Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[ricmat]

ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.

Always means always. Not a 30 year old example or a 40 year old example or a 1000 year old example. A few examples are quite a bit short of “always.”

I have no doubt that there are some IDers and creationists who have lied.

I have no doubt that there are some atheists and evolutionists and scientists who have lied.

Since your statement doesn’t bother you - (1) **“ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.” -

How about this one - (2) “Atheists/evolutionists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.”**

If you can justify the first statement in your mind, then you should be able to justify the second one using the same criteria.

Sounds like a testable claim. I offered you show you mine, and you declined to see the evidence.

But I’d like to see yours.

Well, Barbarian, you missed the point. I wasn’t “making a claim.” You are twisting my words - the same thing you complain about others doing. I asked you what you thought of the second quote.

The 2 quotes go hand in hand, and I suggested that you consider the second statement (in bold above) as a way of helping you see the alternative point of view, and the folly of your original statement. It didn’t work, obviously.

** Neither quote as written can be proven as true**, if for no other reason than “always” cannot be proven in either case. Your logic should lead you to this same conclusion. You don’t know every creationist, or every IDer that ever lived. Only God knows that. You don’t know everything they said or did. Only God knows that. You don’t know what was in their hearts and minds. Only God knows that. The fact that you think you can prove the first statement is…delusional.

Of course there are bad apples in all the barrels, including the atheist/evolutionists - a fact which you refuse to admit it seems. But a few bad apples doesn’t make it everyone, or always.

Your judgment seems clouded because of your irrational hatred of anything called ID. You’ve even invented your own religion in which ID is the enemy, and no one can call God “Designer” e.g. this Barbarianism…

This is why IDers claim that a designer need not be perfect or even competent. It’s true. That’s why it’s an insult to God to call Him a designer.

As shown in my signature (I’ll repeat it here), Isaiah didn’t have a problem calling God a designer. Nor did the psalmists have any issues speaking about creation as “the work of your hands.” Is that an insult as well? - certainly “work” is not something that God would do - in the Barbarianist religion.

            "For thus says the Lord, the creator of the heavens, who is God, the **designer** and maker of the earth, who established it, not creating it to be a waste, but **designing** it to be lived in.  - Is 45:18"

Perhaps when you get to Heaven, you can reprimand Isaiah for his insults to God.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

In fact, as you would have noticed, if you were paying attention, by 1920, Darwinists like Punnett (of Punnett square fame) had mathematically shown that the underlying idea of racism was wrong, and that “removing defectives” would take an astonishing number of generations to have any effect. Be realistic. And remember that false accusation is a sin.

You seem to have lost focus here. The issue is Stein’s slander against scientists, who not only did not order his family into the gas chambers, but also destroyed any rational point in doing so.

I think you are taking the statement too personally. He was talking in a general way about the roots of the racial/ethnic prejudices which led to selecting out groups for extermination.You really cannoy deny those ideas came out of a false scientific view.

But that’s a slander, too, isn’t it? No wonder you hate science. If I thought science said that, I’d hate it too.
Rather, they existed in spite of the scientists, who showed that Hitler’s program, even it is was aimed at defective people, was bound to fail.

As to saying scietist do not recially profile or profile physical types, I know they have done that even in this country. In fact I was one of those undergraduates at the University of Wisconsin in Madison where they mandated us to be photographed in our underwear for gymn classto record our body types as part of such a scietific approach back in the 1970s. I have since read about it in the news and realized how much we were just sheep, easily told to do things and we went along because we were used to doing what authorities told us. I doubt they could do this these days on a college campus…but who knows.

If you followed God, you would not slander, even out of ignorance. You cannot serve Him that way.

Slandering who? I am speaking in generalities, no single person has been targeted. My understanding of slander must be different from yours.

It’s such a foolish lie, no one with any sense takes it seriously. Unfortunately, there are many without much sense.
There are many, many ethical issues facing scientists. Sending people to the death camps is not one of them. Stein just lied about that.

I heard the woman who was in the guide at the German death camp say it was based on Darwinism, not Stein. he was repeating what came from the German woman’s mouth as a person who was explaining what happened at the camp.

