Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If so, she is thereby less despicable than Stein, who is making excuses for the Nazis involvement in the Holocaust.

I hardly think that Stein, a JEW, was making excuses for the Nazis.

But that’s what he did. He didn’t blame the Nazis for turning science inside out, he blamed science for inspiring the Nazis. It is what another Jewish commentator called “Holocaust denial.”

 

[leftistdestroye]

The Barbarian;

But that’s what he did. He didn’t blame the Nazis for turning science inside out, he blamed science for inspiring the Nazis. It is what another Jewish commentator called “Holocaust denial.”

Well, eugenics was popular in the 30’s. But Stein was simply saying, that if you remove God from life, then you can be left with the likes of Eugenics. The belief that man can overcome anything. And that, if God’s morals are removed by man, then men can do anything immoral, such as Nazi Germany. This was even predicted:

"In an anonymous Quarterly Review article he claimed that the Descent of Man would unsettle “our half educated classes” and talked of people doing as they pleased, breaking laws and customs."

I think Stein means not that the goal of science is to kill, but what it learns, can lead to misinterpretation. Like the nazis and eugenics. The term Eugenics was actually coined by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton. Galton himself, did experiments on rabbits: “he transfused the blood between dissimilar breeds of rabbits, and examined the features of their offspring”

At the time, I am not sure how frowned upon Nazi eugenics actually was. It was after the war, where it became a bad thing. The nazis even used Sexual Selection. It was illegal for a fit, Aryan woman to not reproduce.

But yes, to an extent, to rely strictly on science, can take away morality. Euthanasia is science. Guns were created from science. The A bomb was science. Again, I am not saying that science is bad, but sometimes, man does not know how to handle the knowlege they discover.

But again, Stein did not make excuses for the Nazis. Eugenics was popular science back then. Margaret Sanger supported it. They had 3 world conferences on Eugenics. The first one was presided by Major Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, who, in the final address:

“extolled eugenics as the practical application of the principle of evolution”

While the Nazis were cruel, no doubt, their “experiments” on humans, were geneticly based, such as injecting blue ink into the eyes to see if they could change their eye color. So, it was more than just hate, there was science to their brutality. They’re doctors, were in fact, interested in genetics and Darwinism. And I am sure, eugenic scientists, were very eager to read their results.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

We’ve kind of gone off the rails on this thread, which is about the libelous rants of Ben Stein against science.

I gather, since you’ve changed the subject, that you now understand that Stein lied, and blamed Darwin and Darwinists for the very things they condemned.

The embryology issue, I’ll take up in a new thread.

Mary:
I did not change the subject, i was following your lead. I was making the point that modern scientists are doing the same thing as the german Haeckel and that in saying the human embryo has fish gill tissue…or that it looks like this or that-- rather than saying it looks like a human being at that stage of life, you are lying. You essentially dehumanize the embryo and make it easy for women to see it as a ‘thing’, not a baby.Thus science is used to prop up the abortion industry.

But at any rate, the last posts show once again the links of the eugenics movment to evolution. I want to believe Darwin never anticipated or would have wished things to be carried so far in this direction. I think it would have been hard for any human being to anticipate this much carnage.

The point seems to be made that science that separates itself from faith and ethics, especially when it alters the way we understand the human being as a gift to be protected, can become a rationale for destroying life.That was the point I found Ben Stein making.

Since the point has been made, I am satisfied the discussion can end.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

I did not change the subject, i was following your lead. I was making the point that modern scientists are doing the same thing as the german Haeckel and that in saying the human embryo has fish gill tissue…

No. Didn’t you read the link?

Thus science is used to prop up the abortion industry.

No. The fact that we are like other animals in many respects is not license to abortion. At any rate, I doubt God would approve of us lying about it.

But at any rate, the last posts show once again the links of the eugenics movment to evolution.

