Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. Punnett, for example, showed mathematically that the fundamental claims of eugenics were wrong. Morgan, once a eugenist, refuted the idea that defective alleles could be removed from a population by eugenic measures, and even showed that it was impossible to identify such alleles in most cases.

Um, no. Punnett refuted classical eugenics, not Darwinism.

Your people still thought that such a thing was possible. But as you see, Darwinists had shown that such a thing was not possible.

“My people” never thought anything of the kind…stop making judgments about who I am and how I think.

Non-scientists. Your people. My people debunked eugenics. And BTW, you seem perfectly happy making up stories about what scientists thought, even after seeing all sorts of evidence that it’s false.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, not part of modern eugenics, which makes no such claims. All it can do is show the relative risk of reproduction under some circumstances. The rest is the province of doctors, lawyers, and politicians. If you want to change it, why waste your time on people who didn’t do it?

Sorry, it was all excuses why it wasn’t really their fault. But they could have listened to the Darwinists, who showed that it wouldn’t work.

After the attacks of the Darwinists, classical eugenics was dead as a science. All that is left is genetic counseling. The eugenicists after that, were lawyers, politicians, and theologians. But no scientist of any consequence supported it, and certainly no Darwinian.

Probably because lawyers, politicians, and theologians have more influence on society than scientists.

They need scientists to give them the basis for their policies…

If they did, your people would have tossed eugenics out in the trash. As you learned, scientists completely debunked eugenics.

Barbarian observes:
I showed you that they have. Punnett, Morgan, Muller, and many others demonstrated that it was a foolish idea. Gould, in “The Mismeasure of Man” showed this again, and forcefully demonstrated why it was wrong.

The eugenics movement was thoroughly discredited by the Darwinists by 1930. Modern scientists from time to time have refuted the idiocies like “The Bell Curve” when they have appeared. At some point, you have to make an accommodation to reality.

Perhaps they aren’t as knowledgeable as scientists. BTW, genetic counseling is a very good thing. It can prevent all sorts of horrible disorders. If one carries a common recessive gene for a genetic disorder, then one can consider the hazards if one’s intended spouse has it.

Why not just accept what God wants for a person/ Would Ray Charles have been the musician he was if he had been cured of blindness.

Charles wasn’t genetically blind. And I don’t think God wants us to bring children into the world with terrible disorders, if we can avoid it.

And certainly you would agree no child should be aborted because of some possible genetic defect.

I don’t think children conceived during rape or incest should be aborted either. But I don’t think that we should do those things. There’s a big difference between preventing such pregnancies and aborting them.

As for the church and Darwinism:

Both Gnostic and divinizing visions are incompatible with the Biblical doctrine of creation. The greatest stumbling block for antiquity was certainly the belief that God creates out of nothing, without prerequisite: ex nihilo.

God refutes the idea of life ex nihilo in Genesis; he says the earth brought forth living things. Creation of the universe was ex nihilo, but that is not how God created all things.

The conclusion to be drawn is that neither the Church nor science should fear the truth, for, as Jesus says, the truth sets us free (cf. John 8:32).

So now you know the truth about eugenics. If you accept it, you will be free of this dark prejudice against scientists, who actually fought the evil you fear so much.

Perhaps we are talking past eachother Barbarian…

No, you have been taught an awful libel against science, which debunked the arguments that the Nazis used. Accept the truth and go on.

when you talk disrespectfully about people of faith

If people of faith are wrong, they are wrong. Being a person of faith myself, I thing people of faith are right in the most important issue of our existence. But they can still be wrong, and repeat the most dreadful libels. As happened in this case.

is it because you don’t believe or because you take for granted people of faith are all bunched in with the eugenics crowd?

You probably would do better, to take what I said, instead of relying on your imagination. Yes, there were theologians who bought into the eugenics program. But not because they were theologians; rather it was because they were unwilling to listen to what Darwinists like Punnett were telling them.

I don’t understand your point of view on that. I have been arguing for morality in science, science that is repectful of God’s creation and not science that crowds out God.

You can’t support God by spreading falsehoods. And I would argue that denying the claims of classical eugenics does support God.

What are you arguing for?

The truth. It matters. It should matter to you.

I still see the present situation as one in which science has denied God and all discussion of His part in cretion…even implied
participation in Creation…resulting in the modern day culture of death.

Science has no way of denying God or His creation. It can’t even talk about God.

Do you think really think mo one would listen if scientists spoke out and said “you’ve got it all wrong, stop aborting babies, stop manipulating genetics. stop sex selction, stop experimenting using human embyos”

We have. But we don’t seem to have any more influence than anyone else. Fortunately, hearts are being changed, a little at a time. And that is more sure and more permanent than changing laws.

