, there is no serious concern about confronting and correcting evil.

I am terribly bored with references to speeches made by Ben Stein during the Nizon era. We could point to a lot of terrible speeches including Reverand Wright’s terrible cursing of America in recent days,…but it doesn’t address the situation we are trying to dicuss: Does the science community have a moral obligation before God and their fellow men to work in methods and towards ends which consistently uphold the dignity of life at every stage.
The Nazi propaganda would not have been legitimate without backing from false science. Nazi scientists would not have performed terrible mutilations and indignaties on humans without
the permission of a society that had bought into eugenics.
And today we have a similiar situation. Scientists act without regard for the dignity of the person and fail to speak out in public forums providing the information to fashion public policies which would protect women, children and families.

Science bereft of any conscience is a formula for death.

If scientists do not harken to the call to reform they will pay the same price someday that the scientists from the Nazi regime paid. Already many young women who are being given the Morning After Pill in Europe and are being told ’ you will pass something that looks like a blob of jelly’, and then are seeing a tiny little baby come out instead, How long can that kind of lie
go on without some large law suits and some kind of awakening.

Don’t talk about Nixon and lies…women have been lied to by the medical profession for decades now. Confront what is real for once Barbarian, stop equivacating and throwing up smoke.

In Christ,

MaryJohnZore

 

[The_Barbarian]

barbarian keeps bringing up Nixon as an example of ultimate evil and corrupt conscience

Another false accusation? Be honest. I never said that. Nixon was corrupt and evil, but he isn’t even the most corrupt president in US history, much less the world. Please don’t make up things I never said.

and yet he dances around the Nazi death camps as if they were nothing,

And another falsehood. I just pointed out some of the horrors. I can’t see how anyone would think they weren’t.

or at least on an equal basis to the evil of wire taping,

And yet another falsehood. Repeat. Please don’t make up things I never said. I’m beginning to see why might like Ben Stein. You seem to have the same ethical code.

Barbarian is very careful, about what he responds to and he never answers the questions he receives, he merely throws up smoke screens by diverting attention and putting others on the defensive.

That is, Barbarian declined to pick up on the bunny trail you opened. The subject at hand is Stein’s numerous dishonesties. Start a thread on abortion if you want to talk about it.

Again, there is no serious concern about confronting and correcting evil.

For you, maybe. As you see, the rest of us consider it to be a concern.

I am terribly bored with references to speeches made by Ben Stein during the Nizon era.

Those statements were very recent ones. Stein continues to claim that the people who exposed Nixon are complicit in genocide. This is is claim:

1. Only Nixon could have prevented genocide in Cambodia
2. People exposed Nixon’s crimes, which lead to his resignation
3. Hence, they are complicit in genocide.

Look at his defense of Craig’s homosexual overtures to a security officer in an airport restroom:

1. Craig might have signalled for sex, but we weren’t there
2. No sex actually took place
3. Therefore the police are Stalinist thugs.
4. Besides, Barney Craig is homosexual and he wasn’t arrested.
   (Stein apparently doesn’t think cruising in a public restroom, or soliciting sex from strangers were factors in the case)

We could point to a lot of terrible speeches including Reverand Wright’s terrible cursing of America in recent days,…

So why do you deplore the Wright’s false accusations, and condone Stein’s false accusations?

The issue in this thread is whether or not Stein lied when he claimed scientists told his family to go into the gas chambers. The answer is; “yes, he did.”

Wright’s claims are also despicable,

The Nazi propaganda would not have been legitimate without backing from false science.

It wasn’t legitimate at all. As you learned, Darwinists showed that it was based on false science, well before Hitler came to power. ID wouldn’t have any base, if it wasn’t for false science, either.

Nazi scientists would not have performed terrible mutilations and indignaties on humans without the permission of a society that had bought into eugenics.

True. Darwinists like Punnett were largely ignored. IDers ignore legitimate science today. Same problem.

Science bereft of any conscience is a formula for death.

Any human activity, bereft of any conscience is a formula for death. This is why scientists say that one cannot derive values or ethics from science. That must come from other things.

Don’t talk about Nixon and lies…

We should never forget crimes by our leaders. It is a massive betrayal and the one thing we must always be vigilant against.