As you learned earlier, Darwin denounced eugenic thinking, and subsequent Darwinists made it clear that it was not a legitimate science. Be honest, Mary.

I want to believe Darwin never anticipated or would have wished things to be carried so far in this direction.

Seeing as he said such things were “evil.” I can believe it. As the entry from Dembski’s website said, Darwinism’s only connection to eugenics and the Holocaust was to denounce it.

Your people held on to eugenics, but they can’t blame science, which had long refuted the entire idea.

That was the point I found Ben Stein making.

The story Ben Stein was trying to sell, was to excuse the Nazis, because they were misled by Darwin. As you now know, that was a blood libel, against the very people who denounced such ideas.

This is why decent people think so poorly of Stein. His lies are the latest in a long series of Holocaust denials. Scientists not only didn’t push his relatives into the gas chambers (as he claimed) they had argued against the very basis of the Holocaust.

As you know, the real source for the Nazi “Final Solution” can be found in Martin Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies.” The thought that it was a Christian may be repugnant and embarrassing to us. But it is true. There is no point in lying about it, or looking for scapegoats.

When you acknowledge that (as Mother Theresa wrote) that we all have a Hitler inside us, then you will no longer need a scapegoat to blame for the Holocaust.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

No. Didn’t you read the link?
mary:
Which link?

Barbarian:
No. The fact that we are like other animals in many respects is not license to abortion. ___________________________________________________
Mary: About evolution—

From catholic Answer website:
"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution."
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
Mary:

The fact that Darwin is taught in schools and explained, with no mention that there are other aspects of the human being which his theory does not touch upon, the spiritual aspects, leads people to see human beings only as higher forms of animals. I do have a problem with that because if man is just another animal you can treat him in ways that a more spiritual view of man would prohibit. Materialist evolution tend to dehumanize the person and leads to ideas like we find in the eugenics movement, to abortion and euthanasia…_______________________________________________

Mary:
As to your mantra that Darwin’s arguments destroyed the basis for eugenics:

I wish I would hear the scientists of today refuting the eugenics movements that are still around. In fact the London Eugenics Society was around to the end of the 20th century! 9 The site said 1998). It changed its name to The Galton Institute
Here is a link to their site:
London Eugenicist Society:
aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search2?coll_id=2901&inst_id=20
The Galton Institue:
At this link on the Galton Institute (formerly London eugenics society) they have a list of talks called the “Darwin Lectures” galtoninstitute.org.uk/ The insitute is named for Darwins cousin who was mentioned in “Descent of Man”.

Their statement of purpose for today:

“The Galton Institute derives from the Eugenics Education Society which was founded in 1907. Since those early days there has been marked change and recent rapid advance in the knowledge of genetics and human behaviour, so that biosocial studies have evolved to a position where biologists, clinicians, demographers, sociologists and other professionals can work in a mutually productive manner with the aim of increasing understanding of our own species and its problems.”

The activities listed on the site include:

“Activities
a) The Institute has a wide range of inter-disciplinary interests which include the measurement and description of human attributes, human heredity, genetic counselling, the influence of the environment and the causes of disease, the family unit, birth control, differential fertility, marriage guidance, infecundity, artificial insemination, voluntary sterilisation, termination of pregnancy, demography, population problems and migration. In a variety of ways the Institute promotes investigation of, and informed comment on, such matters.”

The fact that is sponsors **“Darwin Talks” **says to me that they see themselves as the torchbearers in a sense of Darwins legacy,as Galton developed it.

The link of this group to Darwin seems extremely clear. If Darwin had destroyed the eugenics movement with his arguments as you say, he did a horrible jub of it…

---

barbarian:
When you acknowledge that (as Mother Theresa wrote) that we all have a Hitler inside us,…]

Mary:
That is why I deplore PP programs, and the horrible sex ed. our kids get in many public schools. That is why I abhor stem cell research using human embryos and all the birth control pills and drug compamies and all the ways the beauty of human sexuality has been trampled upon.