You probably need to do some prayer and reflection on why it is so important to lay all that guilt on scientists. Think about where that guilt actually comes from.And then you won’t feel this way.

I don’t lay all the blame on scientists, others fell into the trap of following them and based their decisions on what they said. Politicians, soldiers, doctors, nurses, ordinary people who turned in others…lots of blame to go around.

So after talking so much about the past can you begin to address some of my concerns about how scientists could protect innocent life now by defending the very beginings of human life rather than being silent as so many little lives/souls are lost? That seems like a more serious concern.

MaryJohnZ

 

[drpmjhess]

I couldn’t do that. Faith isn’t part of science. I’m defending Christianity, and the notion of an omnipotent Creator.

**
Creationism’s evolution, caught on tape**

A nonprofit’s archives track the rise and fall of attacks on evolution

Oakland, California, May 20, 2008 – Evolution’s opponents have taken another round of losses recently, with the failures of the creationist propaganda movie Expelled, a creationist bid to grant science education degrees in Texas, and antievolution legislation in Florida, Alabama, and Missouri. A new video from the National Center for Science Education shows how the nonprofit’s archives preserves the history of creationist attacks on science education, and how NCSE uses information from its archives to block new attacks.

“With creationists,” explains Eugenie C. Scott, NCSE’s executive director, “there’s a lot of recycling: the same arguments are made over and over, just with new labels and rhetoric. So when we needed to show that ‘intelligent design’ was a rebranding of creationism, we went to the archives and proved that the same people had been making the same arguments, just dressed up with a fancy new name.”

The new video, “Jesus in My Classroom,” posted today at www.ExpelledExposed.com, shows how NCSE’s archives helped win the seminal Kitzmiller v. Dover trial by tracing the history of the “intelligent design” textbook at issue in the trial. As the video shows, a clipping in NCSE’s archives tipped off lawyers for the Dover parents that the textbook was originally intended to present “both evolution and creation.” After a Supreme Court decision holding it unconstitutional to teach creationism in science class, the textbook authors replaced references to “creation” with “design.” Careful review even found a so-called missing link: a passage in which “creationists” was revised to “cdesign proponentsists,” rather than the intended “design proponents.”

“Our archives aren’t just for lawyers,” says Charles Hargrove, NCSE’s archivist. “Historians and other social scientists who need access to back issues of creationist periodicals like the Bible-Science Newsletter or tapes of creationist debates rely on these archives. The fight over creationism is an important part of American history, and our archives are vital for researchers at NCSE and beyond.” NCSE’s archives include over 2500 books, nearly 100 linear feet of magazines, pamphlets and personal papers, and over 500 hours of video and audio recordings.

Josh Rosenau, a spokesman for NCSE, describes how he uses these archives. “When a new creationist textbook or pamphlet or video emerges, we can locate previous works by the same authors, and trace the inspiration for their bogus scientific claims.” Echoing NCSE’s motto, he added, “When you’re defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools, you have to know what you’re up against – even if it turns out to be something familiar.”

The National Center for Science Education is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The NCSE maintains its archive of source material on the history of creationism at its Oakland, California, headquarters. On the web at www.ncseweb.org.

NCSE’s other website, www.ExpelledExposed.com, is a resource for journalists, teachers, and curious moviegoers who want the full story behind the creationist movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Contacts:
Eugenie C. Scott, scott@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Josh Rosenau, rosenau@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Louise S. Mead, mead@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian
In fact, as you would have noticed, if you were paying attention, by 1920, Darwinists like Punnett (of Punnett square fame) had mathematically shown that the underlying idea of racism was wrong, and that “removing defectives” would take an astonishing number of generations to have any effect. Be realistic. And remember that false accusation is a sin.

You seem to have lost focus here. The issue is Stein’s slander against scientists, who not only did not order his family into the gas chambers, but also destroyed any rational point in doing so.

I think you are taking the statement too personally. He was talking in a general way about the roots of the racial/ethnic prejudices which led to selecting out groups for extermination.

No, he wasn’t. He made a very specific accusation, a false one. No scientist sent his family to the gas chambers. As you learned, Darwinists debunked the very ideas that were used to send them there. It was, because of that, a very despicable lie.

