Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[reggieM]

**

I’m sure you would not call Pol Pot, Hitler, or Charles Manson a person of “exalted character.”

Words mean things. If you don’t use them as others do, you will not communicate well.**

Apparently, you can only use the word as defined in a secular dictionary but not as Catholic theology uses it.

Additionally, you somehow think an animal is “exalted in character”, or perhaps is a member of a royal family.

The “Document of the Holy See for the International Year of Disabled Persons,” published in April, is one of the most comprehensive statements from any source to mark the international Year of Disabled Persons. It goes deeply into the practical difficulties facing disabled persons, their families and communities. But it goes further, to emphasise **the dignity and nobility of the human person **

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on Reggie’s claim that all humans are “noble.”
I’m sure you would not call Pol Pot, Hitler, or Charles Manson a person of “exalted character.”

Words mean things. If you don’t use them as others do, you will not communicate well.

Apparently, you can only use the word as defined in a secular dictionary but not as Catholic theology uses it.

Possibly. Why don’t you look up “noble” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and let us know what it says? I’ll be asking later what you found.

Additionally, you somehow think an animal is “exalted in character”, or perhaps is a member of a royal family.

Dogs in particular have character, and personality that is quite variable from dog to dog. And yes, some are nobler than others.

Show us, Reggie, that “nobility” means something in theology that it does not in normal usage.

And then explain to us how Hitler and Pol Pot were “noble” people.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Bartbarian observes:
Actually, that’s what you tried to do to me. You asserted that I was presenting science as some kind of hifaluten priesthood, and I pointed out to you that it wasn’t essentially different than plumbing.

You are presenting an argument. The difference was I attacked your idea about scientists and askked you to identify them. You attacked me personally.

Let’s take a look. You wrote to me:

…but I guess since you are the arbiter of what is science and what is not you can pick and choose which scientists are scientists, so it is a fairyland of your own devising in which no amount of evidence of the misdeeds done in the name o science will convince you…

Get it?

We all get it. You’re one who wants license to launch personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, and comes unglued at the slightest criticism.

One is asking for information, the other is just insulting a person ad hominem. Please stop.

You also wrote…

You throw it around in a sort of mystiical fashion as if these people are not human and adhere to the scientific method with an inhuman ability to be immune to prejudice…

If you indulge in personal attacks, you can surely understand why people won’t take your complaints seriously.

Barbarian observes:
Scientists can learn about God from nature. They just can’t use science to do it. If faith isn’t good enough for you, science can’t help.

Our pursuit of the Lord is not limited simply to faith but also in trying to do His will to glorify Him and love Him more. Science can help us to understand him through his universe.

Perhaps you could tell me of the scientific methodology that could do this.

Barbarian defines “scientist”:
A person investigating the physical universe, using the scientific method.

But WHO in specific? What sciences? Not sociology, but yes paleontology? Is it just things quantifiable? Clarify please.

Any more specific would rule out many scientists. Tony Leeuwenhoek, for example would be eliminated by anything more strict than the above, and yet he was one of the great scientists of all time.

Barbarian on what keeps them from straying from the method:
Common sense. When they stray, it doesn’t work anymore.

Not so.

Demonstrably so. If you don’t do it, you get nothing of worth.

Gravity was conceptually overturned by Eibnstein.

No, he just gave us a little better idea of what it is.

Newton was observably correct even though it lacked the understanding of gravity.

We still don’t understand gravity. Einstein did not overturn Newtonian gravity (which is still being taught and used) but rather refined and added to the theory.

Barbarian observes:
Common sense and peer review. If you let your expectations change your data, you’ll get bad results. And then peer review and reproducibilty problems ensue. It happens, but it doesn’t get far.

Who determines who constitutes the peer?

Publisher of the Journal. If he does poorly, people stop submitting articles. And in reputable journals, editors assign more than one reviewer for articles that break new ground or might be controversial.

What makes them unbiased?

They aren’t always. But the use of multiple reviews greatly reduces the possibility.

Isn’t there more of a danger of group think here?

Could be, but such journals don’t do very well; accomplished scientists don’t submit articles to them.