In Christ,
maryJohnz

 

[leftistdestroye]

The Barbarian;3803051]

The story Ben Stein was trying to sell, was to excuse the Nazis, because they were misled by Darwin. As you now know, that was a blood libel, against the very people who denounced such ideas.

This is why decent people think so poorly of Stein. His lies are the latest in a long series of Holocaust denials

Sorry, how is he denying the holocaust again? And what are his “long series of denials”? Holocaust means: any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.

How is Stein denying this?

 

[leftistdestroye]

MaryJohnZ;3803818

Well said.

I do have a problem with that because if man is just another animal you can treat him in ways that a more spiritual view of man would prohibit.

I agree. I agree because I know that I would deal with my political enemies much differently if I had no concept morality. Survival of the Fittest? Natural Selection? You betcha.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Sorry, how is he denying the holocaust again? And what are his “long series of denials”? Holocaust means: any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.

How is Stein denying this?

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

It’s true. He’s making excuses for the Nazis. According to him, they did it because Darwin told them to. In fact, he even claims that scientists were telling his family to go into the gas chambers.

If you actually believe that, then then I guess there’s no point in showing you that he lied, is there?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Mary writes:

I do have a problem with that because if man is just another animal you can treat him in ways that a more spiritual view of man would prohibit.

But Mary, you learned that neither science in general, nor Darwin in particular taught that. Isn’t it a sin to give false witness? Darwin said that it was evil to treat humans like mere animals. Please remember that the truth is important.

I agree. I agree because I know that I would deal with my political enemies much differently if I had no concept morality.

I suppose. But morality can never come from science. An amoral scientist would be just as bad as Ben Stein.

Survival of the Fittest? Natural Selection? You betcha.

That’ makes as much sense as saying that geologists want to bury people alive, because they study landslides. The truth matters. It should matter to you.

 

[leftistdestroye]

The Barbarian;3804116]

How is Stein denying this?

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

So he isn’t dening that it happened, which is what being a Holocaust Denier is. Just like Caplan is changing the definition of a Holocaust Denier to discredit Stein and prop up Darwin. OK I get it now.

It’s true. He’s making excuses for the Nazis. According to him, they did it because Darwin told them to. In fact, he even claims that scientists were telling his family to go into the gas chambers.

If you actually believe that, then then I guess there’s no point in showing you that he lied, is there?

Hey, Darwin’s own cousin said that Eugenics(and he coined the term) was “the practical application of the principle of evolution”
The Nazis did practice Eugenics. The Eugenics movment practically died after WW 2. I wonder why? And he never said that Darwin told them to do it. Darwins theory gave them the idea to do it. Darwin’s theroy, made men into mud, and nothing more. And yeah, back then, the Nazis were not the only ones who had the idea of making the perfect speciman of men. It was world wide science at the time. It was like Darwin is today, and it was accepted. Nazi experments were a scientist dream back then.

And the scientists that he mentioned, were in fact, Nazis too. The mass murder and the Nazi experiments, were equally as nasty. There was/is no difference between them. The Nazi scientists used those people and then killed them when they were done with them. And nazism was not limited to just racial hatred, but hatred of all things considered by them , to be inferior: Jews, Gays, Sick, Mental, etc. THAT, is Steins point.

 

[leftistdestroye]

The Barbarian;3804145]

I suppose. But morality can never come from science.

That is correct. And Darwinism say’s that we came from mud. If that is true, then what worth do men have? Then, in fact, let the stronger prevail.

That’ makes as much sense as saying that geologists want to bury people alive, because they study landslides. The truth matters. It should matter to you.

Oh no, if man is made from mud, then we have no spirituality, no God, and no morals. Then why should we care about life or death? If we are nothing more than mud, then we have no worth, no value. Just another insect.

And I was agreeing with the previous poster who said:

“I do have a problem with that because if man is just another animal you can treat him in ways that a more spiritual view of man would prohibit.”