You really cannoy deny those ideas came out of a false scientific view.

As you learned, real scientists debunked it. You might as well blame the Pope for Jim Jones.

Barbarian observes:
But that’s a slander, too, isn’t it? No wonder you hate science. If I thought science said that, I’d hate it too.

Rather, they existed in spite of the scientists, who showed that Hitler’s program, even it is was aimed at defective people, was bound to fail.

As to saying scietist do not recially profile

They can’t. Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races.

or profile physical types, I know they have done that even in this country. In fact I was one of those undergraduates at the University of Wisconsin in Madison where they mandated us to be photographed in our underwear for gymn classto record our body types as part of such a scietific approach back in the 1970s.

I happen to know the men who did the anthropometry studies there, and they did not do it to classify races. Indeed, the data was used to show that the alleged “racial types” didn’t exist.

I have since read about it in the news and realized how much we were just sheep, easily told to do things and we went along because we were used to doing what authorities told us. I doubt they could do this these days on a college campus…but who knows. [/qjuote]

The data was extremely useful for me, because anthropometric data on body dimensions are critical for proper design of workplaces to make them safe and efficient. You’ve been completely misled as to the purpose of those studies.

Barbarian observes:
If you followed God, you would not slander, even out of ignorance. You cannot serve Him that way.

Slandering who?

The engineers and psychologists who compiled the anthropometric data, for one.

I am speaking in generalities, no single person has been targeted.

False accusations about a group of people are no less false.

It’s such a foolish lie, no one with any sense takes it seriously. Unfortunately, there are many without much sense.
There are many, many ethical issues facing scientists. Sending people to the death camps is not one of them. Stein just lied about that.

I heard the woman who was in the guide at the German death camp say it was based on Darwinism, not Stein. he was repeating what came from the German woman’s mouth as a person who was explaining what happened at the camp.

You probably need to do some prayer and reflection on why it is so important to lay all that guilt on scientists. Think about where that guilt actually comes from.And then you won’t feel this way.

I don’t lay all the blame on scientists, others fell into the trap of following them and based their decisions on what they said. Politicians, soldiers, doctors, nurses, ordinary people who turned in others…lots of blame to go around.

So after talking so much about the past can you begin to address some of my concerns about how scientists could protect innocent life now by defending the very beginings of human life rather than being silent as so many little lives/souls are lost? That seems like a more serious concern.

MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian
In fact, as you would have noticed, if you were paying attention, by 1920, Darwinists like Punnett (of Punnett square fame) had mathematically shown that the underlying idea of racism was wrong, and that “removing defectives” would take an astonishing number of generations to have any effect. Be realistic. And remember that false accusation is a sin.

You seem to have lost focus here. The issue is Stein’s slander against scientists, who not only did not order his family into the gas chambers, but also destroyed any rational point in doing so.

I think you are taking the statement too personally. He was talking in a general way about the roots of the racial/ethnic prejudices which led to selecting out groups for extermination.

No, he wasn’t. He made a very specific accusation, a false one. No scientist sent his family to the gas chambers. As you learned, Darwinists debunked the very ideas that were used to send them there. It was, because of that, a very despicable lie.

You really cannoy deny those ideas came out of a false scientific view.

As you learned, real scientists debunked it. You might as well blame the Pope for Jim Jones.

Barbarian observes:
But that’s a slander, too, isn’t it? No wonder you hate science. If I thought science said that, I’d hate it too.

Rather, they existed in spite of the scientists, who showed that Hitler’s program, even it is was aimed at defective people, was bound to fail.

As to saying scietist do not recially profile

They can’t. Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races.

or profile physical types, I know they have done that even in this country. In fact I was one of those undergraduates at the University of Wisconsin in Madison where they mandated us to be photographed in our underwear for gymn classto record our body types as part of such a scietific approach back in the 1970s.

I happen to know the men who did the anthropometry studies there, and they did not do it to classify races. Indeed, the data was used to show that the alleged “racial types” didn’t exist.

I have since read about it in the news and realized how much we were just sheep, easily told to do things and we went along because we were used to doing what authorities told us. I doubt they could do this these days on a college campus…but who knows.