So scientists of faith have had our part in that, as much as anyone else. But we don’t seem to have any special influence. Can we say “scientificaly, it’s wrong?” No. Because science has no way to give you values. Can we say “here is where the baby first responds to pain”, “here is where fingerprints appear”, “Here is where the baby first…” Yes. And we do. And I think it has its effect.

But none of that has anything to do with the appalling libel that Darwinists were complicit in the Holocaust. As you have learned, they debunked that kind of thinking.

And it is one of the more egregious sins that Ben Stein will someday have to account for.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Tell me more about “The Bell Curve.” I thought the people here would like that book because conservatives are against affirmative action.

I am not fond of Affirmative Action, because I think it has moved from a temporary expedient to correct past discrimination, to a permanent 2nd class status for some.

However, TBC goes far beyond that. Much of the research cited therein was funded by the Pioneer Fund, a rightwing and racist organization that was deeply involved in the classic eugenics movement. One “scientist” whose results are touted in the book has concluded that a man’s IQ is inversely proportional to, um, the size of a certain anatomical feature. I’m not sure I should link to that here…, but PM me, if you want a source.

They tout the Yerkes Army studies, which purported to show that whites were “genetically superior” to blacks in intelligence. What they didn’t say was that the same studies showed that northern blacks were “genetically superior” in intelligence to southern whites. (I’m being sarcastic, of course; the study showed the difference in education, not innate intelligence)

If you want to read a thorough trashing of the euginics nonsense, read Stephen Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man.” Well worth the time. Hey, another Darwinist against eugenics!

Reading that book is not something I recommend… for me it is one of the most unpleasant intellectual odysseys on can embark upon.

I never got through it. It was the most poisonous mishmash of misrepresented science and deception I’ve ever read.

 

[drpmjhess]

I am not fond of Affirmative Action, because I think it has moved from a temporary expedient to correct past discrimination, to a permanent 2nd class status for some.

You mean like straight white males?

 

[The_Barbarian]

In one sense, that’s true, but straight white males seem to be doing OK anyway. I meant that it put protected groups in a permanent 2nd class category that “need protecting.”

This tends to keep people down because of lowered expectations.

 

[drpmjhess]

In one sense, that’s true, but straight white males seem to be doing OK anyway.

Straight white males trying to get jobs in academe are not doing well.

 

[ribozyme]

I am not fond of Affirmative Action, because I think it has moved from a temporary expedient to correct past discrimination, to a permanent 2nd class status for some.

However, TBC goes far beyond that. Much of the research cited therein was funded by the Pioneer Fund, a rightwing and racist organization that was deeply involved in the classic eugenics movement. One “scientist” whose results are touted in the book has concluded that a man’s IQ is inversely proportional to, um, the size of a certain anatomical feature. I’m not sure I should link to that here…, but PM me, if you want a source.

They tout the Yerkes Army studies, which purported to show that whites were “genetically superior” to blacks in intelligence. What they didn’t say was that the same studies showed that northern blacks were “genetically superior” in intelligence to southern whites. (I’m being sarcastic, of course; the study showed the difference in education, not innate intelligence)

If you want to read a thorough trashing of the euginics nonsense, read Stephen Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man.” Well worth the time. Hey, another Darwinist against eugenics!

I never got through it. It was the most poisonous mishmash of misrepresented science and deception I’ve ever read.

Here is my favorite quote from that book:

“Putting it all together, success and failure in the American economy, and all that goes with it, are increasingly a matter of the genes that people inherit.”

I suppose those who did not get the good genes need a loving nanny state to take care of them.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually, I may know of an example of that, in a nearby medical school.

“I wasn’t a very good fit for the job. They were looking for a half-Puerto Rican, half Japanse, gay Muslim.”

• line from a 1970s sitcom.

 

[drpmjhess]

Actually, I may know of an example of that, in a nearby medical school.

“I wasn’t a very good fit for the job. They were looking for a half-Puerto Rican, half Japanse, gay Muslim.”

• line from a 1970s sitcom.

Being a Catholic can be a dangerous thing too, job-wise. I was applying for a position in a Catholic University (run by a teaching order) and was warned by a friend on the faculty that the philosophy department is so conservative they regard Aquinas as suspect (he encouraged the use of reason). The Religious Studies department is so liberal they recently hired an atheist to fill the position for “Lived Catholicism.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ribozyme’s favorite quote from TBC:

Putting it all together, success and failure in the American economy, and all that goes with it, are increasingly a matter of the genes that people inherit.