Just like another pack of animals, let the strongest one dominate the rest. Isn’t that, nature?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I suppose. But morality can never come from science.

That is correct. And Darwinism say’s that we came from mud.

No. If you learn nothing else from this, learn that Darwinism does not, never did say that. Darwin made no claims about the origin of life, except to say that God did it.

On the other hand, God says that the earth brought forth living things, including man. Genesis says life came from the mud, not Darwin.

If that is true, then what worth do men have?

God says that each of us is precious to Him, even if we were from the Earth. Don’t you believe that?

Then, in fact, let the stronger prevail.

You differ with Darwin, then. He said that was evil.

Barbarian on the notion that we must follow nature:
That’ makes as much sense as saying that geologists want to bury people alive, because they study landslides. The truth matters. It should matter to you.

Oh no, if man is made from mud, then we have no spirituality, no God, and no morals.

God disagrees with you on that.

Then why should we care about life or death? If we are nothing more than mud, then we have no worth, no value. Just another insect.

God says that even though we were made from the earth, we still have an immortal soul, and that makes all the difference.

And I was agreeing with the previous poster who said:
“I do have a problem with that because if man is just another animal you can treat him in ways that a more spiritual view of man would prohibit.”

And Darwin said that we weren’t just another animal.

Just like another pack of animals, let the strongest one dominate the rest. Isn’t that, nature?

Yes, but as Darwin said, we aren’t supposed to copy nature in our behavior.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Stein’s own Holocaust denial:
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

So he isn’t dening that it happened,

No, he’s denying that the Nazis were responsible. He says the Darwinists are. Of course, as you know, Darwin himself denounced such thinking and other Darwinists showed it was scientifically insupportable.

Caplan is outraged that Stein is making excuses for the Nazis, and denying the racism that caused the Holocaust.

Barbarian observes:
It’s true. He’s making excuses for the Nazis. According to him, they did it because Darwin told them to. In fact, he even claims that scientists were telling his family to go into the gas chambers.

If you actually believe that, then then I guess there’s no point in showing you that he lied, is there?

Hey, Darwin’s own cousin…

Sorry. Stien was talking about Darwinists. And as you know, they rejected eugenics.

The Nazis did practice Eugenics.

In spite of the fact that Darwin denounced it, and Darwinists showed it to be scientifically unsound. And yet Stein accused them of supporting it. This is why decent people consider him to be despicable.

The Eugenics movment practically died after WW 2. I wonder why?

Because even Mary’s people finally realized that Darwin and the Darwinists were right. Too bad they didn’t listen earlier, um?

And he never said that Darwin told them to do it. Darwins theory gave them the idea to do it.

Let’s be honest here,for a bit. The things the Nazis did can be found in Martin Luther’s writings long before Darwin. It’s time for you to face the truth about that.

Darwin’s theroy, made men into mud, and nothing more.

No you know better. God said man came from the earth, not Darwin.

And yeah, back then, the Nazis were not the only ones who had the idea of making the perfect speciman of men. It was world wide science at the time.

No. By the 1930s, that idea was dead in science. By 1871, Darwin had denounced it as evil, and by 1933, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan had shown it was bad science.

And the scientists that he mentioned, were in fact, Nazis too.

He didn’t name any. For the obvious reason. No scientists herded his family into the gas chambers. It was just another of his lies.

The Nazi scientists used those people and then killed them when they were done with them.

They were, the few of them that did it, doctors, not scientists. And certainly not Darwinists. Stein lied about that. Isn’t it time you faced the truth?

And nazism was not limited to just racial hatred, but hatred of all things considered by them , to be inferior: Jews, Gays, Sick, Mental, etc. THAT, is Steins point.

No. His “point” was that it was the fault of Darwinists. The very people who called it evil, and exposed it as unscientific. He is making excuses for the Nazis, ignoring the fact that racism was the cause, and blaming the very people who first denounced the idea.