Barbarian on actual scientists committing atrocities:
I guess there must be some, but I can’t think of any just now. Apparently, you can’t either.

How about the lobotomies carried out as standard treatment in the 50s?

Physicians? Yeah, they did that. The Tuskegee studies on people not treated for STDs was particularly bad. Medicine is an art, not a science.

Kids locked up as inmates in psychological tests?

That’s an atrocity? The lawyers for the Gitmo detainees would love to have you as an expert witness.

Nuclear science tests that put clouds of radioactivity into the air when we didn’t know the impact on the environment?

Politicians? Yeah, that was bad, but hardly an “atrocity.” That would be like calling the energy companies criminal for leading gasoline, because a few people became ill from gas residue. But if you think that’s an atrocity, add Edward Teller. Note though, that most of the scientists in the program like Oppenheimer, Feynmann, and so one, protested unlimited testing.

The Tuskeggee experiment. Dr. Mengele genetic experiment.

Physicians, yes.

Barbarian chuckles:
Ah, you’re upset that I didn’t include police, politicians, clergy, engineers, and doctors? That doesn’t change anything, however.

Please stop personalizing the argument. If you don’t have somethingf meaningful to add, there’s no requirement to post.

The truth matters. It should matter to you.

Barbarian, on hating science:
Scientists are what they are. I’m thinking that maybe you define “scientist” as “people I don’t like very much.”

You’re wrong and it is an uncharitable assumption.

Then why are you having so much trouble finding scientists who fit your depiction of them?

We can do a better job of dialoguing than this.

You could start by dropping the “fairyland” stuff.

 

[reggieM]

Show us, Reggie, that “nobility” means something in theology that it does not in normal usage.
.

answers.com/topic/noble

Possessing hereditary rank in a political system or social class derived from a feudalistic stage of a country’s development.

Having or showing qualities of high moral character, such as courage, generosity, or honor: a noble spirit.

Proceeding from or indicative of such a character; showing magnanimity: “What poor an instrument/May do a noble deed!” (Shakespeare).

Grand and stately in appearance; majestic: “a mighty Spanish chestnut, bare now of leaves, but in summer a noble tree” (Richard Jeffries).

Chemistry. Inactive or inert.

Having qualities of a high moral character. This excludes animals.

Then again, what you actually meant was that some animals are more noble than humans since those animals come from a hereditary rank that the humans don’t come from.

Or even easier, what you really meant was that there are some animals that have a “more stately appearance”. Like horses.

It would be far easier just to say that you were trying to make a joke – but you’re obviously too defensive to do that.

You’re afraid that someone might realize what you really believe.

Don’t worry – I’m already quite aware of your beliefs. You made them clear on this thread itself with your comments about safe sex. That said a lot about you – and about your view of human nature and Catholic morality as well.

 

[Namesake]

So far you haven’t shown us any. And the fact is, as you know, that Darwin assailed the premises of classical genetics as evil. And you know that Darwinists showed that classical genetics was scientifically unsupported.

Germain sources from the period assert a link between Christianity and the Third Reich. I think they are wrong on both counts.

What seems to have you outraged is that I’m turning up material that refutes your beliefs.

You’re wrong, for the obvious reasons. Stein lied about scientists sending his relatives to the gas chambers. He lied about the roots of the Nazi Holocaust, a libel that was so outrageous that the Anti-Defamation society denounced the excuses he made for the Nazis.

You’re stuck on the wrong side of the Holocaust, Mary. You have attacked the very people who sought to undermine the culture of death you tell us you abhor.

I haven’t followed this thread, but, there is no link between Darwin and eugenics. None whatsoever! Social Darwinism is an invention that is way outside the theory of biologic evolution. Biologic evolution is confined to biology, and that doesn’t include origins…BTW. I know that Barbarian fully understands that.

 

[reggieM]

Possibly. Why don’t you look up “noble” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and let us know what it says? I’ll be asking later what you found.

Don’t bother.

Dogs in particular have character, and personality that is quite variable from dog to dog. And yes, some are nobler than others.

Interesting.

Show us, Reggie, that “nobility” means something in theology that it does not in normal usage.

