Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaxson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which people like you will go to speak badly of scientists. We’re no more evil than any other group of professionals.
Jews were not more evil than any other group of people in Germany. They were just a convenient target to rally the faithful against an internal “enemy.”

I’m not sure what reminded me of that fact right now, but Stern, for a previous employer, was writing speeches about communists under every bed.
 
Are the scientists more at fault than the construction workers who built the gas chambers, or the technicians who maintained them, or the architects who designed them? How about the accountants and bookkeepers who kept meticulous records of the Jews in German territories so that they could be rounded up more efficiently? How about the SS officers who rounded up the Jews after destroying their lives and property, and those who maintained the railroads to ship the Jews to the death camps? Are scientists more to blame than them? How about Hitler’s security detail, or those who could have taken him out but chose not to? Or the civilians who stood idly by while their friends, neighbors, and in some cases families, were sent to their deaths? Or the governments who turned away boatloads of Jewish refugees or refused to issue them visas to escape German territories?

Are you seriously telling me that scientists are worse than all of these people? Scientists did not mastermind the Holocaust. Hitler was a failed artist. Yet I do not see you maligning artists.

Never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which people like you will go to speak badly of scientists. We’re no more evil than any other group of professionals.
No not at all….lol

I’m just wondering why something that was (possibly open to interpretation) but was most likely meant literally is being categorized as a lie. That’s all

Is it beyond probability that a scientist could (literally) have escorted his relatives into the chamber?

If one reads more into it, then I can understand – but why read more into something…, it then becomes open to broad speculations of all sorts and finally results in Ben pronounced a liar because someone manipulates the quotes intention.
 
Seeker Jen wrote
[SIGN]“We’re no more evil than any other group of professionals”.[/SIGN]

That was funny…lol
 
No not at all….lol

I’m just wondering why something that was (possibly open to interpretation) but was most likely meant literally is being categorized as a lie. That’s all

Is it beyond probability that a scientist could (literally) have escorted his relatives into the chamber?

If one reads more into it, then I can understand – but why read more into something…, it then becomes open to broad speculations of all sorts and finally results in Ben pronounced a liar because someone manipulates the quotes intention.
I would say it was highly unlikely. The scientists who didn’t have the means to escape or the moral fortitude to resist would have been in the research facilities. The gas chambers would have had their own technicians, probably unskilled guys paid to pull the levers when necessary. They would have been hired by the bureaucrats who were put in place by the government. It’s an abomination against humanity regardless of how it was done, but it certainly seems like you and Stein are trying to put a nasty spin on scientists and make us out to be monsters.
 
Seeker Jen wrote
[SIGN]“We’re no more evil than any other group of professionals”.[/SIGN]

That was funny…lol
It wasn’t meant to be funny. I am highly insulted by what Stein has said and by what you are writing. I’m sorry that this is all such a joke to you.
 
Ben stein is trying to do more for America than you 2 are!!!

or ever will.
 
[SIGN]It wasn’t meant to be funny. I am highly insulted by what Stein has said and by what you are writing. I’m sorry that this is all such a joke to you.[/SIGN]

read this to yourself and see if where you went wrong!

let me tell you…
Your saying you were being funny…but then say i’m taking this as a joke and your insulted.
so which is it?
was it not you who first was being “funny”?

Can’t wait for your answer

oh wait you weren’t being funny - so yo agree that your no more evil than any other group?
I never said that I was being funny. I was quoting you. Please learn to use the quote function, to read quotes, and not to misquote other posters. A dose of maturity would be helpful as well.

And with that, I am done engaging in debate with you.
 
(cites evidence that creationists oppress dissent when they are in control)

Let’s talk about this year. In Texas, a creationist abused her power to get a Texas Education Agency employee fired for publicizing a talk by a scientist the creationist disliked. It is very clear that these people will suppress other opinions whenever they get a chance to do so.

Here’s something you might try; go to the creationist equivalent of the Smithsonian; the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School. Tell them you’d like to apply for the graduate program, but aren’t a YE creationist. See what happens. Then compare this to Harvard University, where Stephen Gould accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate, or the Smithsonian, where Sternberg was renewed as a Research Associate, even after lying about the things that happened to him there.

These facts clearly show the difference between ID/creationists and scientists.

I just did, just the other day. I assigned my Pre-AP students a paper on the ethical considerations in cloning. I asked them if they thought God or religious ideas could not be in the paper. They differed with each other on that. I then pointed out that science is a tool, and should serve their values and beliefs, and if they wanted to make a religious argument, they were free to do so, even if I as a teacher could not.

And that’s the way it should be.

