Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaxson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
well that is a problem then isn’t it since eugenics can still be part of the science community for some scientists…
Is there a way to correct that in your opinion?

In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
You’ll be surprised that many people actually practice “eugenics” and I suppose that many on this Catholic venue are actually “eugenicists.”

Yes, believing in “eugenics” as an ethically acceptable policy goal is compatible with being a scientist. Just don’t mistake “eugenicists” as people who want to use coerced sterilization and engage in pograms. Many advocates of “eugenics” vehemently reject those methods.

Personally, I wonder what the barbarian will have to say about Nozick’s advocacy of free-market eugenics. I think barbarian likes Nozick. That’s someone who thought eugenics was ethically acceptable and didn’t use a utilitarian justification, but opted for a deontological ethical system.
 
Yes, the truth does matter, and yous way of posting greatly confuses truth as you fail to differentiate between what I am saying and different pieces of quotes from the sources I post.
If you disagree with them, make that clear. Otherwise, we will have to conclude you cite them because you agree with them.
First…you saying that because you can find other philosophies in human history that resemble eugenics
Um, the eugenics program was there long before the modern era. The Spartans practiced it. The Nazi program was essentially promoted by Martin Luther in “The Jews and Their Lies.” “Resemble” is hardly the truth; those things were eugenics.
that those are the original source for the the horrific events of the the Nazi racial cleansing programs, the eugenics laws in some of the staes in the US, the Klu Klux Klan, etc…
That’s what the evidence shows. And I showed you that Darwin opposed such things, and that Darwinians destroyed the logic for it.
I agree that those philosophies did exist in differing forms and that there always are people willing to say they are superior
That is a necessary condition for the Nazi program, but as you learned, that came long before Darwin, before he deplored it.
But then you go on to say that social Darwininsm had nothing to do with Charles Darwin,
In the same sense that Christianity has nothing to do with burning witches, even if evil people tried to use Christianity to justify it.
You keep mentioning “Punnet” so I looked him up and found this mention of him lecturing at a eugenics meeting
What did he say? His research with William Bateson, had shown there were complex multiple genes involved; it would be difficult to identify the genetic basis of feeble-mindedness.

This was before he and G.H. Hardy found the Hardy-Weinberg principle, explaining the persistence of harmful recessives in a population.

After that, Punnett took a mathematical look, and conclusively demonstrated in 1917 that eugenics in the classical sense could not work.
So it would seem that the scientist you are mentioning as the one who debunked eugenics was a member of the eugenics society. Interesting.
He was a member? Not in his biography.
The article talks about the reasons for the eugenics group’s “demise” but none of the reason given had anything to do with arguments from Punnett.
If not, it would be rather odd. A demonstration that a theory was wrong, would seem to settle it, as far as scientists were concerned. Maybe not, if one wasn’t a scientist.
the son of Charles Darwin: from his biography on wikiperdia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Darwin

Major Leonard Darwin (15 January 1850 — 26 March 1943), a son of the English naturalist Charles Darwin, was variously a soldier, politician, economist, eugenicist and mentor of the statistician and evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher.

Good example. No scientist, he. Beginning to dawn on you why the eugenists weren’t scientists?

It wasn’t just Punnet:

…criticisms began to arise over the sloppiness of many eugenicists’ research methods. Among the first and most important critics in the United States was Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866–1945), a geneticist at Columbia University and prior to 1915 a moderate supporter of eugenics. Morgan felt that the movement had become more propagandistic than scientific and criticized eugenical claims in print, starting with his book Evolution and Genetics (1925).He argued that because environmental influences on mental and nervous development are so strong and since it is impossible to raise humans under controlled conditions like fruit flies, no rigorous claims could be made about a genetic basis for such traits…Furthermore, as Reginal C. Punnett (1875–1967) noted, even if a trait were found to be controlled by a single Mendelian gene, unless it was a dominant, it would take hundreds of generations of rigorous selection to eliminate it from the population…Jennings wrote a series of rebuttals of Laughlin’s claims and a small book (Prometheus, or Biology and the Advancement of Man; 1925) condemning the vulgarization and racism of some eugenic writers. H. J. Muller (1890–1967), a student of Morgan, delivered a searing attack on “old style” eugenics at the Third International Eugenics Congress … Davenport’s and Laughlin’s simple unit-character concept did not square with recent experimental data suggesting that most traits were produced by the interaction of many genes and that evidence for a clear-cut genetic basis of complex human social behaviors was almost nonexistent.

All this, of course, was turned on its head by Ben Stein, who, in “Expelled”, attacked the very people who debunked Hitler’s program. Is it any wonder decent people think he’s evil?
 
You’ll be surprised that many people actually practice “eugenics” and I suppose that many on this Catholic venue are actually “eugenicists.”

Yes, believing in “eugenics” as an ethically acceptable policy goal is compatible with being a scientist. Just don’t mistake “eugenicists” as people who want to use coerced sterilization and engage in pograms. Many advocates of “eugenics” vehemently reject those methods.

Interesting.
I actually suspected something like that.

Personally, I wonder what the barbarian will have to say about Nozick’s advocacy of free-market eugenics. I think barbarian likes Nozick. That’s someone who thought eugenics was ethically acceptable and didn’t use a utilitarian justification, but opted for a deontological ethical system.
Well next time you use a word most people will not recognize why not share your knowledge by adding a link?

I found this:

"Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. To make the correct moral choices, we have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Typically in any deontological system, our duties, rules, and obligations are determined by God. Being moral is thus a matter of obeying God.

Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead, we have to have the correct motivations. This might allow a person to not be considered immoral even though they have broken a moral rule, but only so long as they were motivated to adhere to some correct moral duty.

Nevertheless, a correct motivation alone is never a justification for an action in a deontological moral system and cannot be used as a basis for describing an action as morally correct.

How We Choose Our Values
and how they shape our lives. Books available online.
www.axiosinstitute.org
It is also not enough to simply believe that something is the correct duty to follow. Duties and obligations must be determined objectively and absolutely, not subjectively. There is no room in deontological systems of subjective feelings; on the contrary, most adherents condemn subjectivism and relativism in all their forms.
Perhaps the most significant thing to understand about deontological moral systems is that their moral principles are completely separated from any consequences which following those principles might have. Thus, if you have a moral duty not to lie, then lying is always wrong — even if that results in harm to others. For example, you would be acting immorally if you lied to Nazis about where Jews were hiding."

The last part is very troubling to me…in fact the whole thing is troubling. Basically anyone can come up with a self-argument for something being moral.

In Chirsit,
maryJohnZ
 
You’ll be surprised that many people actually practice “eugenics” and I suppose that many on this Catholic venue are actually “eugenicists.”
If, for example, I had a gene for porphyria (which is in my family), I would certainly have considered that in my choice of a mate, to limit the possibility of producing a child with that disorder. I did have myself tested, to be sure.
Yes, believing in “eugenics” as an ethically acceptable policy goal is compatible with being a scientist. Just don’t mistake “eugenicists” as people who want to use coerced sterilization and engage in pograms. Many advocates of “eugenics” vehemently reject those methods.
Yes, what remains of scientifically-valid eugenics is mostly in the area of genetic counseling, and so on. Regrettably, abortion is one consequence, but it doesn’t have to be; that is merely an unfortunate choice people make.
Personally, I wonder what the barbarian will have to say about Nozick’s advocacy of free-market eugenics. I think barbarian likes Nozick.
I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I consider government to be a necessary evil. I think that we should give elected officials as little power as necessary, and that we should trim it back every now and then, just on principle. But I don’t think Nozick is right about taxation being forced labor.

I object to the idea of voluntary eugenics on scientific grounds. We don’t really know what are the best genes to have, most of the time, and if we could manipulate genomes, we might just do ourselves out of existence.
 
If you disagree with them, make that clear. Otherwise, we will have to conclude you cite them because you agree with them.
Mary:
I disagree with what you do to the quotes…you change their meanings by the way you post them.

barbarian:
Um, the eugenics program was there long before the modern era. The Spartans practiced it. The Nazi program was essentially promoted by Martin Luther in “The Jews and Their Lies.” “Resemble” is hardly the truth; those things were eugenics.
Mary:
I am sure the Lutheran Church and its members would be affronted by your claim. why is this not 'lying" by using some kind of far fetched allusion to something Luther said or wrote…which you haven’t shown to us… At least ben Stein had quotes and went to Germany to where it happened, asked about what was behind the Nazi philosophy. it is one thing to claim an idea is totally untrue and another to say an idea is a misrepresentation of another idea. Which one are you saying?
Barbarian:
That’s what the evidence shows. And I showed you that Darwin opposed such things, and that Darwinians destroyed the logic for it.
Mary:
GIVE ME A QUOTE from Darwing if this is so…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Darwin

Major Leonard Darwin (15 January 1850 — 26 March 1943), a son of the English naturalist Charles Darwin, was variously a soldier, politician, economist, ]eugenicist and mentor of the statistician and evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher.
mary:

It says he was a mentor for an evolutionary biologist…and a eugenicist…sound like he was involved with the scientists. Why should I say he is not a scientist?

barbarian:
Good example. No scientist, he. Beginning to dawn on you why the eugenists weren’t scientists?
Mary:
No! You aren’t given stroing evidence…
Barbarian:
Davenport’s and Laughlin’s simple unit-character concept did not square with recent experimental data suggesting that most traits were produced by the interaction of many genes and that evidence for a clear-cut genetic basis of complex human social behaviors was almost nonexistent./b]

Mary:
That sounds like some kind of behavioral science, not the type of eugenics we are talking about based on racial or ethnic groups…

I have looked all over the internet for the materials that say Punnett successfully argued against the basis for the eugenics movment in nazi germany and I have not found anything. I find that the eugenics movmemnt changed direction…and as we can see for the next posts you work in eugenics, so the question is whether modern day eugenics is free from elements of the culture of death. Since you admit abortion is one result I would say we have a statment from you that shows science is still bringing about death…or at least the way science is being impimented by some…which is all that Ben Stein was talking about to begin with.

So the question is, since all these scientists operate from different moral codes and value systems…how can you get some kind of moral basis in science or any area of human endeavor that is based on sound, universal morals and not some form of relativism.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ
 
Barbarian observes:
Um, the eugenics program was there long before the modern era. The Spartans practiced it. The Nazi program was essentially promoted by Martin Luther in “The Jews and Their Lies.” “Resemble” is hardly the truth; those things were eugenics.
Mary:
I am sure the Lutheran Church and its members would be affronted by your claim.
Most of them admit it. They can hardly deny what he wrote. Would you like to see what he proposed to be done to the Jews?
why is this not 'lying"
Because it’s true. The truth matters. It should matter to you.
by using some kind of far fetched allusion to something Luther said or wrote…which you haven’t shown to us…
I’ll show you his program, with links in another post.
At least ben Stein had quotes and went to Germany to where it happened, asked about what was behind the Nazi philosophy.
Sounds like a testable claim. Show me the evidence that scientists told his relatives to go into the gas chambers, as he claimed.

Darwin, on the idea of removing the “inferior people” from society, in “The Descent of Man.”

**The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; **
It says he was a mentor for an evolutionary biologist…and a eugenicist…sound like he was involved with the scientists. Why should I say he is not a scientist?
Because he wasn’t.

Barbarian observes:
Good example. No scientist, he. Beginning to dawn on you why the eugenists weren’t scientists?
You aren’t given stroing evidence…/'quote]
I showed you that Darwin opposed the eugenic program. I showed you that Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan and Muller destroyed any rationale of for it. And I showed you that the eugenists were almost entirely non-scientists. At some point, you have to accept what’s real.
Barbarian citing research paper:
Davenport’s and Laughlin’s simple unit-character concept did not square with recent experimental data suggesting that most traits were produced by the interaction of many genes and that evidence for a clear-cut genetic basis of complex human social behaviors was almost nonexistent.
That sounds like some kind of behavioral science, not the type of eugenics we are talking about based on racial or ethnic groups…
Mary, that’s what the eugenists were talking about. It wasn’t hair color, or skin color, or height or strength; it was about personal behavioral traits.