Ben Stein denies the evil that caused the Holocaust, and blames the very people who warned against it. And all for his petty ideological causes. An evil, sick little man.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Stein’s own Holocaust denial:
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

No, he’s denying that the Nazis were responsible. He says the Darwinists are. Of course, as you know, Darwin himself denounced such thinking and other Darwinists showed it was scientifically insupportable.

Caplan is outraged that Stein is making excuses for the Nazis, and denying the racism that caused the Holocaust.

Barbarian observes:
It’s true. He’s making excuses for the Nazis. According to him, they did it because Darwin told them to. In fact, he even claims that scientists were telling his family to go into the gas chambers.

If you actually believe that, then then I guess there’s no point in showing you that he lied, is there?

Sorry. Stien was talking about Darwinists. And as you know, they rejected eugenics.

In spite of the fact that Darwin denounced it, and Darwinists showed it to be scientifically unsound. And yet Stein accused them of supporting it. This is why decent people consider him to be despicable.

Because even Mary’s people finally realized that Darwin and the Darwinists were right. Too bad they didn’t listen earlier, um?

Let’s be honest here,for a bit. The things the Nazis did can be found in Martin Luther’s writings long before Darwin. It’s time for you to face the truth about that.

No you know better. God said man came from the earth, not Darwin.

No. By the 1930s, that idea was dead in science. By 1871, Darwin had denounced it as evil, and by 1933, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan had shown it was bad science.

He didn’t name any. For the obvious reason. No scientists herded his family into the gas chambers. It was just another of his lies.

They were, the few of them that did it, doctors, not scientists. And certainly not Darwinists. Stein lied about that. Isn’t it time you faced the truth?

No. His “point” was that it was the fault of Darwinists. The very people who called it evil, and exposed it as unscientific. He is making excuses for the Nazis, ignoring the fact that racism was the cause, and blaming the very people who first denounced the idea.

Ben Stein denies the evil that caused the Holocaust, and blames the very people who warned against it. And all for his petty ideological causes. An evil, sick little man.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

So Barbarian think the eugenics movement has gone? He thinks that Darwin, Punnett and the scientist had debunked and destroyed it by the 1930s?

Barbarian you are the one who is in total denial—denial of the truth!

The London eugenics Society was doing work well through the twentieth century. In the 1990s it changed its name to the Galton Institute. They are contiuing the same legacy of the eugenics philosophies that led to the Nazi holocaust only they now use different approaches and state their aims in politically correct ways.

Here is an article about a public protest outside their insitute for eugenics in 1999:

Anti-eugenics protest in London at Galton Society

Genetic Crossroads
November 21st, 1999
geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=2932

This report from David King in London:

“On September 17, activists from People Against Eugenics disrupted
the meeting of the Galton Institute, formerly the Eugenics Society.
The action prevented Arthur Jensen from delivering his Galton
lecture on race and IQ.”

[Jensen is the UC professor of educational psychology who claims that
the differences between African American and white American IQ scores
are genetically caused, and who has urged `genetic foresight.’]

"The decision of the venue (The Zoological Society of London) to
close down the meeting also prevented Glayde Whitney of the
University of Florida from speaking on ‘Reproductive technology
for a New Eugenics.’

"People Against Eugenics is supported by the National Assembly
Against Racism, the Disabled People’s Direct Action Network, the
Jewish Socialist Group and the Genetic Engineering Network.

"Roy Webb of the Disabled People’s Direct Action Network said:
`The Eugenics Society want to eliminate disabled people, black
people, lesbian and gay people and anyone else that they see as
not fitting into their view of society. We want to celebrate
difference and create a fully inclusive society.’

“David King of People Against Eugenics said: `This meeting shows
that eugenics has not gone away and its philosophy has not
changed. The Eugenics Society operates behind the scenes, trying
to orchestrate a new eugenics based on reproductive technology
and genetics. We must not go quietly into their brave new
world of designer babies.’”

