Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[Humanum_Genus]

Wikepedia??

Look who’ being fed propaganda,

Looks its you two who need to do more research, your sources certainly are not credible since they are anti-Christian sources.

That goes for you too tim.

tonyl, sorry, but it is you who has got it backwards. Wikepedia?

My goodness, you might as well have quoted the humanist manifesto.

I understand all right, that for universities controlled by anti-Christian fanatics, you need to follow their darwinian ideology to get tenure and if you do not, then you will not get tenure.

Sorry barbarian, but you simply are not believable.

then again, neither are tim and tonyl

You people accuse the makers of expelled of lying, but from what i have seen, it is not the expelled people who are lying but rather the atheist and secularist infested and controlled scientific community and their rabid defenders.

 

[buffalo]

The Irrational Atheist posits the same thing in defense of the atheists who claim science has only benefited mankind.

 

[tonyl]

Wikepedia??

Look who’ being fed propaganda,

Looks its you two who need to do more research, your sources certainly are not credible since they are anti-Christian sources.

That goes for you too tim.

tonyl, sorry, but it is you who has got it backwards. Wikepedia?

My goodness, you might as well have quoted the humanist manifesto.

I understand all right, that for universities controlled by anti-Christian fanatics, you need to follow their darwinian ideology to get tenure and if you do not, then you will not get tenure.

Sorry barbarian, but you simply are not believable.

then again, neither are tim and tonyl

You people accuse the makers of expelled of lying, but from what i have seen, it is not the expelled people who are lying but rather the atheist and secularist infested and controlled scientific community and their rabid defenders.

Wow, such hate and slander from someone who claims to be a Christian.

I mistakenly assumed that you would be open to an honest discussion, but I see now that honesty is not particularly important to you. I’ll try to refrain from making that mistake in the future.

 

[Orogeny]

Wikepedia??

Look who’ being fed propaganda,

Looks its you two who need to do more research, your sources certainly are not credible since they are anti-Christian sources.

So look for another source. Wikipedia is not my choice as a reference either. Luckily, there are numerous other articles about what happened.

Quite honestly, though, I doubt that you will either look it up or comment on the case.

That goes for you too tim.

You know, you are probably right. I probably should include WND and the National Enquirer to my list of resources.

I understand all right, that for universities controlled by anti-Christian fanatics, you need to follow their darwinian ideology to get tenure and if you do not, then you will not get tenure.

Well, I guess you have bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. Stein is now your new prophet.

Sorry barbarian, but you simply are not believable.

then again, neither are tim and tonyl

I don’t mind being lumped in with either of those two. Truth is a good bedfellow.

You people accuse the makers of expelled of lying, but from what i have seen, it is not the expelled people who are lying but rather the atheist and secularist infested and controlled scientific community and their rabid defenders.

Well, you can call us liars all you want, but the facts are on our side. If it makes you feel superior, however, please continue as that is clearly important to you.

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

Wikepedia??

Look who’ being fed propaganda,

I’m sure you’re embarassed to learn it. Fact is, Gonzales ceased to be a productive scholar. And like others with the same performance, he didn’t get tenure.

Looks its you two who need to do more research, your sources certainly are not credible since they are anti-Christian sources.

Well, since you’re claiming he was abused for his religious beliefs (but weren’t you guys claiming ID wasn’t a relgion?) feel free to show that he was treated different than other untenured people with the same level of performance.

I understand all right, that for universities controlled by anti-Christian fanatics,

When I was at Iowa State, two different department heads under which I worked, were active in their local churches, and there was even a creationist in one department. He had tenure, too. But then, his output and ability to get grants was considerably better than Gonzales’s.

you need to follow their darwinian ideology to get tenure and if you do not, then you will not get tenure.

See above. It’s true. The gentleman to which I was referring was head of medical bacteriology, and apart from that little oddity, was a wonderful person, and a good scholar.

Sorry barbarian, but you simply are not believable.