Find a new thread to talk about abortion. I agree with you that it is a terrible tragedy and intrinsically evil. But that is not an excuse for Benjamin Stein’s evil.

 

[ribozyme]

I found this quote about killing people:

As Coulter well knows, the misuse of an idea for evil purposes does not mean that idea is wrong. In fact, she accuses liberals of making this very error: She attacks them for worrying that the message of racial inequality conveyed by the book The Bell Curve could promote genocide: “Only liberals could interpret a statement that people have varying IQs as a call to start killing people.” Back at you, Ann: Only conservatives could interpret a statement that species evolved as a call to start killing people.

powells.com/review/2006_08_10

I’ve tried to forget about that book. Evolutionary biology does not require us to kill people. And The Bell Curve does not require us to kill people; the low IQ people need a managerial state to take care of them - not death. Some liberals might misinterpret books such as The Bell Curve, just as some conservatives might misinterpret evolutionary biology.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ann Coulter writes:
Only liberals could interpret a statement that people have varying IQs as a call to start killing people

Hitler did. But perhaps, Ann Coulter, thinks Hitler was a liberal.

Compared to Ann Coulter, he might have been.

 

[drpmjhess]

I am terribly bored with references to speeches made by Ben Stein during the Nizon era. We could point to a lot of terrible speeches including Reverand Wright’s terrible cursing of America in recent days,…but it doesn’t address the situation we are trying to dicuss: Does the science community have a moral obligation before God and their fellow men to work in methods and towards ends which consistently uphold the dignity of life at every stage.

I am terribly bored with your linking Darwin to abortion! Why not link Darwin to drunken driving for a change, or tiger attacks at zoos, or the skyrocketing suicide rate of returning Irag veterans? Or can you only think of one topic to discuss?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

This page had a good video making the link between Darwin and Nazism:

The Nazi Darwin Connection

thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/from-darwin-to-hitlerideas-have-consequences/

The importance of Ben Stein’s movie was not just to discuss ID Vs Evolution, but the consequence of scientists who remove God and morality from their area of study and thus bring about ideologies that allow for immoral policies and practices.
I am glad that Barbarian has agreed that this is true, in science and any area.

Well, one of those consequences is the present situation in our culture, a culture of death. The complete denial that science has anything to do with that situation makes this discussion merely about a historical perspective. If the topic is as stated: “Science leads to killing people”, then I believe abortion is a part of that discussion because that is what modern science has brought us to. I see it as a continuation of the Nazi agenda. If you can’t see the conncection and relevance, then I believe you missed the point of Ben Stein’s film.

God Bless, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the question of ‘evolution’ being presented as the sole explanation for how life developed in this piece from the EWTN library. In it he seems to stress that you cannot disallow for other viewpoints like ID and that philosophy is a part of this debate as well as the formulation of the way evolution is presented and understood by different camps.
An Excerpt From “Truth and Tolerance”
ewtn.com/library/Theology/zrtzevolution.HTM
"There is at any rate no getting around the dispute about the extent of the claims of the doctrine of evolution as a fundamental philosophy and about the exclusive validity of the positive method as the sole indicator of systematic knowledge and of rationality. This dispute has therefore to be approached objectively and with a willingness to listen, by both sides — something that has hitherto been undertaken only to a limited extent. No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes. R. Junker and S. Scherer, in their “critical reader” on evolution, have this to say: “Many examples of such developmental steps [microevolutionary processes] are known to us from natural processes of variation and development. The research done on them by evolutionary biologists produced significant knowledge of the adaptive capacity of living systems, which seems marvelous.”

They tell us, accordingly, that one would therefore be quite justified in describing the research of early development as the reigning monarch among biological disciplines. It is not toward that point, therefore, that a believer will direct the questions he puts to modern rationality but rather toward the development of evolutionary theory into a generalized “philosophia universalis,” which claims to constitute a universal explanation of reality and is unwilling to allow the continuing existence of any other level of thinking. Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmary and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: “There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.”