What’s astonishing is, they actually believe that. Education, work ethic, training, equal access, forget them; it’s just a matter of having the right genes.

And if you buy that, you are homozygous for the gullibility gene.

 

[Mighty_Q]

Ribozyme’s favorite quote from TBC:

Putting it all together, success and failure in the American economy, and all that goes with it, are increasingly a matter of the genes that people inherit.

What’s astonishing is, they actually believe that. Education, work ethic, training, equal access, forget them; it’s just a matter of having the right genes.

And if you buy that, you are homozygous for the gullibility gene.

Then why do poor, stupid people tend to have poor, stupid children?

 

[ribozyme]

Then why do poor, stupid people tend to have poor, stupid children?

Because no loving nanny state gives them money.

I presume Richard Herrnstein wrote that line (to me it does not seem to match up with Murray’s tone), but he talked about the American economy. In the European economies even if you fail, a loving nanny state will take care of you, and if you are unemployed you get munificent benefits and you might be put away in so-called “labor market political activities.”

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Tell me more about “The Bell Curve.” I thought the people here would like that book because conservatives are against affirmative action.

There are certain things that liberals should only talk about sparingly and the contents of that book is one of those and I have read most of that book although it made me very angry. I think many liberals agree with the contents of that book, but they are usually in the closet and sometimes lie about their own beliefs.

Reading that book is not something I recommend… for me it is one of the most unpleasant intellectual odysseys on can embark upon.

---

Wikipedia describes the 'Bell Curve" book in this way:

"The Bell Curve is a controversial, best-selling 1994 book by the late Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein and American Enterprise Institute political scientist Charles Murray. Its central point is that intelligence is a better predictor of many factors including financial income, job performance, unwed pregnancy, and crime than parents’ socioeconomic status or education level. Also, the book argued that those with high intelligence, which it called the “cognitive elite”, are becoming separated from the general population of those with average and below-average intelligence and that this was a dangerous social trend. Much of the controversy concerned Chapters 13 and 14, in which the authors wrote about the enduring racial differences in intelligence and discuss implications of those differences. The authors were reported throughout the popular press as arguing that these IQ differences are genetic, and they did indeed write in chapter 13 “It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to with racial differences.” The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, “The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved.”

“]The book draws heavily from mainstream science research. ]However, their analysis is their own. Though Richard Herrnstein had a strong background in psychology, co-author Charles Murray was not an expert in intelligence testing.[1]”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

---

OK…first Barbarian is saying the science community has broken from the Eugenics movement, then he mentions this book which apparently draws from current scientific research and echoes themes from the past eugenics movment…

I have never read the book but it sounds like something I would disagree with. However I have encountered that type of arrogant attitude in liberals who have a tendency to look down on blue collar people from my experience. I am sure it can happen with conservative well to do people as well at times. perhaps they do it uncosciously, but there is a sence that they seem themselves as
superior. certainly at some political gatherings I have attended there has been an attitude that only some people are truly intelligent enought to vote and participate in the process of government and this is stated in various ways. Usually those people are liberals.many liberals consider anyone who has religious faith as being ‘mindless’ and I have seen car stickers referring to Christians as being robots who are controlled by their church and faith.

Most conservatives I know are not of that kind of thought. If they are against affirmative action it is because they really don’t think people should be artificially helped but encouraged to work and achieve on their own merits. They really do believe all races can do it if they want to. I would see that attitude as being the opposite to the eugenics line of thinking that some races are naturally disadvataged.

BUT THE POINT HERE is that the above quote claims the
book is based on current scientific research, quite the opposite of what barbarian is saying which is that science has refuted the eugenics movement and is not supporting those ideas currently.

God Bless,
MaryJohnZ

 

[ribozyme]

Regarding The Bell Curve, it isn’t a book that only talks about the alleged genetic shortcomings of people from different groups, but it also discussed how IQ influenced the lives of white people. The IQ distribution in the white population takes the shape of a certain probability density function and it affects them too. The chapters before 13-14 did not emphasize race at all.

The book didn’t promote eugenics directly.

certainly at some political gatherings I have attended there has been an attitude that only some people are truly intelligent enought to vote and participate in the process of government and this is stated in various ways. Usually those people are liberals.many liberals consider anyone who has religious faith as being ‘mindless’ and I have seen car stickers referring to Christians as being robots who are controlled by their church and faith.

I do not think that some people are informed or intelligent enough to vote. And this might include some blue-collared people. However, they should vote as it serves to be their only political voice, and this might help the formation of policies enacted for their own benefit.