The data was extremely useful for me, because anthropometric data on body dimensions are critical for proper design of workplaces to make them safe and efficient. You’ve been completely misled as to the purpose of those studies.

Barbarian observes:
If you followed God, you would not slander, even out of ignorance. You cannot serve Him that way.

Slandering who?

The engineers and psychologists who compiled the anthropometric data, for one.

I am speaking in generalities, no single person has been targeted.

False accusations about a group of people are no less false.

Barbarian observes:
It’s such a foolish lie, no one with any sense takes it seriously. Unfortunately, there are many without much sense.

There are many, many ethical issues facing scientists. Sending people to the death camps is not one of them. Stein just lied about that.

I heard the woman who was in the guide at the German death camp say it was based on Darwinism,

Nonsense. As you saw, Darwinists showed mathematically that it wouldn’t work. Some tour guide told you it was Darwinism? Which camp? I would certainly be willing to do some checking with those folks to see what they are telling visitors. Let me know the place and date.

he was repeating what came from the German woman’s mouth as a person who was explaining what happened at the camp.

Nope. He made that up on his own. He lied. There were no scientists directly his people to the gas chambers. Remember, he was a speechwriter for Nixon. It was his job to lie and make false accusations. It seems he can’t break the habit.

Barbarian suggests:
You probably need to do some prayer and reflection on why it is so important to lay all that guilt on scientists. Think about where that guilt actually comes from.And then you won’t feel this way.

I don’t lay all the blame on scientists

So why repeat slander about them?

after talking so much about the past can you begin to address some of my concerns about how scientists could protect innocent life now by defending the very beginings of human life rather than being silent as so many little lives/souls are lost?

What does Stein’s slander against scientists have to do with it?

If it concerns you enough to do something about it, talk to doctors, not scientists. Science only explains the physical universe. Doctors are the people who end the lives of the unborn.

If you do that, you’ll have done something positive.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, Barbarian, you missed the point. I wasn’t “making a claim.” You are twisting my words - the same thing you complain about others doing.

First, I never said anything about twisting words. And second, you were indeed making a claim, from which you now seem to be backing away.

Neither quote as written can be proven as true, if for no other reason than “always” cannot be proven in either case.

Fortunately, one can make accurate inferences from evidence. Hence, a history of behavior can be shown to make a case of that sort. And there’s plenty of that. Would you like to see some of it?

You don’t know every creationist, or every IDer that ever lived.

I don’t know every duck that ever lived, either, but I can make some accurate predictions about what ducks are like. Denying it might be delusional, but I think at this point, I think you’re just trying to fog your way out of it.

(Weird accusations that Barbarian started a new religion)

Maybe you really are delusional.

Barbarian observes:
This is why IDers claim that a designer need not be perfect or even competent. It’s true. That’s why it’s an insult to God to call Him a designer.

As shown in my signature (I’ll repeat it here), Isaiah didn’t have a problem calling God a designer.

The creationist shuffle won’t help you, either. Isaiah used a very different term; until recently, design merely meant “designate”, the original English meaning.

There is a famous similar abuse by creationists in the “science so-called” verse. Again, it doesn’t have the modern meaning we put on it.

And if you’re a Catholic, you should know that God is a spirit and has no hands.

 

[buffalo]

Most interesting article -

** Nazi Scientists and Ethics of Today

**LEAD: Nearly 50 years after Nazi scientists performed brutal experiments on Jews and gypsies in the concentration camps, scientists are still struggling with ethical questions over use of the Nazis’ data.

 

[ricmat]

ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.

Fortunately, one can make accurate inferences from evidence. Hence, a history of behavior can be shown to make a case of that sort.

snip…

I don’t know every duck that ever lived, either, but I can make some accurate predictions about what ducks are like.

How is your response not bigotry? Taking a few data points and generalizing it to an entire “set.”

We’re talking human beings, here, not ducks. Ducks may be predictable based on a few data points, but humans are not. Perhaps your enthrallment with Evolutionism prevents you from knowing that humans are qualitatively different than ducks.