(can’t find evidence for Punnett)

You didn’t check the links I gave you? Want some more? OK.

Eugenics Then and Now
C.J. Bajema
jstor.org/pss/673568

Criticism of Eugenics
science.jrank.org/pages/9250/Eugenics-Criticisms-Eugenics.html

Here’s one that doesn’t really mention Punnet, but shows the math that he used. If you have some mathematical ability, it might be good for you to follow through it to convince yourself that classical eugenics really isn’t workable.
I find that the eugenics movmemnt changed direction…
Really? Guess why.
and as we can see for the next posts you work in eugenics, so the question is whether modern day eugenics is free from elements of the culture of death.
In the same sense that modern day physics is free from the culture of death. Can evil people misuse them? Sure. As you learned, even Christianity can be so used. Does that make Christianity evil?
Since you admit abortion is one result I would say we have a statment from you that shows science is still bringing about death…
That’s really a dishonest attempt to twist the facts. You know better.
or at least the way science is being impimented by some…
That is a more honest conclusion.
which is all that Ben Stein was talking about to begin with.
No. He touts Berlinski’s libel that Darwinism was "not a sufficient condition, certainly a necessary one” for the Holocaust. However, almost everything the Nazis did was proposed by Martin Luther.

Arthur Caplan, a professor of Bioethics accurately wrote:

To lay blame for the Holocaust upon Charles Darwin is to engage in a form of Holocaust denial that should forever make Ben Stein the subject of scorn not because of his nudnik concern that evolution somehow undermines morality but because in this contemptible movie he is willing to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end. Expelled indeed.
msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/
 
**First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them…

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us an they possess.

Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam

But if the authorities are reluctant to use force and restrain the Jews’ devilish wantonness, the latter should, as we said, be expelled from the country and be told to return to their land and their possessions in Jerusalem, where they may lie, curse, blaspheme, defame, murder, steal, rob, practice usury, mock, and indulge in all those infamous abominations which they practice among us, and leave us our government, our country, our life, and our property, much more leave our Lord the Messiah, our faith, and our church undefiled and uncontaminated with their devilish tyranny and malice. **
Martin Luther The Jews and Their Lies

And the Nazis?

**The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a
short report of the struggle which has been carried on thus far
against this enemy, the essential points being the following:
Code:
 a)   the expulsion of the Jews from every sphere of life of
      the German people,

 b)   the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the
      German people...
In order to avoid impoverished Jews’ remaining behind, the principle was followed
that wealthy Jews have to finance the emigration of poor Jews;
this was arranged by imposing a suitable tax, i.e., an emigration
tax, which was used for financial arrangements in connection with
the emigration of poor Jews and was imposed according to income…

Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution
the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East.
Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in
large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the
course of which action doubtless a large portion will be
eliminated by natural causes…**
Wannsee Protocol

And this:

**“Krystallnacht” was so called because of a deliberate but veiled edict which went out from the Reich to thoroughly destroy, ransack and loot all Jewish Business. Violent men, some in uniform and some not went through town and cities, smashing glassfront windows, looting and confiscating Jewish businessesdestroying synagogues and even bursting into houses and killing innocent people in their beds.

The night was characterized because of the thousands upon thousand of tiny shards of broken glass which covered the ground the next morning. The Jewswho were rounded up and incarcerated became known as the "November Jews"and were among the first of mass deportations and imprisonments which wereto take place over the next few years. In the morning following the nightof Broken Glass, the Jews left behind were forced to clean up the brokenglass and ransacked shops. Further, upon discussion, certain members of the Reich including Goring decided that Jews were then required to file for insurance coverage of the damage and turn over the amounts to the Third Reich.**
shoaheducation.com/krystallnacht.html

But Stein will blame Darwin, who declared that society had no right to harm the weak and defenseless. Do you see why decent people consider him to be despicable?
 
Barbarian observes:
This is at the base of Stein’s libel against science; he wants it to do what it cannot. And people like him were the ones who tried to make eugenics work.
That is an opinion on your part.I think eugenics would be completely against Bern Stein’s sense of morality from everything I have heard about him.
It seems not. He was a speech writer for Nixon, who supported racists like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. This didn’t seem to Stein to be a moral problem.
I think modern scientists like the Oxford scientist,Richard Dawkins or that other scientist Peter Singer, are the ones we need to be concerned about.
I don’t care much for Dawkins, but I don’t see that he ever tolerated, much less supported the sort of people Stein worked for. Can you give me an example?
Sometimes your defense of science goes way too far. Any area of human endeavor is going to have people in it that go in the wrong direction.
Indeed they can. But that’s not what Stein lied about, is it?
Modern science is not free of that fault. I sincerely hope you recognize the immorality in your own profession.
I think immorality is in lying, not in telling the truth. There are scientists who have lied, perhaps not as egregiously as Stein, but still they have. And they deserve the consequences. I see where you stand, even after you learned about Stein.
Since “morals” rule science, where do scientists get their morals?
They have to get that from whatever beliefs they have. This is why Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others can all do science.
 
That is an opinion on your part.I think eugenics would be completely against Bern Stein’s sense of morality from everything I have heard about him. I think modern scientists like the Oxford scientist,Richard Dawkins or that other scientist Peter Singer, are the ones we need to be concerned about. Those are the scientists that Ben Stein is concerned about.
Peter Singer is not a scientist in any way. Peter Singer, instead, is a moral philosopher who promotes “preference utilitarianism.”
 
Barbarian observes:
This is at the base of Stein’s libel against science; he wants it to do what it cannot. And people like him were the ones who tried to make eugenics work.

It seems not. He was a speech writer for Nixon, who supported racists like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. This didn’t seem to Stein to be a moral problem.

I don’t care much for Dawkins, but I don’t see that he ever tolerated, much less supported the sort of people Stein worked for. Can you give me an example?

Indeed they can. But that’s not what Stein lied about, is it?

I think immorality is in lying, not in telling the truth. There are scientists who have lied, perhaps not as egregiously as Stein, but still they have. And they deserve the consequences. I see where you stand, even after you learned about Stein.

They have to get that from whatever beliefs they have. This is why Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others can all do science.

so far nothing has convinced me that Ben Stein lied. I saw the movie and I never heard what you heard… He did show the links to Darwins theories and how they led to eugenics. You really haven’t shown me anything to change that opinion. I can see why you believe Martin Luther’s writings were part of what brought about persecution and prejudice against the Jewish people but they were not the only ones killed in the death camps…disabled people, mntally retarded, political prisoners that resisted the Nazis, all those people were victims too. The philosophy was based on cleansing society of undesirables and the superiority of the Arians…multiple sources posted here have shown that link. I haven’t seen any quotes from Darwin or Punnett on-line or provided by you that show other wise. If you carefully read the quote from Darwin that you provide it betrays a very disturbing attitude toward the weak: It says to me that its too bad we have to treat the weak because it means they survive to pass on their defects…what the Nazi’s and eugenics did was look at that quote and took the idea of the overwhelming benefit proposed by eliminating the weak members of the human race and tried to bring that about systematically…so it is hardly an anti-euthanasia quote. In fact it disturbs me.
Darwins quote:
"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; "
COLOR]

We are not getting pass this it seems so perhaps we may have to agree to disagree on this.

God Bless,
MaryJohnZ
 
We are not getting pass this it seems so perhaps we may have to agree to disagree on this.aryJohnZ
It’s also an utterly irrelevant debate to the thousands of Catholics who work as evolutionary biologists and who haven’t pushed anyone into showers or ovens.

Petrus
 
It’s also an utterly irrelevant debate to the thousands of Catholics who work as evolutionary biologists and who haven’t pushed anyone into showers or ovens.

Petrus
No…not literally. That is not what Ben Stein was saying and just repeating that line of argument is pointless and silly. he was saying the groundwrok for the philosophy behind the camps was based in science…it has been argued here that the philosophy was a misrepresentation of science,

And the same thing can be said today. It has been admitted that eugenics continues today and that abortion is part of that. Will science say abortion is a misrepresntation of true science? I haven’t heard that from anyone yet…I haven’t heard abortion repudiated as a terrible crime against humanit just as much, nay more, thatn the death camps.

That is why this debate is pointless to you and others on this forum. becaue you are like the blind leading the blind. You turn your eyes blindly to the vast devastation and death and pain around you. You can put the blame on politicians, lawyers,
etc… and yet there are good scientists. There are good lawyers…
there are good doctors trying to speak out. That is my hope.

Ben Stein’s film was a breathe of fresh air in a culture which has
not heard that side of the argument, especially the links between
eugenics and the Nazi philosophy that contiues today in planned Parenthood.

So many baies killed because they were the wrong sex, the wrong
timing, perhaps damaged or disbaled, or mentally handicapped…all of that is a contiuation of the eudenics. If it was based on bad science back then in germany, then it is still based on bad science today.

That is why it is and should be hightly relevant to all Catholic scientists. You of all people have a duty to hold up a highter standard because you should know the intrinsic worth of each human life more than others.

In Christ, Mary John Zore
 
This message was given at a site in Ohio which is a marian Apparition site for Holy Love.

Yes, it is private revelation and not yet approved by church but reading it and discerning the truth in it is all that we can do until the church approves it. I am only posting the potion relevant for this discussion. Note that the call at this apparition site is for 'Holy Love", love of God and neighbor…different from self centered love.

the message ( May 25 of this year)

“Do not attribute to man or to nature what is God’s alone. My Father is the Creator of all things–the universe, the world, nature, even life in the womb. Do not destroy what He gives you out of His love. Do not worship your own free will, giving in to whims and desires at every turn. Rocks, trees, crystals, all of nature is God’s creation. They are not gods themselves. Do not allow gender to be a battleground. Do not allow morals in marriage to deteriorate in the guise of alternate life style.”

“These are ways that mankind is destroying himself and civilization, as well.”

“I tell you that national leaders and legislators–even educators–who do not support the commandments of love, are responsible for the souls they lead astray and the moral degeneration of their nation, as well–I add to this, those who lead or otherwise influence any religion. Their responsibility is to lead souls deeper into love of God and neighbor as self–this is Holy Love. Yet, there remain those who encourage violence, birth control, abortion, same sex marriage and many other evils related to these sins and more.”

“You cannot lead souls in righteousness if your own heart is full of error. For this reason, I come in truth to correct consciences and to pull souls back onto the path of light. Be united in Our United Hearts.”

Not just scientists, but all of us have to receive that message and respond to it according to our means to do something about it.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ
 
No…not literally. That is not what Ben Stein was saying and just repeating that line of argument is pointless and silly.
Well, let’s take a look…

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

Yep. That’s what he said.
he was saying the groundwrok for the philosophy behind the camps was based in science…
Horsefeathers. Read it again. It’s right in front of you.
And the same thing can be said today. It has been admitted that eugenics continues today and that abortion is part of that.
If so, then it is without the support of science; as you learned, Darwinists refuted the idea that it could work.
Will science say abortion is a misrepresntation of true science?
It’s not a representation of science at all. It existed long before science as we know it:

**For trying to unseat the burden crouched in her swelling womb, for her audacity, Corinna lies near death.
I should be furious: to take such a risk! And without telling me!
But anger fails me – I’m so afraid.