You can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, but reality is not in the least affected.

You people accuse the makers of expelled of lying,

Yep. I read the Newsweek interview with Stein. He claimed that Sternberg was fired. In fact, Sternberg wasn’t even an employee (and has been renewed as a Research Associate with the Smithsonian). Stein lied. No way to sugarcoat it.

but from what i have seen, it is not the expelled people who are lying

So far, you’ve seen only that which Stein allowed you to see. And as you’ve just learned, that wasn’t the truth.

You’re a victim only as long as you let them control what you see.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Ask your daughter if she has ever been to a scientific conference. If she has, she knows how questioning science is.What questions are not allowed? God? If you know of any science that can detect God, bring it up. It will be discussed.

What about those who want to teach palm reading is physiology classes? Should we be open to that? What about astrology in astrophysics departments? Be careful what you ask for when you ask that ALL questions be put on the table. Remember, a lot of those questions have been asked and answered.

Peace

Tim

My daughter just attended a conference in Canada.

My daughter is a very intelligent person and she is the one who recommended Ben Stein’s movie to me. She can see both sides of this.Anyone of intelligence in college classrooms these days has to be able to see when a teacher is promoting a particular agenda to come out sanely without their brians scrambled.

I also remember seeing on the news when the scientist from the
Smithsonian was fired. I remember the interview with him and how he was being fired over the ID isue, so I don’t think this is all lies as you say.

Besides if you give credence to Michael Moore films, then I do question your judgement.shrug:

As far as asking for too much when I ask that all questions be allowed, the questions are out there…every scientist selects which ones he or she will deal with. If a scientist makes a discovery or draws a conclusion, it should not be censored.

I have always resented the Darwin Theory being taught as if it were gospel truth, because even I, as a complete outsider, can recognize it isn’t totally proven, and doesn’t have all the answers.

I watched a movie from the local public library on Buddhism and the guy teaching about Buddhist belief said the theory was that some of these little one celled life forms had the "enlightenment’
tendency…or were little "buddhas’…can’t remember how he worded it, but that is why they started uniting and becoming more complex.

But he made as much sense as anything I have heard about how complex life forms came our of the primordial soup, which means I haven’t heard of anything that really explains it…
The fact that some things just point to God cannot and should not be denied. maybe if you started with the assumption there was a God you would get further… What are the 'Theist" Darwinian people saying about the start of life?

God Bless, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Office of Special Counsel Concludes Smithsonian Created a “Hostile Work Environment” In Effort to Oust Biologist Skeptical of Darwinism
ARTICLE :
discovery.org/a/2796
:"The OSC letter, made public by Dr. Sternberg, states that “retaliation came in many forms,” and says that the OSC was able to find support for many of Dr. Sternberg’s allegations, including:

A hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing him out of the Smithsonian.

Sternberg’s religious and political affiliations were investigated.

Sternberg’s scientific education, background and writings were investigated.

Attempts were made to deny Sternberg workspace within the Smithsonian.

Misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian and to outside sources."

I find it interesting the OSC letter cannot be accessed right now on the internet.

MaryJohnZ

 

[Bennie_P]

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

In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said the following amazing thing in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr.

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers *, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: … Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

(Full video here tbn.org/video_portal/))*

This statement is out of context. Ben Stein is not against science, only against making science ones god. Science without God, or the love of God, leads scientist to killing people. That separating from the God connection, relying only on man’s knowledge and reason leads to destruction and death. And that is exactly what happen in Nazi Germany. The Scientist (separating themselves from Judea-Christian morality) thought they could solve what they saw was the problem within thier world view and in the process murdered 12 million people.