Blame the Bill of Rights. That darn religious freedom thing, again.
The Bill of Rights was meant to protect the exercise of religion not prevent people from exercising it. I am glad you allowed or encouraged your students to bring in religious arguments. How many might feel afraid of being graded down for it?

One person complains about prayer and no one can pray…that is extreme to me. Especially if you don’t believe then listening to others pray is just being tolerant and since you don’t believe in God the prayer is not going to affect anything according your belief, correct?

Apply the same principle to allowing ID to be discussed or defined in a clasroom. Would it take away from your discussion of evolution? Might it add another dimension to your discussion?
You could even talk about the positive and negative aspects of it in relationship to problems with research and coming to conclusive
fndings. It seems to me that all of that would be good to discuss in class.

Recently in my town a good abstinence program was removed from our public school because 5 parents did not like the word ‘purity’, saying it was too 'religious;. Isn’t there such a thing as ‘pure air’, pure environments? Why would that word be too 'religious/? Well we had 20 people wanting abstinence ed and the school borad basically ignored those 20 parents and followed the 5.

Can you see why people feel any connection with religion has become a point for discrimination and persecution?

The Bill of Rights did not mean creating ‘religion free’ zones.
God Bless you and all,
MaryJohnZ
 
I understand, but his tone really annoyed me.

Either you have faith and bring it to the table all the time or you don’t have it at all.

I’m not judging Tim…. I’m only recognizing the tree from the fruit it produces.

I’ll ask you the same thing.

Is it better to bring ID into schools or not?
ID cannot be brought into school until it is emperical. That being said evolution shouldn’t be taught in science class since it is not emperical. If we want evolution in the science class then we should allow ID.
 
I never said that I was being funny. I was quoting you. Please learn to use the quote function, to read quotes, and not to misquote other posters. A dose of maturity would be helpful as well. And with that, I am done engaging in debate with you.
Icarus is young; he will mature eventually.
 
Don’t be a twit.
You said “Science does inevitably lead to killing people, even if it was not the scientists intent.”
  1. Newton was a scientist who formulated the “law” of gravity.
  2. Pinochet’s henchmen depended on the consistency of that law of gravity when they hurled the desaparecidos from the airplanes into the ocean.
  3. Newton’s science led to killing people, even if it was not his intent.
 
The Bill of Rights was meant to protect the exercise of religion not prevent people from exercising it.
It was, however meant to keep government from getting involved in it. Which is the point in public school.
I am glad you allowed or encouraged your students to bring in religious arguments. How many might feel afraid of being graded down for it?
Those who aren’t Christians. There’s been some of that, from time to time, most notably Jews and Muslims.
One person complains about prayer and no one can pray…that is extreme to me.
Anyone can pray. But the government can’t do it. And no one’s rights are subject to the whim of the majority. If that’s offensive to you, there are other nations where there is no freedom of religion.
Especially if you don’t believe then listening to others pray is just being tolerant and since you don’t believe in God the prayer is not going to affect anything according your belief, correct?
Turns out the Bill of Rights also guarantees the right to not have religion imposed on you. Again, if that bothers you, America is not the country for you.
Apply the same principle to allowing ID to be discussed or defined in a clasroom. Would it take away from your discussion of evolution?
We talk about it. And I point out that ID and other religions may have objections to science in some places, and that if anyone does have a religious objection, they should understand that the state only requires them to know what scientists think, and they do not have to believe it. I suggest that if they like, they can write “I don’t believe any of this” on their papers, and there will be no consequences. Some even do that. So far, no parents have objected.
Might it add another dimension to your discussion?
We spend a lot of time at the beginning of the term, about what science is, what it does, and how it is limited.
You could even talk about the positive and negative aspects of it in relationship to problems with research and coming to conclusive fndings.
Unfortunately, nothing has turned up for that. I have a friend who was an ID advocate and a moderator on another board. He thinks it’s possible to chuck the nuts like Stein and Dembski, and produce a science of intelligent design. However, he freely admits that there is no such thing as yet.
It seems to me that all of that would be good to discuss in class.
It works pretty well. Some ID stuff is probably enough to amount to promoting religion. The state puts so much in the curriculum, I get about a week of evolution, so I can’t put much time on ID, Mayan creation stories, etc.

I can see why some people think that being the majority gives them the right to impose on others. I can’t agree with that. Sorry.
 
ID cannot be brought into school until it is emperical. That being said evolution shouldn’t be taught in science class since it is not emperical. If we want evolution in the science class then we should allow ID.
So you are in agreement that ID should be allowed in, only & because “ET” is taught.; .and both (in your mind) are not empirical.

That’s fine with me – empirical or not! Level the playing field.
 
