Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[TomPiltoff]

It’s utter idiocy to equate belief in evolution with ethnic cleansing.

I believe in evolution because there are solid facts behind it. A gross oversimplification, but in nature only the strong survive. We can observe this.

Now explain to me why that observable fact has to have any basis on my ideas on how a perfect society should function.

A lion kills a wounded gazelle and yet I, as an atheist, don’t advocate forced euthanasia on senior citizens. The fact that that premise truly confuses people is amazing.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Scientists since Darwin have repeatedly said that nature is the worst place to look for morals and ethics.

Yet ignorant people continue to blather that scientists want to do that.

It’s like claiming that landslides mean we should be burying people alive.

 

[TomPiltoff]

I think people also fail to recognize that science isn’t the same as religion in that, for example, if one part of The Bible falls, the whole thing falls apart. Science isn’t the same way.

Even if Charles Darwin turned out to be a lying, cheating, murderous pedophile it wouldn’t change his theory of evolution. I don’t care about the personal beliefs of the man, I care about the science he unearthed.

 

[ckeil]

There is a book by Richard Dawkins called “The God Delusion”. It is written by an atheist. In the book are interviews with several scientists, etc. He does mention that the more educated a person is the less likely they are to believe in God. