Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian,

Even Darwin knew that the theory he was presenting did not place man above other animals or other forms of nature. This is a dangerous direction, obviously very attractive to materialists and aetheists however. But if you make the human being just another animal, albeit, a higher form of animal, soon you will have ‘personhood’ bestowed on dogs, and cats and mice…for would not the corollary be thrue, that they are just persons, only on a level of lower development.

I would say that this is happening already. In fact I heard of a Harvard Professor arguing for a ‘personhood’ for someones’s pet dogs.

A description of Darwin’s final odyssey in a recent book review on Darwin gives this insight:

*"When he wrote “The Origin of Species” (which appeared in 1859), he probably could “be called a theist,” he noted later. But by the time he was in his 60s, receiving visitors at Down House as a famous thinker revered around the world, he readily described himself as a nonbeliever.

In his autobiography, written at the age of 73, he takes Christianity to task and looks upon the religious impulse as something that’s simply instinctual, "akin to a monkey’s fear of a snake," as his biographer, Janet Browne, noted.

"To read Browne’s book is to get a sense of a man of steely intellect, brave enough to confront “a godless universe.”

For ultimately, if animals and plants are the result of impersonal, immutable forces, she observes, then “the natural world has no moral validity or purpose.” We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass, the same in the eyes of nature, equally remarkable and equally dispensable. "]
From:
Darwin paid for the fury he unleashed
How a believer became an iconoclast
John Darnton Sunday, September 25, 2005
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/25/INGAUERQK01.DTL&hw=darwin&sn=001&sc=1000
San Francisco Chronicle

---

Is that what science tells us? What could that attitude toward human life unleash? Especially since the author here is saying the values in Darwin would lead to likening humans even to ‘crab grass’. A view of science which would seek that type of absolute neutrality in regards to the value of the human person, would open the door to viewing all of us as lab specimens. That certainly is a value system which could bring great harm. (and this is an article praising Darwin)

And the thought occurs to me that a completely neutral view of life and nature has its own values in it. In other words, science without a ‘value system’ is almost impossible.

In Christ, maryJohnZ*

 

[drpmjhess]

I would say that this is happening already. In fact I heard of a Harvard Professor arguing for a ‘personhood’ for someones’s pet dogs.

Personhood is a delicate concept, and doesn’t lend itself to facile definition and assignment. Not everything that has human DNA is a person; perhaps not all persons must have human DNA.

Petrus

 

[ricmat]

Personhood is a delicate concept, and doesn’t lend itself to facile definition and assignment. Not everything that has human DNA is a person; perhaps not all persons must have human DNA.

Petrus

There used to be no quibble about what personhood meant, or what “human dignity” meant.

What happened?

 

[drpmjhess]

There used to be no quibble about what personhood meant, or what “human dignity” meant.

What happened?

How do you define “personhood” and “human dignity”?

 

[ricmat]

How do you define “personhood” and “human dignity”?

All humans are persons, and all humans have human dignity. This was a universal teaching. You say that it’s not (now) obvious. What changed?

 

[drpmjhess]

There used to be no quibble about what personhood meant, or what “human dignity” meant.

What happened?

That is to say, the two terms are not logically congruent. There could be non-human persons, and there could be human DNA that does not carry human dignity.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Even Darwin knew that the theory he was presenting did not place man above other animals or other forms of nature.

It seems odd then, that he placed humans above animals to the point that he said it would be evil to let any human die. Why this upsets you, is beyond me.

This is a dangerous direction, obviously very attractive to materialists and aetheists however.

I don’t know about them, but Darwin’s insistence that all persons deserve life and freedom is also the position of the Catholic Church. It should be yours, too.

But if you make the human being just another animal,

Sorry, I’ll go with Darwin and the Church on this one. We don’t think humans are “just another animal.”

"When he wrote “The Origin of Species” (which appeared in 1859), he probably could “be called a theist,” he noted later. But by the time he was in his 60s, receiving visitors at Down House as a famous thinker revered around the world, he readily described himself as a nonbeliever.

Actually, that’s not true. Although he certainly was a Christian when he wrote “The Origin of Species” (in which he attributed the origin of life to God), he later described himself as “leaning toward agnosticism.”

"To read Browne’s book is to get a sense of a man of steely intellect, brave enough to confront “a godless universe.”

For ultimately, if animals and plants are the result of impersonal, immutable forces, she observes, then “the natural world has no moral validity or purpose.” We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass, the same in the eyes of nature, equally remarkable and equally dispensable. "

And yet, Darwin denied such a conclusion. Emphatically. He said acting like that was “evil.” That being the case, I’d have to say your guy knows no more of Darwin than you do.

Is that what science tells us?

Not according to Darwin. Why not just accept what Darwin actually said, instead of trying to invent your own opinions for him?

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

 

[f0rg1v3n]

As a veteran high school science teacher and faithful Christian, I find Ben Stein to be stirring up a big mess. He encourages students to start a debate at their school on two subjects that draw more emotion than profound evidence (and nobody wins). Have you been to a high school lately? We deal with enough without having our students debate religion and science. It makes me sick to think that someone with fame has chosen this detrimental bandwagon.

 

[reggieM]

We deal with enough without having our students debate religion and science. It makes me sick to think that someone with fame has chosen this detrimental bandwagon.

I don’t understand your point. What do you “deal with” in school that will be harmed by an intellectual debate? Additionally, if evolutionary theory “draws more emotion than profound evidence”, why is it taught at all?

I could understand if you were proposing to stop presenting the false teaching of Darwinism in the schools – in order to cut down on emotionalism. But you seem to be blaming Ben Stein for raising this issue which does get heated debate.

Should educators explore why this topic gets so much debate?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

It seems odd then, that he placed humans above animals to the point that he said it would be evil to let any human die. Why this upsets you, is beyond me.

I don’t know about them, but Darwin’s insistence that all persons deserve life and freedom is also the position of the Catholic Church. It should be yours, too.

Sorry, I’ll go with Darwin and the Church on this one. We don’t think humans are “just another animal.”

Actually, that’s not true. Although he certainly was a Christian when he wrote “The Origin of Species” (in which he attributed the origin of life to God), he later described himself as “leaning toward agnosticism.”

And yet, Darwin denied such a conclusion. Emphatically. He said acting like that was “evil.” That being the case, I’d have to say your guy knows no more of Darwin than you do.

Not according to Darwin. Why not just accept what Darwin actually said, instead of trying to invent your own opinions for him?

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

---

The truth does matter to me. The fact that ‘personhood’ is so hard to define shows what a slippery slope we bagan when the concept of personhood was at first defined as a more highly evolved species of life, which comes out of Darwin. The Catholic Church has always taught that man is not merely a more evolved animal but that he was created as an exception or in a singular way. The human person, alone, was given the priviledge of being the Divine Image, and the responsibility of being a steward to all of creation.

Truth does matter. Explain to me how this journalist could begin to talk about human beings as equilvalent to all life forms, even crab grass. How drpmjhess can be saying that there are ‘non-human person’. How do you respond to that? How do you think Darwin would respond to that.

Ultimately I agree it was not Darwin’s meaning to say that the human species was equal to a species of grass, afterall he was talking about the human as a higher form which is different from equivalent form. But can you also see how others can use his
theory to dehumanize? and since this is happening in society, my concern is how can science begin to turn a page and use knowledge to protect the human person rather than confuse what a person really is.

What would you suggest as an answer to this? Are we at the mercy of science and those who would confuse the definition of a person or can we find some ground to protect all life, including the most innocent.If you feel this can be done from the Darwin view point, please share how you convince other scientists.Surely science should by now have even more to knowledge showing that life, and human life in particular, needs to be guarded.

In Christ,
MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

As a veteran high school science teacher and faithful Christian, I find Ben Stein to be stirring up a big mess. He encourages students to start a debate at their school on two subjects that draw more emotion than profound evidence (and nobody wins). Have you been to a high school lately? We deal with enough without having our students debate religion and science. It makes me sick to think that someone with fame has chosen this detrimental bandwagon.

I agree with Reggie that your complaint is misguided.

I can understand that you do have a mess on your hands however since our culture has been giving misguiding ideas and propaganda to kids through schools for many years.

I would think that if I was a teenager and I realized that many of my peers had been killed by abortions making me essentially a survivor of a culture willing to select which babies should live and which should die, that I wold be angry.

Jesus said, you reap what you sow. Ben Stein didn’t sow this mess, he only began to reveal it.

SInce educators have been encouraging critical thinking in young people, this should just provide them with an opportunity to use that skill.

In Christ,
MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Well my search is leading me to research more on what ‘natural theology’ is and what the church says about that. But right now I found a few nuggets from John Paul II in regard to evolution and
the dignity of the person and how Catholics can not see the develpment of human beeings as the mere, unguided chance of natural process:

Excerpts from what Pope John Paul II has said about evolution:

• If we analyze man in the depth of his being, we see that he differs more from the world of nature than he resembles it. Also anthropology and philosophy proceed in this direction, when they try to analyze and understand man’s intelligence. freedom, conscience and spirituality. (1978)
• The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator. (1985)
• It is therefore clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy, which view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity. (1986)
• … theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. (1996)

post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2005/07/roman-catholic-church-helping-to-sink.html

In Christ,
MaryJohnz

 

[huckleberry]

I don’t understand your point. What do you “deal with” in school that will be harmed by an intellectual debate? Additionally, if evolutionary theory “draws more emotion than profound evidence”, why is it taught at all?

I could understand if you were proposing to stop presenting the false teaching of Darwinism in the schools – in order to cut down on emotionalism. But you seem to be blaming Ben Stein for raising this issue which does get heated debate.

Should educators explore why this topic gets so much debate?

If an educator were to actually address why this topic gets so much debate, they would have to do so in history or philosophy or psychology or politics class; not science class. There is currently no scientific theory that rivals evolution. When one comes along, it should be taught.

 

[reggieM]

If an educator were to actually address why this topic gets so much debate, they would have to do so in history or philosophy or psychology or politics class; not science class. There is currently no scientific theory that rivals evolution. When one comes along, it should be taught.

Those are interesting, non-scientific, philosophical opinions.

It certainly depends on what kind of school you’re talking about. If you believe the American public school system is the universal ideal for education and formation of children – then yes, “this topic” would be forbidden by law from the science classroom.

Personally, I support Catholic education as being far superior to the secularist-model. But even in the secular public school model, I do not accept the philosophical opinion that you present.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The truth does matter to me. The fact that ‘personhood’ is so hard to define shows what a slippery slope we bagan when the concept of personhood was at first defined as a more highly evolved species of life, which comes out of Darwin.

No. Many species are more highly evolved than we are. Darwin thought that humans had rights merely for being human. Even those who might be less capable, or intelligent.

The Catholic Church has always taught that man is not merely a more evolved animal but that he was created as an exception or in a singular way.

That’s why the Church teaches that evolutionary theory is consistent with our faith.

Truth does matter. Explain to me how this journalist could begin to talk about human beings as equilvalent to all life forms, even crab grass.

Maybe the journalist didn’t like Darwin’s opinion. You and Reggie took exception to Darwin’s statement that letting people die would be evil. Explain to us why.

How drpmjhess can be saying that there are ‘non-human person’.

He said, I think that there could be. Suppose God created people on other planets, not at all like us, but also gave them immortal souls and intended them to love Him and be with Him in heaven. Would they not be people, because they weren’t of your species?

Ultimately I agree it was not Darwin’s meaning to say that the human species was equal to a species of grass, afterall he was talking about the human as a higher form which is different from equivalent form. But can you also see how others can use his theory to dehumanize?

People used what Jesus said to burn other people alive. When you are evil, any idea will do. What I see, is that Darwin and his followers denounced exactly what Stein is blaming them for. His particular brand of Holocaust denial goes “We aren’t to blame for what happened; it was just those scientists.”

This is why his blood libel against scientists is so despicable.

my concern is how can science begin to turn a page and use knowledge to protect the human person rather than confuse what a person really is.

Science can only tell you facts. It cannot provide values. If your faith won’t do it, science can’t help.

Because science has been so successful at understanding the physical universe, it has often been assumed to be the answer for everything. It is not. This is what the scientists here have been telling you. It is what Cardinal Ratzinger was telling you.

Accept it. For better or for worse, we are on our own when it comes to values.

 

[huckleberry]

Those are interesting, non-scientific, philosophical opinions.

It certainly depends on what kind of school you’re talking about. If you believe the American public school system is the universal ideal for education and formation of children – then yes, “this topic” would be forbidden by law from the science classroom.

Personally, I support Catholic education as being far superior to the secularist-model. But even in the secular public school model, I do not accept the philosophical opinion that you present.

Sorry. Let me clarify my position. I don’t think “this topic” should be forbidden by law from the science classroom. I don’t believe there should be tax-supported schools. But “creationism” should be regarded by the science teacher in the same way that bungee jumping is regarded: completely unrelated to the scientific question of the origins of life. Yep, private school is the way to go. If “creationism” is taught in your school, then good luck getting hired in any engineering or scientific field.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

No. Many species are more highly evolved than we are.

Darwin thought that humans had rights merely for being human. Even those who might be less capable, or intelligent.

---

What species are you referring to when you make this statement? If you mean ‘Angels’ for example, can you call then a ‘species’?

---

Barbarian:

That’s why the Church teaches that evolutionary theory is consistent with our faith.
Mary:
You should modify this statement because the church does not teach that materialistic evolution is consistent with out faith simply because it does not recognize the guidance of God.

---

Barbarian:
Maybe the journalist didn’t like Darwin’s opinion. You and Reggie took exception to Darwin’s statement that letting people die would be evil. Explain to us why.

"Mary:
]If you had read her whole review you would have seen she thinks of Darwin as a heroic person.

A far as the quote you keep bringing up and misrepresenting-- Reggie and I never said that it was a good thing to let people die. Quite the contrary, we pointed out that Darwin was saying that
to keep them alive was a ‘necessary evil’, a point of view which cannot be represented as a word of compassion. Your interpretation of the quote as kind and compassionate does not make sense to me

---

Barbarian:
He said, I think that there could be. Suppose God created people on other planets, not at all like us, but also gave them immortal souls and intended them to love Him and be with Him in heaven. Would they not be people, because they weren’t of your species?
Mary:
You have a point there. I can see that as true.
Also ‘Angels’ are persons without bodies are they not?
And the Trinity is made of of 3 Divine Persons.

---

Barbarian:
[People used what Jesus said to burn other people alive. When you are evil, any idea will do. What I see, is that Darwin and his followers denounced exactly what Stein is blaming them for. His particular brand of Holocaust denial goes “We aren’t to blame for what happened; it was just those scientists.”
This is why his blood libel against scientists is so despicable
Mary:
[COLOR=“blue”]Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, …
Ben Stein is presenting a point of view. You may disagree with his point of view but it is a huge leap to say he purposefully and maliciously lied about things.
Even during this discussion we have unearthed enough information on the eugenics movement to see that there is some reason to believe that it came out of the influence that Darwin’s theories had on social philosophies and on the scientific community of that time period…
To deny that influence is to deny science history. Now whether those social policies and philosophies had a sound understanding of Darwin may be argued about, but even many of Darwin’s relatives were involved in these movements. It would be more honest of you to just admit that and move on.

---

Barbarian:
Science can only tell you facts. It cannot provide values. If your faith won’t do it, science can’t help.

Because science has been so successful at understanding the physical universe, it has often been assumed to be the answer for everything. It is not. This is what the scientists here have been telling you. It is what Cardinal Ratzinger was telling you.

Accept it. For better or for worse, we are on our own when it comes to values.

---

Mary:
Well,maybe you believe you are on your own, but I believe God is leading us into His Truth, slowly but surely and someday faith and reason—like the lion and the lamb in the scriptures, will lie down together. And the terrible plague of ungoing competition and the ‘survival of the fittest’ will be over.

In Christ,
MaryJohnZ

 

[drpmjhess]

How drpmjhess can be saying that there are ‘non-human person’. How do you respond to that? How do you think Darwin would respond to that.

Mary, do you understand the difference between the terms “human” and “person”? Humans are members of the species Homo sapiens. “Persons” are begins possessed of self-reflective intelligence and capable of moral and spiritual response, or potentially possessed of these qualities. There is a high possibility that with 10 to the 22nd stars in the universe, life has evolved elsewhere in this vast universe. If we discovered some day a species that held parliaments, wrote poetry, succored the poor, and worshipped God, would you begrudge them the status of “personhood”?

Furthermore, something may carry human DNA, such as a teratoma, but not by any stretch of the imagination be considered a human person.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

And the terrible plague of ungoing competition and the ‘survival of the fittest’ will be over.

In Christ,MaryJohnZ

Is it a plague, or part of the structure of evolution? It’s hard to imagine how a deer species could continue to improve in fitness without cougar predation. Lions and lambs will peacefully coexist in the eschaton, but not in the evolutionary order.

 

[reggieM]

Yep, private school is the way to go. If “creationism” is taught in your school, then good luck getting hired in any engineering or scientific field.

You’re making it sound like creationists are not employed as engineers or in the scientific field. But beyond that:

blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/one-in-eight-hi.html
One in eight US high school teachers presents creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, says a poll published in the Public Library of Science

Since creationism is taught in all of those instances, I don’t accept that it causes a major problem for people finding jobs in engineering or other scientific fields.