BUT THE POINT HERE is that the above quote claims the
book is based on current scientific research, quite the opposite of what barbarian is saying which is that science has refuted the eugenics movement and is not supporting those ideas currently.

You haven’t read the book… do not defend it! You truly do not know my heartrending experience which resulted from reading that book. I want to forget that content of the notorious book, but the knowledge of the contents of The Bell Curve will an officious burden for my soul as long as I live.

Why do you want to defend the contents of that book?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Then why do poor, stupid people tend to have poor, stupid children?

Because they are raised by poor, stupid parents.

Fact is, you can’t predict a person’s capabilities by the genes his parents gave him, but you can predict his capabilities by the kind of upbringing he gets.

Take the kid out of that environment (the earlier the better) and he’ll grow up differently.

Data indicates that genes are far less important than environment in determining intelligence.

Given my children, it would be flattering to think that it was genetic. But I suspect the excellent local school system was at least equally important.

And I took my kids out into the woods to find living things there, and the ones that we could safely capture, they learned by look and touch.

And we built silly mechanisms, like a catapult and a supersized kite, and a potato cannon.

And from an early age, we did “stupid penny tricks”; the game of finding as many ways as possible for stacking and dividing pennies into equal piles.

We took them on trips, saw things, did things. Talked about their schoolwork at supper, and about what was going on in the world. And they all excelled.

It’s not unique, of course; middle-class parents do this kind of thing. And poor, stupid parents don’t. Not because of genes, but because they don’t know it matters, and they don’t know how to do it. And often, can’t.

And anyone who thinks this is genetic, is kidding himself.

 

[drpmjhess]

Fact is, you can’t predict a person’s capabilities by the genes his parents gave him, but you can predict his capabilities by the kind of upbringing he gets.

Barbarian, I agree that it’s not a simple matter, but you seem a bit defensive about it being nurture, not nature, unless I’ve misread you. If things like physical size and coordination can be selected for, why can’t intelligence? I grew up in a redneck town, where the rednecks married rednecks, and their children married other rednecks’ children. About 20% of the kids left the county, became educated, married other educated people, and have smart children.

Are you saying it’s only a matter of nurture that we have smart kids? If so, why did the “smart” ones try anything they could to get out of my redneck county and into universities, and the “dumb” ones stay there? Of my grammar school graduation class, some are dead from avoidable accidents; another ended up in state penitentiary for raping our sixth grade teacher (who was already elderly when we were in her class), one is a murderer, and still others are drunks or in dead-end-jobs and dead-end-marriages with dead-end-kids.

Is it all nurture, and no nature?

Petrus

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Here is an interesting u-tube video on the educational insitutions in our country and how there is a conscious effort to manipulate and change our young people. 'Dumbing down" education has been talked about a lot and as a community college professor I can say I see the results.

I have also taught a Private Catholic Colleges and those students which come from upper middle class families are not necessarily more advanced. In fact I sometimes find far more creativiity in the blue collar students, the ‘auto mechanic’ types who give unexpected esponses which perhaps some professors would not appreciate because they are expecting a standardized, formulated
way of thinking and responding.

Anyway…barabarian forgets that there are a lot of poor families working mulitple jobs without the luxury to spend all that time with their kids. Single mothers, who became ‘single moms’ thanks to the sex ed. programs that encourage ‘safe sex’. he reveals a short sided, arrogant grasp of what is going on and total ignorance about the propaganda being pushed in our schools.

youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M

The courts have decided that the schools have a right to by-pass parental concerns in a lot of these areas. parents are losing control and ability to be the main influence in the children’s lives.

we managed to counter the effects, but I would say I am glad my kids are out of the public schools now as I just see them getting worse. And I see it coming more and more into the college environment where I work.

I am glad that Barbarian had a lot of time to be with his kids but it is not always easy for other families. Don’t judge other parents unless you walk in their shoes. A biig thing would be to work toward reversing the trend toward working mothers and allowing mothers to bond and spend time with their kids. Pope John Paul II talked about governments paying moms so they could stay home with their kids and be the main caregiver. That would be great for a lot of young mothers. We have to show respect for motherhood…a respect that has gone out the door with the proliferation of articficial birth control making motherhood, fatherhood a matter of technologies.

The State wants our kids…is trying to get them as young as possible. There is a lot of truism in the old saying 'the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world".

God Bless,
MaryJohnz

 

[ribozyme]

Anyway…barabarian forgets that there are a lot of poor families working mulitple jobs without the luxury to spend all that time with their kids. Single mothers, who became ‘single moms’ thanks to the sex ed. programs that encourage ‘safe sex’. he reveals a short sided, arrogant grasp of what is going on and total ignorance about the propaganda being pushed in our schools.