I have heard Ben Stein in many interviews over the last few weeks and picking out a few quotes from one is not being fair, nor correct to conclude that Ben Stein opposes science in general, for he does not.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

it seems Ithere has been a lot of political maneuvering to make this appear as if Steinberg was put in place by the Bush administration just to make it appear that Christians were being persecuted by the scientific community. The fact is that some people have found actual e-mails on line by people within the Smithsonian who were trying to find ways of firing Steinberg for his article. Now they are just trying to cover that up and make it look like nothing like that ever happened.

here is a post i found online: by a

Andrew Rowell | August 18, 2005 2:10 PM
Thank you Wesley and Reed, (BTW apologies for the duff NRO link above! it should be www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp)

I got the impression that McVay had access to at least some internal SI emails (from David Klinghoffer’s article

Klinghoffer ‘quoting’ from McVay OSC Wrote:
“Within two weeks of receiving the Meyer article in the Proceedings, four managers at the SI and NMNH [National Museum of Natural History] expressed their desire to have your access to the SI denied.” A typical internal e-mail on the subject fumed, “I hope we are not even considering extending his access to space.” (All quotations from e-mails given here are taken from the OSC’s letter to Sternberg.) Another expresses frustration that a good pretext for dismissing him had so far not been identified: “As he hasn’t (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong,… the sole reason to terminate his appt seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that’s OK w/NMNH, let me know and I’ll send him a letter stating so.” One manager huffed, “Well, if you ask me, a face-to-face meeting or at least a ‘you are welcome to leave or resign’ call with this individual is in order.” The same e-mail indicated that a manager had been compiling trivial offenses by Sternberg that could be cited in telling him to get out. Among other things, the Smithsonian staffer had gone over Sternberg’s library records. He “has currently 50 books checked out from the SI library (I checked this with the library).”
pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_compl.html
You don’t think that sounds like persecution?

I sure do…

MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

it seems Ithere has been a lot of political maneuvering to make this appear as if Steinberg was put in place by the Bush administration just to make it appear that Christians were being persecuted by the scientific community.

That would be granting them capabilities they clearly lack. I don’t know whether this one was orchestrated, or was merely a target of opportunity, but the fact that Sternberg submitted a letter of resignation long before he inserted the article suggests that at least he was planning something.

The fact is that some people have found actual e-mails on line by people within the Smithsonian who were trying to find ways of firing Steinberg for his article. Now they are just trying to cover that up and make it look like nothing like that ever happened.

The Smithsonian denied the emails existed? Do you have any evidence for that?

I got the impression that McVay had access to at least some internal SI emails (from David Klinghoffer’s article

A typical internal e-mail on the subject fumed, “I hope we are not even considering extending his access to space.”

But they did extend his access to space. So the Smithsonian didn’t give that guy any satisfaction, even if they knew he wrote the email.

(Among other things, the Smithsonian staffer had gone over Sternberg’s library records. He “has currently 50 books checked out from the SI library (I checked this with the library).”

Yep. They found uncatalogued material from other institutions in his area, also. Likewise a violation of rules. Sternberg seems to have been not very cooperative with the Smithsonian or other staffers. Yet they extended his status. Contrary to Sternberg’s and Stein’s accusations, he was never fired. Last time I checked, he is still a research associate there, and he still has his real job.

You don’t think that sounds like persecution?

In Texas, an ID advocate with pull in the State government got a TEA staffer fired for publicizing a talk by a scientist the IDer disliked. They sent angry emails about her too. But her boss responded to them by firing her.

Which of these two sounds more like persecution to you?

 

[The_Barbarian]

This statement is out of context.

Stein said it was scientists who told his relatives to go into chambers to be gassed.

How exactly would context correct a libel of those proportions? Yes, Stein is a liar. He worked for Nixon and wrote lies for him. It was his job. But this sort of pointless defamation ( who in his right mind would think scientists were operating the death camps?) is beyond any sort of thing he’s done in the past. Please show us how “context” would correct that.

 

[Orogeny]

My daughter just attended a conference in Canada.

Good. Then she knows that questioning is what science is about.

My daughter is a very intelligent person and she is the one who recommended Ben Stein’s movie to me. She can see both sides of this.