 

[ricmat]

A note to new posters who may not have seen this before:

From page 165 of Cardinal Schoenborn’s book Chance or Purpose (my bold & underline):

“The aggressive way in which many oppose the group of American scientists who are devoting themselves to investigating ‘intelligent design’ does not have much to do with science. One may criticize their methodological approach. Yet the question as to the origins of the obvious ‘intelligent design’ in living things is an entirely legitimate one; indeed it is a question bound up with man and his human reason.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

As you know, it’s a good deal more questionable than the Cardinal thinks. But then, it’s not his field of expertise.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on the history of dishonesty in ID/Creationism:
Fortunately, one can make accurate inferences from evidence. Hence, a history of behavior can be shown to make a case of that sort.

Barbarian later:
I don’t know every duck that ever lived, either, but I can make some accurate predictions about what ducks are like.

How is your response not bigotry?

It’s based on evidence. Bigotry is unreasoning hatred. As you see, my response is neither.

Taking a few data points and generalizing it to an entire “set.”

Well, a considerable number of data points. Would you like me to list some of them? And as you learned, inference based on evidence is sound reasoning, just as denial of such reasoning is bigotry.

We’re talking human beings, here, not ducks.

Turns out that humans often behave in predictable ways. Political consultants, advertisers, and fashion designers depend on that demonstrable fact.

Ducks may be predictable based on a few data points,

I’ve had the opportunity to watch a lot of ducks in my time. And a lot of creationists. So yes, evidence does allow one to make some valid conclusions.

Perhaps your enthrallment with Evolutionism

Another false accusation. Why is no one surprised?

prevents you from knowing that humans are qualitatively different than ducks.

If you think human behavior can’t be successfully predicted, you’re a lot less intelligent than you seem to be.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Nearly 50 years after Nazi scientists performed brutal experiments on Jews and gypsies in the concentration camps, scientists are still struggling with ethical questions over use of the Nazis’ data.

There isn’t much that’s worth anything. Most of the “scientists” were quacks with no special qualifications. Most were actually physicians, not scientists, and their work was so badly flawed that very little was of any potential use.

The stuff that was, was largely in three areas:

1. Rocketry
   Although when questioned about it, Werner Von Braun asked why they didn’t just ask the American Robert Goddard, whose research was used by the Nazis, they did discover some important things about the process.
2. Production of synthetic petroleum. Still seems to be promising, although not yet economical.
3. Survival in cold water. This last did involve atrocities. Prisoners were exposed in extremely cold water, and their physiology and symptoms were carefully studied. Defense scientists agonized for a long time about using this research, but finally did, in the effort to save lives of sailors and airmen downed in cold water.

Notice that the objections to using this, came from scientists, not politicians, philosophers, ministers, etc.

Ironically, Stein and his admirers are assailing scientists for objecting to use of Nazi research.

 

[ricmat]

ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.

Your statement leaves no room for ID folks or creationists who do not “always view the truth as a troublesome complication.”

The best thing for you to do at this point would be to admit that you made the post above in haste, and without thinking it through.

Barbarian on the history of dishonesty in ID/Creationism:
Fortunately, one can make accurate inferences from evidence. Hence, a history of behavior can be shown to make a case of that sort.

Barbarian later:
I don’t know every duck that ever lived, either, but I can make some accurate predictions about what ducks are like.

It’s based on evidence. Bigotry is unreasoning hatred. As you see, my response is neither.

Well, a considerable number of data points. Would you like me to list some of them? And as you learned, inference based on evidence is sound reasoning, just as denial of such reasoning is bigotry.

Turns out that humans often behave in predictable ways. Political consultants, advertisers, and fashion designers depend on that demonstrable fact.

I’ve had the opportunity to watch a lot of ducks in my time. And a lot of creationists. So yes, evidence does allow one to make some valid conclusions.

If you think human behavior can’t be successfully predicted, you’re a lot less intelligent than you seem to be.

You’re just digging a deeper hole for yourself B. You should take the suggestion which I made above back on May 9. All you would need to say is that you made the original post above in haste and without thinking it through. You could say instead something like “Some ID/creationists have in the past viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.” That, unlike your original statement would probably be true.

 

[buffalo]

There isn’t much that’s worth anything. Most of the “scientists” were quacks with no special qualifications. Most were actually physicians, not scientists, and their work was so badly flawed that very little was of any potential use.