You see, I’m the one who got her that way, or so I believe;
I might as well be, since I could have been.**
Ovid, Amores 2:13 (during the reign of Augustus Caesar)
You can put the blame on politicians, lawyers,
etc…
We advocate personal responsibity, and you find that offensive. If you don’t blame the people who do it, and make it possible, who is there to blame. It might feel good to you, to find a group and blame them to take the burden from you. But that’s exactly what the Nazis did, Mary.
Ben Stein’s film was a breathe of fresh air in a culture which has not heard that side of the argument,
Holocaust denial is hardly a new idea. Nor is the practice of finding a group to scapegoat for the sins of society. Stein is an old hand at that. He dates from the McCarthy era, and his boss was one of the best at it.

You cannot do good by dishonest accusations; Stein’s film, rather than a “breath of fresh air” has the fetid stench of hate and bigotry.
 
That is why this debate is pointless to you and others on this forum. becaue you are like the blind leading the blind. You turn your eyes blindly to the vast devastation and death and pain around you.
Sadly, you’re delusional, Mary! Now you’re seeing theologians and scientists – in the persons of people with whom you haven’t the slightest acquaintance – participating in “vast devastation and pain” around us. I fear your obsessive hatred of science and theology have taken you over the edge!
 
Sadly, you’re delusional, Mary! Now you’re seeing theologians and scientists – in the persons of people with whom you haven’t the slightest acquaintance – participating in “vast devastation and pain” around us. I fear your obsessive hatred of science and theology have taken you over the edge!
Peace!
I have no hatred for anyone to be honest…not even for the worst abortion doctor. I loove theology…and I respect science as long as those disciplines are used justly and fairly.

I believe Ben Stein had a point to make. I don’t think his statemnt indited all scientists, only those who were wrongly using science to create a basis for a very immoral policy. I think you are taking it way to far to say he was judging all science as evil.

Obviously he respects ID scientists for example…

And in terms of evolution, not all theories of evolution need go toward eugenics, as you and Barbarian have been arguing. I think there is enough evidence that some did take Darwin and evolution into the eugenics field in a wrong, extreme way.

And I do think it is still present in today’s world. Some scientists are willing to do anything…but not all scientists. I have said over and over that there are good scientists who are working hard to do what is right and just in their research.

I would hope all scientists would do that. Raising the awareness that unethical choices have grave consequences is all that Ben Stein was doing in my view.
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
 
I have no hatred for anyone to be honest…not even for the worst abortion doctor. I loove theology…and I respect science as long as those disciplines are used justly and fairly.
I believe Ben Stein had a point to make. I don’t think his statemnt indited all scientists, only those who were wrongly using science to create a basis for a very immoral policy.
Mary, he said that scientists told his family to go into the gas chambers. That is a despicable libel on scientists.
I think you are taking it way to far to say he was judging all science as evil.
Let’s take a look…

Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Ben Stein, in an interview with Paul Crouch

Sure looks like it. Is it any wonder decent people regard him as dishonest?
And in terms of evolution, not all theories of evolution need go toward eugenics, as you and Barbarian have been arguing.
Mary, you learned that evolutionary theory debunked the ideas of classical eugenics. Stein is blaming the very people who destroyed any rationale for the Holocaust.

To lay blame for the Holocaust upon Charles Darwin is to engage in a form of Holocaust denial that should forever make Ben Stein the subject of scorn not because of his nudnik concern that evolution somehow undermines morality but because in this contemptible movie he is willing to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end. Expelled indeed.
Arthur Caplan
I think there is enough evidence that some did take Darwin and evolution into the eugenics field in a wrong, extreme way.
In the same way that segregationists took Christianity into the racism field in a wrong, extreme way.
Raising the awareness that unethical choices have grave consequences is all that Ben Stein was doing in my view.
He was providing us with an example. And there are indeed consequences. Some day, he will face his Maker, and have to account for his false witness.
 
The link between Eugenics and planned parenthood is undeniable. One simply has to look to his founders to see the mentallity that formed planned parenthood in the first place.
 
The point is that Darwinists had effectively refuted classical eugenic ideas long before that. This is why Stein has gotten so much criticism for pretending that Darwinism was the cause of the Holocaust; he is blaming the very people who refuted the premises of eugenics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top