God Bless,
MaryJohnz

What poor families? I thought poor families do not work multiple jobs because they are lazy. And the reason they are poor is because that they lazy.

Well, those people aren’t suppose to exist in the conservative’s world.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, I agree that it’s not a simple matter, but you seem a bit defensive about it being nurture, not nature, unless I’ve misread you.

The problem is mainly the one alluded to earlier. If it’s genetic, there’s no point in trying to make it better, unless you go for the “eliminate defectives” kind of politics.

If we can convince ourselves that genes control behavior, then we don’t have any responsibility. Head Start? No need. Scholarship money? What for? The smart kids have affluent parents. And so on.

If things like physical size and coordination can be selected for, why can’t intelligence?

For one thing, we don’t know what intelligence is, and the data indicates that it’s an entire suite of different things that are determined by independent or even conflicting genes.

I grew up in a redneck town, where the rednecks married rednecks, and their children married other rednecks’ children.

Me too. A small one. And inbreeding became a problem. Almost everyone there is related to almost everyone else.

Are you saying it’s only a matter of nurture that we have smart kids?

Mostly. Not entirely. There are, for example, cases where a genetic defect causes retardation. And that will often be a greater factor than environment. It’s mostly in the exceptions that nature is more important than nurture.

If so, why did the “smart” ones try anything they could to get out of my redneck county and into universities, and the “dumb” ones stay there?

Mostly parents. One parent or another gave them something. Or maybe a teacher did, and got them thinking. I cherish those students for whom I saw potential, who then went on to college and success. A precious few have told me that I was the one who convinced them.

Of my grammar school graduation class, some are dead from avoidable accidents; another ended up in state penitentiary for raping our sixth grade teacher (who was already elderly when we were in her class), one is a murderer, and still others are drunks or in dead-end-jobs and dead-end-marriages with dead-end-kids.

Know the feeling. Why did you go on?

Is it all nurture, and no nature?

It’s all a matter of degree. But the evidence is that nurture is more important.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

What poor families? I thought poor families do not work multiple jobs because they are lazy. And the reason they are poor is because that they lazy.

Well, those people aren’t suppose to exist in the conservative’s world.

---

Oh, I forgot, I wasn’t suppose to show compassion was I, since I am one of those ‘unscientific religious people’ ! Sorry, I went past my stereotyped image.


There are a lot of single moms at community colleges. Women who have told me they would have liked to have been doctors but now probably won’t. Women’s liberation has done sooo much for
women, hasn’t it?

God Bless, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Here is an interesting u-tube video on the educational insitutions in our country and how there is a conscious effort to manipulate and change our young people. 'Dumbing down" education has been talked about a lot and as a community college professor I can say I see the results.

Perhaps you’re getting a bad sample. Most of the kids from my AP classes go to state schools; those who can’t get in, try to get a second chance by going to community colleges and getting their grades up.

I have also taught a Private Catholic Colleges and those students which come from upper middle class families are not necessarily more advanced.

The race is not always to the swift. But that’s where the smart money is. If you don’t think that upper middle class families give their kids a huge advantage, you’re not being realistic.

In fact I sometimes find far more creativiity in the blue collar students, the ‘auto mechanic’ types who give unexpected esponses which perhaps some professors would not appreciate because they are expecting a standardized, formulated
way of thinking and responding.

I doubt if it’s like that, even in community colleges. Most college instructors I know, like unconventional thinking.

The evidence says that the three best predictors of academic success are:

1. Mother has an advanced degree
2. Father has an advanced degree
3. Family is affluent.

Not fair, but that’s how it is.

Anyway…barabarian forgets that there are a lot of poor families working mulitple jobs without the luxury to spend all that time with their kids.

Nonsense. I grew up in a family like that. I didn’t say it was their fault. The fact that it’s not their fault is not the issue.

Single mothers, who became ‘single moms’ thanks to the sex ed. programs that encourage ‘safe sex’.

BTW, the data shows that kids who go through sex ed classes that discuss both abstinence and protection from STDs, have lower rates of STDs and pregnancies than kids from abstinence only programs. I’m not saying that I like that evidence, but there’s no point in denying it.

reveals a short sided, arrogant grasp of what is going on and total ignorance about the propaganda being pushed in our schools.

There’s no need to be hysterical about it. In fact, most schools teach abstinence, and more of them teach abstinence only. It’s why we are seeing a resurgence of pregnancy and STDs.

I am glad that Barbarian had a lot of time to be with his kids but it is not always easy for other families.

Wasn’t always easy for me, either. If you care, you make time.