The stuff that was, was largely in three areas:

1. Rocketry
   Although when questioned about it, Werner Von Braun asked why they didn’t just ask the American Robert Goddard, whose research was used by the Nazis, they did discover some important things about the process.
2. Production of synthetic petroleum. Still seems to be promising, although not yet economical.
3. Survival in cold water. This last did involve atrocities. Prisoners were exposed in extremely cold water, and their physiology and symptoms were carefully studied. Defense scientists agonized for a long time about using this research, but finally did, in the effort to save lives of sailors and airmen downed in cold water.

Notice that the objections to using this, came from scientists, not politicians, philosophers, ministers, etc.

Ironically, Stein and his admirers are assailing scientists for objecting to use of Nazi research.

The typical - now the “scientists” were quacks. A broadbrush accusation. The same thing you despise. Hypocrite.

Barbarian you have exposed yourself and your agenda.

 

[ricmat]

Turns out that humans often behave in predictable ways. Political consultants, advertisers, and fashion designers depend on that demonstrable fact.

If you think human behavior can’t be successfully predicted, you’re a lot less intelligent than you seem to be.

As an ensemble, human behavior may sometimes be plotted e.g. as on a bell curve. The behavior of individual humans cannot be predicted.

 

[ricmat]

Turns out that humans often behave in predictable ways. Political consultants, advertisers, and fashion designers depend on that demonstrable fact.

If you think human behavior can’t be successfully predicted, you’re a lot less intelligent than you seem to be.

As an ensemble, human behavior may sometimes be plotted e.g. as on a bell curve - showing a range of behaviors. The behavior of individual humans cannot be predicted.

 

[reggieM]

The typical - now the “scientists” were quacks. A broadbrush accusation. The same thing you despise. Hypocrite.

Barbarian you have exposed yourself and your agenda.

Eventually it comes out quite clearly. It’s important to file away these revelatory moments. I’ve got a big file of them myself. It helps when trying to judge the contradictions and dissimulations in what should be ordinary responses.

What is really in the heart is being covered up – but not too successfully. Suddenly, a phrase will slip out, as in this case. Then it all becomes clear.

 

[The_Barbarian]

As an ensemble, human behavior may sometimes be plotted e.g. as on a bell curve - showing a range of behaviors. The behavior of individual humans cannot be predicted.

That’s not true, either. Many times, the behavior of an individual can be predicted. BTW, individual ducks vary in behavior, too. But if you watch for a while, you can still predict behavior.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The typical - now the “scientists” were quacks.

Well, let’s take a look…

Katz’s opinion brings to mind the words of Brigadier General Telford Taylor, Chief Counsel for the prosecution at Nuremberg, when he argued that the Nazi experiments were insufficient and unscientific, "a ghostly failure as well as a hideous crime . . . Those experiments revealed nothing which civilized medicine can use."24 Arnold Relman, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, similarly stated that the Nazi experiments were such a "gross violation of human standards that they are not to be trusted at all."
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/naziexp.html

They were quacks by the standards of science. Perhaps not by ID standards. Hard to say about that. Some reasons William Shirer ( The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) called it quack science:

**He later concluded that parts of the Nazi data on hypothermia were not dependable because of inconsistencies found in Rascher’s lab notes. According to Rascher’s official report to Himmler, it took from 53 to 100 minutes to kill the frozen prisoners. Alexander’s inspection of Rascher’s personal lab record revealed that it actually took from 80 minutes to five or six hours to kill the subjects.

Historians have suggested several reasons for Rascher’s inconsistent hypothermia data. The most revealing theory was that Rascher was under strict orders, by Himmler himself, to produce hypothermia results, or else. Apparently, Rascher dressed up his findings to forestall confrontations with Himmler. Shortly before the German surrender, Himmler discovered Rascher’s lies, and had Rascher and his wife (Himmler’s mistress) murdered because of Rascher’s deceptions.**
(same source)

Just discovered this. Apparently, even the data formerly thought to be good was worthless.

Author William Shirer reported that Nazi medical incompetence was not limited to a few isolated instances. Shirer felt that the Nazi Doctors were generally murderous “quacks,” and were people of the "lowest medical standard."