I’m sure she is very intelligent. I can see both sides of this issue as well. I just reject the ID side because I have seen that side.

Anyone of intelligence in college classrooms these days has to be able to see when a teacher is promoting a particular agenda to come out sanely without their brians scrambled.

Would that include those who advocate ID?

I also remember seeing on the news when the scientist from the
Smithsonian was fired. I remember the interview with him and how he was being fired over the ID isue, so I don’t think this is all lies as you say.

Unfortunately for you, those reports were wrong. He was never fired. In fact, his appointment at the Smithsonian was extended after he resigned as editor of that publication.

Besides if you give credence to Michael Moore films, then I do question your judgement.shrug:

What in the world makes you think that I give ANY credence to Michael Moore? I will say that I give him as much credence as I do Ben Stein.

As far as asking for too much when I ask that all questions be allowed, the questions are out there…every scientist selects which ones he or she will deal with. If a scientist makes a discovery or draws a conclusion, it should not be censored.

So if someone wanted to teach water witching in one of my geophysics classes when I was in college, they should have been allowed to regardless of what the curriculum called for? Really?

I have always resented the Darwin Theory being taught as if it were gospel truth, because even I, as a complete outsider, can recognize it isn’t totally proven, and doesn’t have all the answers.

No scientific theory is totally proven and no scientific theory has all the answers. Why do you require that of evolution?

I watched a movie from the local public library on Buddhism and the guy teaching about Buddhist belief said the theory was that some of these little one celled life forms had the "enlightenment’
tendency…or were little "buddhas’…can’t remember how he worded it, but that is why they started uniting and becoming more complex.

But he made as much sense as anything I have heard about how complex life forms came our of the primordial soup, which means I haven’t heard of anything that really explains it…
The fact that some things just point to God cannot and should not be denied. maybe if you started with the assumption there was a God you would get further… What are the 'Theist" Darwinian people saying about the start of life?

God Bless, maryJohnZ

Perhaps you will be advocating for him to be able to teach that in biology classes?

By the way, what do you think my belief system is?

Peace

Tm

 

[jaxson]

It amazes me how many people here have fallen for literal creationism nonsense, a product of the anti-Catholic Christian fundamentalists.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Good. Then she knows that questioning is what science is about.I’m sure she is very intelligent. I can see both sides of this issue as well. I just reject the ID side because I have seen that side.Would that include those who advocate ID?Unfortunately for you, those reports were wrong. He was never fired. In fact, his appointment at the Smithsonian was extended after he resigned as editor of that publication.What in the world makes you think that I give ANY credence to Michael Moore? I will say that I give him as much credence as I do Ben Stein.So if someone wanted to teach water witching in one of my geophysics classes when I was in college, they should have been allowed to regardless of what the curriculum called for? Really?No scientific theory is totally proven and no scientific theory has all the answers. Why do you require that of evolution?Perhaps you will be advocating for him to be able to teach that in biology classes?

Tim,

By the way, what do you think my belief system is?

Peace

Tm

I have no idea what your belief system is but I question some of your responses.

yes, there may be a lot of silly or not important questions and research out there but we are talking about what particular area.
Why not put the questions for that particular area all on the table and allow them. Each scientist can go away with the questions they want to study further…but to just say something is settled, especially something so unclear as evolution which really cannot explain where life comes from in the first place, is not going to be helpful to anyone.

SO what do you believe? Where did life come from and how? Are people just monkeys with souls? How do you take evolution and make it work with the Garden of Eden story?

If you can start to explain those questions I would be fascinated.

I am not a scientist as I said before. I actully work in the area of the arts, teaching drawing and art appreciation, so I am in a totally different area of study.

Those are my questions for you.

Peace to you too, Christ;s Peace!

MaryJohnZ

 

[jaxson]

How do you take evolution and make it work with the Garden of Eden story?