The rest of the article can be accessed at the link above.
God Bless, maryJohnZ

 

[buffalo]

Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the question of ‘evolution’ being presented as the sole explanation for how life developed in this piece from the EWTN library. In it he seems to stress that you cannot disallow for other viewpoints like ID and that philosophy is a part of this debate as well as the formulation of the way evolution is presented and understood by different camps.
An Excerpt From “Truth and Tolerance”
ewtn.com/library/Theology/zrtzevolution.HTM
"There is at any rate no getting around the dispute about the extent of the claims of the doctrine of evolution as a fundamental philosophy and about the exclusive validity of the positive method as the sole indicator of systematic knowledge and of rationality. This dispute has therefore to be approached objectively and with a willingness to listen, by both sides — something that has hitherto been undertaken only to a limited extent. No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes. R. Junker and S. Scherer, in their “critical reader” on evolution, have this to say: “Many examples of such developmental steps [microevolutionary processes] are known to us from natural processes of variation and development. The research done on them by evolutionary biologists produced significant knowledge of the adaptive capacity of living systems, which seems marvelous.”

They tell us, accordingly, that one would therefore be quite justified in describing the research of early development as the reigning monarch among biological disciplines. It is not toward that point, therefore, that a believer will direct the questions he puts to modern rationality but rather toward the development of evolutionary theory into a generalized “philosophia universalis,” which claims to constitute a universal explanation of reality and is unwilling to allow the continuing existence of any other level of thinking. Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmary and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: “There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.”

The rest of the article can be accessed at the link above.
God Bless, maryJohnZ

Mary,

We cannot let facts like this get in the way now.

 

[reggieM]

Pope Benedict saith:

… evolutionary theory … claims to constitute a universal explanation of reality and is unwilling to allow the continuing existence of any other level of thinking. …

The Holy Father must be reading posts on CAF in his spare time.

Szathmary and Maynard Smith … nonetheless declare that: “There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.”

But some are trying to convince the public that there is no room to question or doubt the claims of Darwinian theory. ???

 

[The_Barbarian]

The importance of Ben Stein’s movie was not just to discuss ID Vs Evolution, but the consequence of scientists who remove God and morality from their area of study and thus bring about ideologies that allow for immoral policies and practices.

It’s a stupid idea from the start. You might as well criticize plumbers for not including morality in their plumbing manuals. The people who try to get morality from science (as scientists have continually warned people) will commit great evil. Science is about nature. And anyone who thinks nature is a great place to get morals and ethics is in for serious evil.

I am glad that Barbarian has agreed that this is true,

Barbarian told you quite the opposite. It is a very foolish idea to seek morality in nature. And Barbarian is a bit tired of your continual misrepresentations.

The complete denial that science has anything to do with that situation

Scientists didn’t decide to allow abortions. Politicians and the voters who elected them, and the judges appointed by the politicians did. Guilt often feels better when we can find a scapegoat. But that one won’t work for you.

“Science leads to killing people”

Evil leads to killing people. Who’s stupid enough to actually believe that science is the cause?

then I believe abortion is a part of that discussion because that is what modern science has brought us to.

That’s a nasty slander, um? Abortions are far, far older than science. Ovid wrote about it. You have an unhealthy obsession with abortion and blame. Don’t try to find scapegoats; do something.

I see it as a continuation of the Nazi agenda.

For some, any lie will do. But in fact, as you learned earlier, Darwinists showed conclusively that the Nazi agenda would not work. And Darwin himself declared that all humans, no matter who the were, deserved freedom and dignity.

If you can’t see the conncection and relevance, then I believe you missed the point of Ben Stein’s film.

I see the connection, all right. Stein has made a tin-plated copy of Triumph of the Will. As his mentor said, if you say a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it.

 

[ricmat]

Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the question of ‘evolution’ being presented as the sole explanation for how life developed in this piece from the EWTN library. In it he seems to stress that you cannot disallow for other viewpoints like ID and that philosophy is a part of this debate as well as the formulation of the way evolution is presented and understood by different camps.
An Excerpt From “Truth and Tolerance”
ewtn.com/library/Theology/zrtzevolution.HTM

snip…

Mary - the Church has not condemned ID. The Church has condemned certain forms of evolution (not all), as described below.

The US Catholic Catechism for Adults is a document created by the Church specifically for the purpose of instruction of Catholics.

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.”

This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

 

[The_Barbarian]

There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens."

In fact, if Darwin’s theory is correct, it should sometimes become simpler. He presented a great deal of evidence for this in his book.