I’m not a dog so I really don’t answer to commands.

And then explain to us how Hitler and Pol Pot were “noble” people.

Why do you want me to explain that to you?

 

[Namesake]

Medicine is an art, not a science.

It’s an art and a science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Possibly. Why don’t you look up “noble” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and let us know what it says? I’ll be asking later what you found.

Don’t bother.

Looked already, um? Told you so.

Barbarian observes:
Dogs in particular have character, and personality that is quite variable from dog to dog. And yes, some are nobler than others.

Interesting.

And enlightening, if you took the time to know. I don’t really trust people who aren’t fond of animals. Dogs in particular are very good at perceiving what a person is about emotionally.

Barbarian suggests again:
Show us, Reggie, that “nobility” means something in theology that it does not in normal usage.

I’m not a dog so I really don’t answer to commands.

And you don’t support your assertions when challenged. But then, neither does my dog.

Barbarian suggests:
And then explain to us how Hitler and Pol Pot were “noble” people.

Why do you want me to explain that to you?

I’d just like to see your reasoning. Personally, I think it’s crazy to consider them noble. But maybe I’d understand where you’re coming from, if you could explain it.

 

[reggieM]

Looked already, um? Told you so.

Yes, you did.

And enlightening, if you took the time to know.
I don’t really trust people who aren’t fond of animals. Dogs in particular are very good at perceiving what a person is about emotionally.

Ok. I have a dog and a cat.

I’d just like to see your reasoning. Personally, I think it’s crazy to consider them noble. But maybe I’d understand where you’re coming from, if you could explain it.

I was just wondering why you wanted to know that.

 

[sorter]

Oh My God.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

You’re one who wants license to launch personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, and comes unglued at the slightest criticism

I don’t think any of my reasoning has been unglued. I am not personalizing the arguments, but are basingthem in my issue with your rhetorical style which is stopping the discussion from moving forward.

Another poster pointed out to you diorectly how nobility is intrinsically linked to humanity, but you brushed it off. The clear linking in Catholic theology was shown to you in regard to nobility and humanity intrinsically and you blew it off for continued parse and attack posts, so no progress was made in the discussion. The discussion couldn;t move to humanity and nobility are linked, therefore…

You also wrote…

If you indulge in personal attacks, you can surely understand why people won’t take your complaints seriously.

That was not a personal attack. I demonstrated that you are using rhetoric to shift the bars in the argument. You constructed a fairyland, not you are this or that or did some moral deed or have a moral weakness. I did not even accuse you of being disingenuous. I described the fault in your rhetoric to try and help the discussion. You change topics and move along ignoring points others make so no useful conversation can occur, just point and counterpoint. No useful progress can be made from these argumentative jabs (as shown by the reptitive nature of this thread)

You do construct a scientism’s fairyland by isolating the virtue from the other impacts that scientists have and by giving them superlative qualities compared to humanity in general. Not an attack, an observation on your rhetorical style. Calling me unglued, is an attack. Personalizing a debate turns it from the topic to the person and stops progress.

Barbarian observes:
Scientists can learn about God from nature. They just can’t use science to do it. If faith isn’t good enough for you, science can’t help.

From Faith and Reason:
This is to say that with the light of reason human beings can know which path to take, but they can follow that path to its end, quickly and unhindered, only if with a rightly tuned spirit they search for it within the horizon of faith. Therefore, reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way.

We are called to love God, not simply know that he exists. Science in its proper context helps us to know God better. We may not be in disagreement here.

As for scientists, yes they do awful things just like other humans. Sometimes like nuclear testing worse than many since science can give them power. They also do great things. For purposes though of this thread which was trying for a thousand posts to determine the sociological impact of science on society it doesn’t do to isolate them to their specific actions in the “lab”.

Also, I think it will continue to be a hard conversation when the definition of scientist is so narrowly defined and selectively assessed. Luuewenhook but not Mengele. Physics but not Psychology.

How can we understand “How science leads to killing people (or not)” if there is no identification of what SCIENCE is within the context of society that is concupiscent. I have read some writers making a distinction between scientism and not science, maybe that would help.