That assumes, of course, that the Garden of Eden was a literal event…

 

[Orogeny]

I have no idea what your belief system is but I question some of your responses. Here is a nice summary of my beliefs:
newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
Now isn’t that interesting? I’m not an athiest! How can that be?

yes, there may be a lot of silly or not important questions and research out there but we are talking about what particular area.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Pretty much, that’s what happens, except there is no table, and each finds what he wants to study on his own, unless he’s a graduate student working under a scientist. Other than PhD candidates, they do their own research, on their own interests.

but to just say something is settled,

Since it is directly observed, it would be foolish to deny it.

especially something so unclear as evolution which really cannot explain where life comes from in the first place, is not going to be helpful to anyone.

It’s not supposed to say where life comes from in the first place. It’s not part of the theory. Darwin merely said that God did that, without any attempt to explain how.

Are people just monkeys with souls?

You think that’s what evolutionary theory says? Would you mind reading a modern text on the theory first?

If you have some understanding of math and college biology, I suggest “Process and Pattern in Evolution” by Charlotte Avers. You can get it rather inexpensively on the net, in used paperback.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

COLOR=“DarkSlateBlue”]

Here is a nice summary of my beliefs:
newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

Now isn’t that interesting? I’m not an athiest! How can that be?No, we are not talking about silly questions or research. We are talking about science, which unlike art has some requirements that must be met before an idea is to be taken seriously.Why not do that in art class? Let’s take time away from teaching art and have someone instead teach that the pattern of tea leaves in a cup is a valid way of seeing into the past as well as the future. If at the end of the day there is no time to teach art, well too bad.

Don’t be so flippant. I am glad you believe in the Creed. I did not think you were and aetheist anyway, believe it or not…but I wondered how you contsrued your faith to fit evolution. That was an honest question and every Catholic who accepts evolution has to think about it since we are called to believe in the Bible as showing truth as well. Now, the questions of how the story of Adam and Eve relate to scientific theories has to be dealt with on some level as you pray and dwell on those things. That is what I was asking about.

In art we deal with the concept of ‘beauty’. That has parameters as well. I can see looking at leaves and the patterns in leaves but adding some kind of manufactured idea about telling the future has nothing to do with ‘beauty’ as far as i can see, so there are limits and ethics in art as well, although right now i feel they are poorly defined in a culture which thinks ‘everything’ should be out there on the art table…to the point that liberty is lost by the nondiscipline.

So I can respect the idea that ‘discipline’ is required for study in both science and art, but artist would scream outrage if they were told they 'couldn’t do something and it seems science has gone in the other direction with such tight controls that some are basically left out, despite the fact that they have something to say.

But at the same time, in both fields, there are the 'power groups, the people who provide grants and money to support the work. I wonder how many Christian artists are given money? I would bet not many. In fact in the art hoistory book I was using for the class it stated that religious sculptures were no longer considered ‘art’ in our times. I was pretty outraged about that, although who would I protest to? I support Christian artists and I am a member of CIVA ( Christians in the Visual Arts).

I do think there is an interest in spirituality and the arts, and perhaps the interest will grow and bring about a renewal in the art world.

Why not the same in science? Maybe this is God’s way of calling for renewal? This morning they talked about research on baby birds and how they learned to ‘babble’ before learning to sing. If that can be allowed ( for whatever it brings to the table) , certainly the ideas in ID should be allowed…for what you can glean from the findings.

ALL of the arguments put forth by ID disciples have been put on the table and quickly knocked off because they are wrong.

Explain to me why they are so wrong? Don’t just tell me that in such a short, pithy reply. Nothing in that made any sense? I hardly believe it. Give me a reason to believe it was all nonsense.

I know that you aren’t a scientist, but you should know a couple of things if you are going to get into this discussion. One of the most important ones is that evolution does not have anything to say about where life comes from. Evolution is about how life changes over time, not how it started.I believe that God created everything. Life came about because God willed it but I don’t know how He did it.