Icarus is young; he will mature eventually.
We all need to mature (some in different areas)

yet still, Seeker Jen did err.

[SIGN]“We’re no more evil than any other group of professionals”[/SIGN]

Implies what in your mind???

It was funny! though unintentional like she said (I’ll choose to take her at-her-word)
 
It was, however meant to keep government from getting involved in it. Which is the point in public school.
Mary:
Unfortunately government is more involved these days then ever and parents rights are being trampled. The attitude is the “school” knows better then parents and even though parents foot the bill they are blocked from decisions on curriculum content. It is illegal to have curriculum committee meetings and yet they tried to do it in our school. They didn’t get away with it because i inadvertently had am e-mail which stated 'parents not allowed"…but in the end they used every possible means to keep parents from knowing what was taught in the classroom and from having any voice in it.

A lot of things taught in the classroom are not totally true or scientific…for example the claim that condomns are going to protect you from disease. The overall facts out there say no, yet the school claims to teach acorrding to the ‘facts’ they want to listen to

The same is probably true of ID…it could be easily included in any curriculum as the other side of the issue, whether or not it is ‘proven’ by some standards. It has merits, otherwise it would have no supporters.

The Barbarian:
Those who aren’t Christians. There’s been some of that, from time to time, most notably Jews and Muslims.

Mary:
And have you found the attitude of complete cynacism and prejudice against religious views? teaching art appreciation I teach about Christian art and every time I get to that section it is like the walls all go up…and it gets worse every year. I credit that to puiblic schools which have even allowed anti-religious posters up in the hallways during their gay weeks. Our young people are being indoctrinated. if you don’t see that, I think you are turning a blind eye to it.

Homeschoolers in other countries are being penalized and forced to teach things they don’t believe it. That is how governments are getting involved in education these days. it won’t be long until we see that here in our country.

The Barbarian:
Anyone can pray. But the government can’t do it. And no one’s rights are subject to the whim of the majority. If that’s offensive to you, there are other nations where there is no freedom of religion.

mary:
The government prays everyday, or there is an official Chaplain in the congress. Why can’t our kids?

The Barbarian:
Turns out the Bill of Rights also guarantees the right to not have religion imposed on you. Again, if that bothers you, America is not the country for you.

MaryZ:
Anyone can ignore a prayer as much as they can pray during a silent period…it is just that right now the anti-religion crowd is imposing itself, and not only in the area of prayer but in the definition of marriage, the use of public monies for abortions, the use of public monies for some gentic engineering research ( although i hope the use of embryos is not being funded). recently in England they were combining human DNA with cow eggs, and many of the abroted babies , late term babies, are being sold piece by piece for research. Sounds like a Nazi practice to me…

The Barbarian:
We talk about it. And I point out that ID and other religions may have objections to science in some places, and that if anyone does have a religious objection, they should understand that the state only requires them to know what scientists think, and they do not have to believe it. I suggest that if they like, they can write “I don’t believe any of this” on their papers, and there will be no consequences. Some even do that. So far, no parents have objected.

Mary:
That is commendable. probably not many teachers do that. When I discuss Christian art, which I am passionate about, it is very frustrating to try to get past the prejudice so they can really see the beauty. ID has a great deal of beauty in it, and that gives hope and a sense that a person has more worth than just being another species of animal…for those reasons, I would fight to have it in schools. So many young people are in depression these days, feeling like they are just one of many…no sense that God wanted them in particular. That is the side effect of taking God out of everything.

The Barbairan:
*

Mary:
Parents have rights to bring up their children with their values. parents pay for education systems and they have a right to have a say in curriculums. I would never defend a school board which is giving materials out that encourage kids to use birth control and put themselves at risk over the use of self control… The damage to so many young women, and young men. is evident in their dres, their behaviors, and the prevalence of adolescent depression. not to mention that college age suicides are at an all time high. Should i mention the cost to our health system for the treatment of STDs and the cost of single motherhood, breakdown of the family…ect. Isn’t that another form of death for these young lives which could have had so much more? So you will allow Planned Parenthood programs to be paid for by the governemt, in our schools, and claim that someone is not forcing their values on the rest of us? I think you are not seeing reality if you think the playing field is even.

You reap what you sow.*

God Bless everyone and may Mary guide us toward her Son,

maryJohnZ
 
So you are in agreement that ID should be allowed in, only & because “ET” is taught.; .and both (in your mind) are not empirical.

That’s fine with me – empirical or not! Level the playing field.
The caveat is that only science should be taught in the science classroom. Leveling the playing field in a way that children think they are getting the whole truth but not is fundamentally flawed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top