But some are trying to convince the public that there is no room to question or doubt the claims of Darwinian theory. ???

There are entire journals dedicated to work on unresolved questions in evolutionary theory, as there are for all sciences.

But that isn’t one of them. Wouldn’t you be more effective against science, if you knew what it was?

 

[buffalo]

In the name of science
The role of biologists in Nazi atrocities: lessons for today’s scientists

Racial prejudice is as old as mankind. It is one of the dark sides of man that we tend to decrease the value of others in order to raise ourselves. And at some point in history, prejudice found a faithful servant in science. Scientific theories and arguments were used to support the inferiority of other races, thereby legitimising crimes committed throughout history and all over the world. They were used in the United States to justify slavery and the Indian wars, as well as later for the sterlisation of disabled people. The emergence of eugenics as an ‘applied science’ culminated in the horrendous atrocities committed by the Nazis during the Third Reich. Society was to be cleaned of all alien contamination, hence the German phrase ‘Rassenhygiene’ meaning ‘racial hygiene’. Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and people with hereditary diseases were deprived of their human rights, herded into concentration camps, used for scientific experimentation and murdered. And the scientists who provided the scientific backing were respected university professors or researchers of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWS), the predecessor of the Max Planck Society. Many of them remained in renowned positions even after 1945, influential enough to delay an unbiased historical confrontation.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1084095

more…

 

[reggieM]

In fact, if Darwin’s theory is correct, it should sometimes become simpler. He presented a great deal of evidence for this in his book.

It’s good to see that you offer the possiblity that it is not correct.

I said: “Some are trying to convince the public that there is no room to question or doubt the claims of Darwinian theory. ???”

You replied:

There are entire journals dedicated to work on unresolved questions in evolutionary theory, as there are for all sciences.

But that isn’t one of them. Wouldn’t you be more effective against science, if you knew what it was?

Yes, I’d really like to know about the unresolved questions in evolutionary theory that give good reason to question and doubt the theory itself.

Please feel free to post as much of that as you can.

Wouldn’t you like to help me learn about all the weaknesses of evolutionary theory so I could be even more convinced that it is false?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Racial prejudice is as old as mankind. It is one of the dark sides of man that we tend to decrease the value of others in order to raise ourselves.

Some times, it even causes people to invent things about those they fear and envy.

And at some point in history, prejudice found a faithful servant in science.

Yeah, like that. Darwin, as you probably know, despised slavery, and denounced the predatory behavior of his countrymen against less technological cultures.

Scientific theories and arguments were used to support the inferiority of other races, thereby legitimising crimes committed throughout history and all over the world.

Christianity was used the same way. As recent as the 1990s, ID/creationists were writing about the alleged inferiority of blacks.

They were used in the United States to justify slavery and the Indian wars, as well as later for the sterlisation of disabled people.

The Southern Baptists, as you might know, were founded because of a schism over slavery. They owe their existence to a theology that saw slavery as God’s way. If you think such things are a reflection on Christianity, then you are at least consistent in your thinking. But I’d have to disagree with you.

The emergence of eugenics as an ‘applied science’

By 1920, Darwinists like Punnett had demolished the idea of removing “defectives” as a rational idea. There are eugenic ideas like genetic counseling, that are rational, but the sort of things the Nazis did were completely at odds with Darwinian genetics.

culminated in the horrendous atrocities committed by the Nazis during the Third Reich.

Which were largely the same as proposed by Martin Luther. Hardly from science.

Society was to be cleaned of all alien contamination, hence the German phrase ‘Rassenhygiene’ meaning ‘racial hygiene’.

See above. This was in contradiction to the findings of Darwinian science. It can’t possibly work, even if they knew what genes they wanted to eliminate.

Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and people with hereditary diseases were deprived of their human rights, herded into concentration camps, used for scientific experimentation and murdered.

As William Shirer noted, not scientists but quack doctors.

And the scientists who provided the scientific backing were respected university professors or researchers of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWS), the predecessor of the Max Planck Society.

Names and what they did would be important here. It’s telling that this information is not forthcoming. Not much different than Stein’s lie that scientists ordered his family into the gas chambers, is it?

When do you think you can provide us the particulars on this accusation?