I don’t think anyone would say that the discovery of the evolutionary process in and of itself is detrimental to humanity. I think people would take issue with how that idea has been applied and been applied with the imprimatur of science.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian observes:
You know better. As you learned, Darwin insisted that humans differ from animals in having rights to life and liberty, and in having a spiritual aspect lacking in animals.

---

You don’t think those are great differences? That might be the problem, Mary. Darwin said that man differed from animals. Apparently, the way he thought they differed doesn’t seem right to you.

differed from animals in ‘degree’, according to Darwin.
I say man differs from animals in ‘kind’ because I believe reflective thought and action is different from instinctual thought and action.
I believe man’s ability to conceive, invent, imagine things even beyond normal experience is an ability not found in animals.

I found that this argument that man is not different from animals has been brought up and argued by other scientists as well.

here is a description of a book which is apparently viewable (at least excerpts0 online.

The book was published in 1983 and shows the inconsistancy in the view that man is just an animal as does not have distint abilities that are radically and obviously different from animals:

The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes
By Mortimer Jerome Adler
Contributor Deal Hudson
Published by Fordham Univ Press, 1993
ISBN 0823215350, 9780823215355
395 pages

"In this classic work, Adler explores how man differs from all other things in the universe, bringing to bear both philosophical insight and informed scientific hypotheses concerning the biological and behavioral characteristics of mainkind. Rapid advances in science and technology and the abstract concepts of that influence on man and human value systems are lucidly outlined by Adler, as he touches on the effect of industrialization, and the clash of cultures and value systems brought about by increased communication between previously isolated groups of people. Among the other problems this study addresses are the scientific achievements in biology and physics which have raised fundamental questions about humanity’s essential nature, especially the discoveries in the bilogical relatedness of all living things. Thrown into high relief is humanity’s struggle to determine its unique status in the natual world and its value in the world it has created. Ultimately, Adler’s work develops an approach to the separation between scientific and philosophical questions which stands as a model of thought on philosophical considerations of new scientific discoveries and its consequences for the human person. "

books.google.com/books?id=FQg-tidIDoQC&dq=scientific+evidence+man+differes+from+animals&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

I haven’t read this book…but I post it here to show that I am not a lone person cryiong wolf…other people in the sciences are pointing out what seems extremely obvious.
Man is different from animals.

I like animals as much as anyone. I think that sometimes animals act through instinct in ways that show amazing attributes …but whether those acts of seeming courage and self sacrifice in protecting their young or saving their master are the same as the act of courage on a battle field by a young man who can consciously choose the opposite action against instince, that is debatable. Also animals just do not conceive and invent…they may use tools, but they don’t invent and rearrange and reflect and
create…something man has been doing from the beginning.
That is why in Genesis there is a dinction when man is made by God. That is why Adam did not find his equal partner among the animals. Clearly this book of the bible shows man is different.
Since we can at least agree that science and religion should and can be compatible, why is it hard to agree that this part of Genesis should be accounted for in any authentic scientific view of man.

---

It’s notable that you prefer an atheist who dislikes evolution, to a theist who accepts it. Sometimes, you have to make a choice between what you want and what God wants, Mary.

Here you go again…
I have not rejected evolution, only Darwin’s version of evolution.
Darwin’s version is the atheist version.He knew it…that is why it took him so long to publish and why he knew his “Descent of Man” would really be controversial. His statement that he would ‘shew’ (unlike other people in the sciences) that man could be explained as an animal , different not in kind butonly in degree…and his insistance that everything could be explained through material means…his “M” notebooks, noted for their materialistic content and view…all make Darwin the atheist here.

That along with all the journals all saying he did not believe in God. His friendships with agnostics,etc. etc…

Barabarian you can’t re-make Darwin. He is what he is, and that is an atheist.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You know better. As you learned, Darwin insisted that humans differ from animals in having rights to life and liberty, and in having a spiritual aspect lacking in animals.

You don’t think those are great differences? That might be the problem, Mary. Darwin said that man differed from animals.

differed from animals in ‘degree’, according to Darwin.