Here are excerpts from a story on the protest in The Guardian,
titled “Science Friction” (September 22, 1999):

"Biotechnology is the great new hope for eugenicists, who have
long advocated `improving’ the human race by controlling the
genes transmitted to future generations. New reproductive and
genetic technology, together with human cloning, has given birth
to what is being called the New Eugenics.

"Using biotechnology for social engineering is now becoming a
popular issue among leading scientists. Robert Edwards, test-
tube baby pioneer and expert on pre-implantation diagnosis, was
quoted two months ago as saying: `Soon it will be a sin of parents
to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease.
We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of
our children.’

"Eugenics has long met with fierce resistance. In London last
week, a conference of the Galton Institute—a charity which was
formerly the Eugenics Society—was disrupted by protesters.
Prof Glayde Whitney, from the department of psychology at Florida
State University, was about to talk on `Reproduction Technology
for a New Eugenics’ when a protester told the audience of
academics and others that Whitney had written the foreword to
a book by David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

For the complete Guardian story, see
http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/society/story/0,3605,84429,00.html

---

Your claim that darwin and his scientists did away with these ideas is false, false, false…

This group regularly has “Darwin Lectures”, talks by leading scientists and of course the title “darwin lectures” is a nod to the man who inspired them

Ben Stein was merely connecting the dots. He leaves it to us, you, me and others to decide what we need to do. he suggests
opening science up to include new questions and approaches that may lead to new posssible views and answers. Not to do that is to be a traitor to the scientific method.

Science may not give values bu the way scientists approach research and the ends of their research is directed by their values.
The dominance of the science world by men and women who do not believe in God and thus have no conscience in regards to their pursuits is a danger to all of us.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I found this on the Galton Institute website and to their credit they were arguing against this point of view. it does show that eugenics is still alive and going in dangerous directions:

Watson as wake-up call: When genetics endorses a new eugenics

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on October 22nd, 2007

biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=3724

The world now knows about the blatant racism of the twentieth century’s most famous geneticist. Those tracking the story have also learned of James Watson’s other assorted bigotries - his denigration of “ugly girls,” “stupid” children, and “fat people”; his endorsement of paying rich people to have more children and aborting affected fetuses when tests for a “gay gene” are developed.

But that’s not all. Though neither media nor blogosphere have noted it so far, Watson - and a small but disturbing number of other prominent figures - have over the past decade been actively promoting a renewed program of eugenics, this time using twenty-first century reproductive and genetic technologies.

The new eugenics crowd is hardly coy. Various among them have explicitly endorsed “seizing control of our [human] evolutionary future” and “engineering the human germline.” Back in 1998 they held a high-profile conference - covered on the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post - to plan how to make this high-tech eugenics “acceptable” to the American public.

At that event, Watson called for “mak[ing] better human beings” by “add[ing] genes.” A few years later, he advised that “Hitler’s use of the term Master Race” should not make us “feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today.”

Those familiar with the Center for Genetics and Society are aware of these travesties; in fact, CGS’s formation in 2001 was prompted in large part by the urgent need to counter them. Thus we’ve collected a fair sample of revealing Watsonisms. We’ve compiled these, and ask that anyone who has others send them to us.
biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=3724_________________________________________

Maybe science doesn’t give values on its own in a pure science form, but it does flow from the values of the scientists and it can infuse values in others by the way it presents a world view. If scientists (and others) see people as ‘machines’ or ‘animals’ or some species without recognizing the dignity bestowed on man by God then you will have science ( and society) take a possibly evil direction as it did in Nazi Germany.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

It’s why Watson’s career ended when he blathered that stuff. Maybe age got to him; maybe he always had those ideas. But even a Noble Laureate destroys his credibility in science with such ideas.