To be fair, there was one professor of anatomy, who might have been a genuine scientist, who was involved. But none of his work was found to have any value, either.

A broadbrush accusation.

Remember when I told you what you don’t know can hurt you? It just did.

Allen Buchanan, Philosophy Professor at the University of Arizona, is also a member of the Human Subjects Review Committee at the University of Minnesota. He believes that bad ethics and bad science are inextricably linked together. He found that the human experiments that were ethically sound were also scientifically sound. Therefore, he concluded that since the Nazi experiments were unethical, they were, by equation, scientifically invalid.
(same source)

The same thing you despise. Hypocrite.

Nice try. But, as you see, it was spot on. They were a bunch of quack doctors. One (maybe) real scientist; he might have had an MD, rather than a degree in science.

Barbarian you have exposed yourself and your agenda.

The kindest thing we can conclude is you were ignorant of these facts. Perhaps you really didn’t know about all this. But if you didn’t, why were you presuming to tell us about it?

And what does this say about Stein’s lie that scientists were driving his relatives into the gas chambers? Why would you defend something like that? The truth matters. It should matter to you. Again, maybe this kind of thing is good science by ID standards.

But not by scientific standards. These guys were quacks of the lowest order.

 

[buffalo]

Well, let’s take a look…

Katz’s opinion brings to mind the words of Brigadier General Telford Taylor, Chief Counsel for the prosecution at Nuremberg, when he argued that the Nazi experiments were insufficient and unscientific, "a ghostly failure as well as a hideous crime . . . Those experiments revealed nothing which civilized medicine can use."24 Arnold Relman, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, similarly stated that the Nazi experiments were such a "gross violation of human standards that they are not to be trusted at all."
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/naziexp.html

They were quacks by the standards of science. Perhaps not by ID standards. Hard to say about that. Some reasons William Shirer ( The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) called it quack science:

**He later concluded that parts of the Nazi data on hypothermia were not dependable because of inconsistencies found in Rascher’s lab notes. According to Rascher’s official report to Himmler, it took from 53 to 100 minutes to kill the frozen prisoners. Alexander’s inspection of Rascher’s personal lab record revealed that it actually took from 80 minutes to five or six hours to kill the subjects.

Historians have suggested several reasons for Rascher’s inconsistent hypothermia data. The most revealing theory was that Rascher was under strict orders, by Himmler himself, to produce hypothermia results, or else. Apparently, Rascher dressed up his findings to forestall confrontations with Himmler. Shortly before the German surrender, Himmler discovered Rascher’s lies, and had Rascher and his wife (Himmler’s mistress) murdered because of Rascher’s deceptions.**
(same source)

Just discovered this. Apparently, even the data formerly thought to be good was worthless.

Author William Shirer reported that Nazi medical incompetence was not limited to a few isolated instances. Shirer felt that the Nazi Doctors were generally murderous “quacks,” and were people of the "lowest medical standard."

To be fair, there was one professor of anatomy, who might have been a genuine scientist, who was involved. But none of his work was found to have any value, either.

Remember when I told you what you don’t know can hurt you? It just did.

Allen Buchanan, Philosophy Professor at the University of Arizona, is also a member of the Human Subjects Review Committee at the University of Minnesota. He believes that bad ethics and bad science are inextricably linked together. He found that the human experiments that were ethically sound were also scientifically sound. Therefore, he concluded that since the Nazi experiments were unethical, they were, by equation, scientifically invalid.
(same source)

Nice try. But, as you see, it was spot on. They were a bunch of quack doctors. One (maybe) real scientist; he might have had an MD, rather than a degree in science.

The kindest thing we can conclude is you were ignorant of these facts. Perhaps you really didn’t know about all this. But if you didn’t, why were you presuming to tell us about it?

And what does this say about Stein’s lie that scientists were driving his relatives into the gas chambers? Why would you defend something like that? The truth matters. It should matter to you. Again, maybe this kind of thing is good science by ID standards.

But not by scientific standards. These guys were quacks of the lowest order.

You are too funny.

There is no question scientists were involved in the Nazi atrocities. To try and maintain that all scientists are pure in heart is absurd and false.