He said their physical attributes differed in degree. But not their spiritual ones. I’m getting the feeling that you wish Darwin hadn’t said there was an essential difference, so you could dislike him more.

(argument that some other scientist thinks man isn’t essentially different from animals)

Fine. Hate him, then. But we are talking about Darwin.

Barbarian observes:
It’s notable that you prefer an atheist who dislikes evolution, to a theist who accepts it. Sometimes, you have to make a choice between what you want and what God wants, Mary.

Here you go again…

No, here you go again. Why should we be listening to an atheist who killed himself, about the value of humans? What are you thinking, Mary?

I have not rejected evolution, only Darwin’s version of evolution.
Darwin’s version is the atheist version.

That is a rather odd statement in light of Darwin’s argument that God created the first living things. If that’s atheism, Catholics are atheists.

Barabarian you can’t re-make Darwin. He is what he is, and that is an atheist.

**There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. **
Charles Darwin, last sentence from The Origin of Species
1872

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

 

[The_Barbarian]

You’re one who wants license to launch personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, and comes unglued at the slightest criticism

And yet you were the one who did the “fairyland” attack, and then whined about being called on it.

I don’t think any of my reasoning has been unglued. I am not personalizing the arguments, but are basingthem in my issue with your rhetorical style which is stopping the discussion from moving forward.

The best thing you can do, is to stop focusing on how unhappy you are that people don’t agree with you, stop doing personal attacks, and focus on the facts. That will move things forward.

Another poster pointed out to you diorectly how nobility is intrinsically linked to humanity, but you brushed it off.

I pointed out that not all humans are noble. And I pointed out that he had confused “sacred worth” with “noble.”

The clear linking in Catholic theology was shown to you in regard to nobility and humanity intrinsically

No. Here’s a hint. Go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and look up “noble.” Come back and tell us what it says.

Barbarian on the “fairyland” stuff:
If you indulge in personal attacks, you can surely understand why people won’t take your complaints seriously.

That was not a personal attack.

You were highly indignant over much milder criticism. Double standard here.

You do construct a scientism’s fairyland by isolating the virtue from the other impacts that scientists have and by giving them superlative qualities compared to humanity in general.

I’ve repeatedly written here that scientists are pretty much like everyone else, and there is nothing intrinsically different about doing science, comparing it to plumbing. You’ve simply constructed a strawman, and you’re hopping mad that it didn’t work.

Not an attack, an observation on your rhetorical style. Calling me unglued, is an attack.

You seem to be completely unable to set your feelings aside, and argue the issues. This post is a perfect example.

Barbarian observes:
Scientists can learn about God from nature. They just can’t use science to do it. If faith isn’t good enough for you, science can’t help.

From Faith and Reason:
This is to say that with the light of reason human beings can know which path to take, but they can follow that path to its end, quickly and unhindered, only if with a rightly tuned spirit they search for it within the horizon of faith. Therefore, reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way.

Says nothing about science. You seem to have assumed that there is no reason outside of science. That is an error.

As for scientists, yes they do awful things just like other humans.

Someone did a survey on that some time ago, and scientists behave slightly better than average, in things like obeying the law, being faithful to their spouses, etc.

Not a lot, but somewhat better. And the study was done by a scientist who was a bit unconventional in his life, and wanted to see if he was typical or not.

Also, I think it will continue to be a hard conversation when the definition of scientist is so narrowly defined

“A person studying the physical universe, using the scientific method” is about as broad as it can be. Mengele was just hacking at helpless people; his work was junk, because he didn’t do any science.

Luuewenhook but not Mengele.

See the definition. It’s a good one.

Physics but not Psychology.

Psychology is a science, and it is a very useful and rigorous one. Lots of undegreed kooks on the fringes, pretty much like Mengele, only not so sinister. But they don’t fit the definition.

How can we understand “How science leads to killing people (or not)” if there is no identification of what SCIENCE is within the context of society that is concupiscent.

I gave you a good and testable one, and you didn’t like it.

I have read some writers making a distinction between scientism and not science, maybe that would help.

Scientism is the attempt by non-scientists to borrow the prestige of science for their own agendas. ID, and other New Age beliefs are like that.