**Nobel Prize winner Dr.James Watson fired for his racial comments

“The comments, which were attributed to Dr. James Watson earlier this week in the London Times, are wrong, from every point of view — not the least of which is that they are completely inconsistent with the body of research literature in this area,” Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, said in a statement.
“Scientific prestige is never a substitute for knowledge. As scientists, we are outraged and saddened when science is used to perpetuate prejudice,” Zerhouni said.**

On the other hand, a prominent creationist, as late as 1993, was asserting the intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. And he was honored by being given the top post in the largest creationist organization in the world.

This is an key difference between scientists and creationists. Eugenic ideas espoused by a scientist, no matter how capable, can destroy his career. Eugenic ideas espoused by a creationist can help his career.

This is another reason Stein’s libel is so despicable.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So Barbarian think the eugenics movement has gone?

It’s gone in science. It lives on among your people.

He thinks that Darwin, Punnett and the scientist had debunked and destroyed it by the 1930s?

As a scientific theory, yes. But such ideas die hard among the scientifically ignorant. Stephen Gould wrote a book, The Mismeasure of Man, about the way it continues today.

Barbarian you are the one who is in total denial—denial of the truth!

You just “adjusted” what I said a bit, to get the statement you wanted.

The London eugenics Society was doing work well through the twentieth century. In the 1990s it changed its name to the Galton Institute. They are contiuing the same legacy of the eugenics philosophies that led to the Nazi holocaust only they now use different approaches and state their aims in politically correct ways.

Hmm… let’s take a look…

**Aims

a) The Institute promotes and supports the scientific study of human heredity and of its social implications.

b) The Institute promotes understanding of the ethical and moral implications of human genetics, and of its social implications.

c) The Institute promotes the public understanding of human heredity and of its relevance to human well-being in the broadest sense.

d) The Institute promotes the study of the historical origins and development of the above subjects.**

Other than an acceptance of artificial birth control, there’s nothing there that remotely resembles classical eugenics. Isn’t that a surprise? Of course, the Discovery Institute sometimes makes claims to be a scientific organization, hiding their true agenda. But can you point to something that this organization does like that?

Your claim that darwin and his scientists did away with these ideas is…

…nonexistent. I said that Darwinists destroyed any scientific rationale for classical eugenics. And that’s a fact. Your reworking of what I said is an accusation that’s…

false, false, false…

Ben Stein was merely connecting the dots.

Even where there weren’t any. As you know, he accused the Darwinists, the very people who destroyed any scientific basis for Hitler’s ideas, of being responsible for the Holocaust.

By denying the cause of the Holocaust, Stein is making excuses for the Nazis.

The truth matters, Mary. Please do a better job of telling it.

 

[leftistdestroye]

The Barbarian;3804704]

No. If you learn nothing else from this, learn that Darwinism does not, never did say that. Darwin made no claims about the origin of life, except to say that God did it.

I am not saying this. THIS is what people down the line got from it. Years after Darwin. So many biology proffessors are athiest because of this.

On the other hand, God says that the earth brought forth living things, including man. Genesis says life came from the mud, not Darwin.

Right, with God being the key difference here. And Darwin was more of an agnostic. Hel felt that religion was more of a tribal survival strategy, but still liked the morals that it taught. Many today, feel that we crawled out of slime becaue of Darwin.

God says that each of us is precious to Him, even if we were from the Earth. Don’t you believe that?

Sure I do. But if Darwinism becomes the prevailing wind, then that ideal will change.

You differ with Darwin, then. He said that was evil.

Yeah, but this proves my point, that sometimes, humans aren’t ready for certain sciences. His own cousin worked in Eugenics, which Darwin saw no practical use for. And then, of course, the Nazis. I am not trying to demonize Darwin, just explain some things that have happened since his theroy came out.

God disagrees with you on that.