Well, we can agree. But I think God saw everything as it unfolded because I do bel;ieve God is ALL KNOWING and so it would have been impossible for Him not to see it as it unfolded through time.
Don’t give God the same kind of limited mind that you and I have!

People are not monkeys any more than monkeys are people. That is a great example of your misunderstanding of what biology says. The Garden of Eden story is not literal.

The Garden of Eden story may not be literal, and yet believing in it as a literal story may help me understand it better than thinking of it just as a myth, which i don’t think Catholic teaching really allows anyway. Who was the ‘temptor’ and what was the sin? What kind of state of union existed that was broken by sin? Those are great questions to be explored.

Any other questions?Fascinated now?So why is it that you feel that your background is sufficient to basically call hundreds of thousands of people, including many Christians, who have spent a very large part of their lives studying science liars? Or is it just that they don’t understand the science as well as you do? That is my question to you.

I am fascintated. God calls me to be fascinated and in awe of His work of creation. If science has lost its sense of ‘awe’, then poor science and poor scientists. I do respect people who work in those fields, but just as I question some of things going on in the arts, I would hope Christian scientists would be free to question and work in the sciences…

Peace to you too! I know it is hard to talk to someone as ignorant asI am, but many of the people seeing Ben Stein’s movie are like me and they want concrete answers and responses, not just flipant answers implying they are just too dumb to understand.

MaryJohnZ

 

[Cobbfmly]

Go on EWTN? You are assuming that Stein is reasonable when it comes to Faith & Science, but this quote of his just proved he is not, and no h would not go on EWTN, at minimum because he Catholics have committed the shocking heresy in his mind of actually the possibility of some forms of evolution and believing that the Earth can actually be more than 3000 years old!

I saw Ben Stein on Fox News. He has no problem with the possibility that God took millions or billions of years to create Earth. He believes in intelligent design rather than literal creationism.

 

[tonyl]

I also remember seeing on the news when the scientist from the Smithsonian was fired. I remember the interview with him and how he was being fired over the ID isue, so I don’t think this is all lies as you say.

But he was never fired. That’s a documented fact. Even the OSC investigation you link to backs this up. It is just not true.

As far as asking for too much when I ask that all questions be allowed, the questions are out there…every scientist selects which ones he or she will deal with. If a scientist makes a discovery or draws a conclusion, it should not be censored.

Which is exactly what is happening in science today. Nobody is being censored. (Except for a few at NASA and the EPA who don’t tow the administration’s party line.) There is a difference between being censored, and being criticized for repeating the same unsupported claims after being shown where they come up short.

I have always resented the Darwin Theory being taught as if it were gospel truth, because even I, as a complete outsider, can recognize it isn’t totally proven, and doesn’t have all the answers.

It’s not taught as gospel truth. No scientific theory is. No scientific theory is totally proven, and no scientific theory has all the answers. What they all do have, is evidence backing them up. Evolution has mountains of it.

But he made as much sense as anything I have heard about how complex life forms came our of the primordial soup, which means I haven’t heard of anything that really explains it…

What does this have to do with the validity of evolution? We don’t have the answers to how God went about creating life, but we do have some answers. We have demonstrated that organic molecules can be created from non-organic molecules. We’ve detected the presence of amino acids in space. So, Science has established that basic chemistry can bridge the gap from inorganic to organic. We may not currently be able to fully answer what chemical processes resulted in the first organisms. But once these organisms existed, we have mountains of evidence about how they diversified and evolved (Theory of evolution).

The fact that some things just point to God cannot and should not be denied. maybe if you started with the assumption there was a God you would get further… What are the 'Theist" Darwinian people saying about the start of life?

I’m not denying that anything points to god. I’m pointing out that the current theory of evolution is supported by the evidence and is therefore the mechanism most likely used by God. (I say most likely because, in science, nothing is certain) I start with the assumption that there is a God, but I don’t constrain the methods God can use. Nor am I willing to ignore the massive amounts of evidence that his creation contains because a handful of non-scientist seem to think God and evolution are incompatible.