I don’t think anyone would say that the discovery of the evolutionary process in and of itself is detrimental to humanity. I think people would take issue with how that idea has been applied and been applied with the imprimatur of science.

Truth is what it is. What people do with the truth is another issue. There is nothing science has discovered that can’t help make the world better, or be used to evil purposes.

Arguing that science is to blame is an attempt to relieve one’s self of blame.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Since all human beings are created in the image of God, then nobility is integral to the human person – sinner or not. That nobility is on a higher order of being than that of animals.

Excellent point. My understanding (jarred by your post) is that even Lucifer the fallen angel who once was the most beautiful of angels, still has an inherent nobility by the fact that he is an angelic creature, even if he is God’s enemy and fallen from grace.
From catholic Ecyclopedia on the animating soul of a person:

It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the human embryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates man above all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever…

"as early as the fourth century of the Christian era, St. Gregory of Nyssa had advocated the view which modern science has confirmed almost to a certainty, namely, that the same life principle quickens the organism from the first moment of its individual existence until its death (Eschbach, Disp. Phys., Disp., iii). Now it is at the very time of conception, or fecundation, that the embryo begins to live a distinct individual life. For life does not result from an organism when it has been built up, but the vital principle builds up the organism of its own body. In virtue of the one eternal act of the Will of the Creator, Who is of course ever present at every portion of His creation, the soul of every new human being begins to exist when the cell which generation has provided is ready to receive it as its principle of life.

bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Abortion_(Catholic_Encyclopedia

This article comes from the Presidesnt’s Council on Bioethics:
bioethics.gov/reports/human_dignity/chapter4.html
"While all three moral principles are important for bioethics, this paper will focus on human dignity-the definition and grounding of human dignity as well as the practical question of whether it provides a workable guideline for decisions about biotechnology. The position I will take is that human dignity is a viable moral concept for bioethics, but one that needs clarification. To clarify the concept, I will compare three models of man-the model of scientific materialism, according to which man is a complex machine; the model of classical philosophy which views man as a rational soul united to a body; and the Biblical view of man as a creature made in the image of God. My argument is that human dignity implies a special moral status for human beings and that this special status ultimately requires a belief in the human soul. Scientific materialism denies the soul and thereby undermines human dignity, but most materialists find they cannot do without the soul and restore it by various strategies. Classical philosophy is more sensible in claiming that human beings have rational souls united to physical bodies, but the theoretical underpinnings of this doctrine are highly speculative. Surprisingly, the Bible and Christian theology may make the strongest case for human dignity because they recognize that human dignity is a mystery: the special status of man cannot be reduced to any set of essential attributes but rests on the mysterious “election” of man as the only creature in the universe made in the image of God. I will conclude by showing why human dignity, grounded in the mystery of the soul, should make scientists think twice about experiments aimed primarily at advancing earthly happiness and scientific knowledge. "

---

At some point science has to descend from the throne of ‘judging’ life and takes its proper seat at serving life. Acknowledging the proper dignity of each human person, no matter who they are or what kind of genes they have, is a step in that direction.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

The problem is that the argumentation for argument’s sake derails the purpose of the thread, which is to examine the claim “Science Leads to killing People”. It goes unanswered after 1000 posts as there is no defining what science is in a sociological context where science is applied.

1. Define what we mean as “Science” in its sociological context.
2. How does that “Science” impact society.
3. Does the "Science lead to killing people.

One poster defines science as simply the scientific method. Science as it is applied and as it may have been meant in the original thread question may have been: How do the scientific method and scientific theories impact society?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

When science that is more hypothesis and theory is laced with values that are contrary to universal truth and morals, than science will lead to death in one way or the other. Some forms of ‘death’ may not be as obvious as the holocaust and so they go on for years without being fought against. You would think that our society would be free of such things, but we are not. We are just as susceptible to the ‘death’ of false science as any other culture. So pure science, conformed to universal truth and confirmed by fact rather than personal philosophical meandering should be a blessing. Ben Stein was not condemning pure science in my estimation, only giving reproval toward a scientitfic community that had forgotten or turned away from the rigors of being tied to full truth.