Yes, He does. But if modern Darwinists, by removing God, are removing our morals. Being created from mud by God’s hand is one thing, but srawling out of the slime because of a random bolt of lightening, is quite another.

God says that even though we were made from the earth, we still have an immortal soul, and that makes all the difference.

As long as God is still mentioned in the equation. The more reason to let Himback in schools.

And Darwin said that we weren’t just another animal.

And is that the belief among the athiests and hard core modern Darwinists today? I do not belive so.

Yes, but as Darwin said, we aren’t supposed to copy nature in our behavior.

Right, and he even said that we are more civilized.

"these urges towards helping the “weak members” was part of our evolved instinct of sympathy, and concluded that “nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason”

But all of this is my point, that humans aren’t always ready for this type of stuff. For example:

“predicting, by analogy to the ways in which “more fit” varieties within a species would displace other varieties, the likelihood that indigenous peoples will eventually die out from their contact with “civilization”, or become absorbed into it completely.”-Darwin

Now some, could see invading other nations because of this comment. They could get the idea from this line, that if they invade other nations where the less civilized live, we can then change them and bring them up to par with the more civilized.

Ben Stien does not hate science, but it is how new science can give bad people ideas. Just like how Eugenics gate the Nazis ideas about the “inferior” Jews.

If you saw Stiens interview, you would see what his point was. That instead of accepting a loving, compassionate God, and replace him with strictly human science, then that humanism can lead to bad things. Look at our morals in this society today. The social movment of the 60’s, removed God, and replaced Him with human rational. Now we have an epidemic of teenagers who have an STD. Teach contraception instead of God’s Law. etc,etc,etc

That is Stiens point, only.

 

[leftistdestroye]

The Barbarian;3804715]

No, he’s denying that the Nazis were responsible. He says the Darwinists are.

Ahh, ok , I see what you are saying now.Well, he said that Darwin was, not Darwinists. Darwin did come up with the ideas. And Hitler was not the only one, Margaret Sanger and many others embraced the same things. Eugenics was a common “science” back then. And Darwins own cousin said that Eugenics was based on Darwin: “In the final address, Major Darwin extolled eugenics as the practical application of the principle of evolution”

Eugenics was science. Many god-like “doctors” were interested in this type of stuff back then. Many in acedemia were invloved in this type of stuff. The Nazis just did it on a grander scale. But it was science, that came up with and made public the science behind it. Like God and the tree of knowlege: Some things are best unknown by most people. They cannot handle it.

Of course, as you know, Darwin himself denounced such thinking and other Darwinists showed it was scientifically insupportable.

Not all of them, by any means. Again, his own cousin was an advocate of it. And so was this guy: Ernst Rüdin And Darwin was just a stepping stone. Sure, he did not agree with it, and even Einstein has been proven wrong on some things, but their theroies are stepping stones, where other scientists branch off on other ideas.

Caplan is outraged that Stein is making excuses for the Nazis, and denying the racism that caused the Holocaust.

It is impossible to deny racism in Nazis. Stien would be and is not that stupid, biased, or naieve.

If you actually believe that, then then I guess there’s no point in showing you that he lied, is there?

Scientists froze people alive to see if they could bring them back. Josef Mengele, a doctor, evil, but a doctor. Why would he “work” on twins, if hereditory science was not behind it?
Malaria experiments-scientists
The list goes on and on.

The Tuskeege Experiment in the US. Again, scientists.

I am not criticizing science at all, science is a good thing. But, it can be bad too. Look at the future of DNA and merging animals with humans. What was happening back then is right in front of us today.

Sorry. Stien was talking about Darwinists. And as you know, they rejected eugenics.

Yeah, but again, the advancemnt of science draws off of whatever it can. Eugenics did to.

In spite of the fact that Darwin denounced it, and Darwinists showed it to be scientifically unsound. And yet Stein accused them of supporting it. This is why decent people consider him to be despicable.

No, he pointed out how the removal of God, for science, can be bad.

.