The long detour down the Darwin track was needed to show some of the ways 20th century science, based on Darwin, was more philosophy than truth or pure science.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

I watched ben Stein’s documentary and I believe he was very unbiased in his approach.

Stein banned any Christian evolutionists from his movie. For the obvious reason. If he had not banned any mention of that, his argument would have collapsed. His entire movie depends on suppressing evidence.

he went to all sides seeking answers.

No, that is a falsehood. He made sure no Christians who accepted evolution were included. “No intelligence allowed.” You betcha.

In the end he showed science is not as open to questions as it should be if it really wants to find answers.

Did you know that he faked the “college lecture” shown in the movie? The thunderous applause came because he rented a college hall and paid people to come in, pose as students, and applaud him on cue.

You already know that the Anti-Defamation League condemned him for making excuses for the Nazis and for his blood libel against scientists.

I am sorry that you are being closed minded and unable to hear his point of view.

Judging by the movie, his point of view is that he should be able to suppress any opinions he doesn’t like.

As soon as any area of academic study puts itself above reproach there is a danger that it will wither and progress falsely or not at all.

Since biology is at the cutting edge of science today, and since we seen an increasing rate of important new discoveries, I’d say that was pretty good evidence that it hasn’t put itself above reproach. In fact, there are entire journals dedicated to solving problems in evolution.

Shows how important the virtue of ‘humility’ is in all endeavors.

Would “humility” include hiring people to applaud for you?

I think everyone should see his movie, because it makes excellent points. The link he made between Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger and racial eugenics was and is true. No one is willing to talk about that…and we NEED to talk about that.

You were outraged when we talked about it. When you learned that Darwin and his followers had criticized eugenics and even showed that eugenics were scientifically insupportable, you weren’t very pleased.

The purgrative process rquires a sincere desire for truth and sometimes that means facing what faults honestly.

When you can fact the facts about Stein and his dishonesties, you will be through the process. When you can accept the fact that Stein purposely prevented all points of view from being discussed in his movie, then you can move on. As long as you cling to the fantasy that his exclusion of Christian scientists from the movie was “fair”, you will not find peace in this matter.

I think he is only asking the science community to do that.

**The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.**
Antidefamation League

And that pretty much nails it.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Some debates can’t be brought to a conclusion because different parties are unable to even admit some error in their judgement.

Even on something as basic as Darwin being a materialist we have come to a standstill because the evidence isn’t heard or received.

When someone is sooo stubborn they stick to the ridiculous idea that Martin Luther’s anti-semitic writings as being the whole basis for a program of racial cleansing involving other people besides Jewish people—then how are you going to get anywhere at all!!!
Barbarian you ARE the scientist Ben Stein was talking about, absolutely unable to receive any new evidence contrary to your desired conclusion…

and that is certainly not what ‘science’ is suppose to be

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Some debates can’t be brought to a conclusion because different parties are unable to even admit some error in their judgement.

It appears you’re never going to admit that Stein banned Christian evolutionists from his film. But the fact is, he did. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

Even on something as basic as Darwin being a materialist we have come to a standstill because the evidence isn’t heard or received.

Yes, when Darwin admitted to man having a spiritual side, and when he acknowledged God as the Creator of life, that should have been enough. But you will not accept evidence.

When someone is sooo stubborn they stick to the ridiculous idea that Martin Luther’s anti-semitic writings as being the whole basis for a program of racial cleansing involving other people besides Jewish people–

About 90 percent of the Wannsee Protocol is in Luther’s advice to princes on what to do with the Jews. That’s a fact. Would you like to see it, again?

It’s also a fact that the Nazis openly gave Luther credit for his advice. Would you like to see that again?

then how are you going to get anywhere at all???!!!

You’re not. You are so committed to this corrupt ideology that none of the evidence has any affect on you whatever.

Barbarian you ARE the scientist Ben Stein was talking about,

Shoving Jews into gas chambers, um? But you couldn’t find even one instance of that. Is it any wonder the Anti-defamation League took him to task for his blood libel?

absolutely unable to receive any new evidence contrary to your desired conclusion…

Funny how people like that, never realize it applies to them, um?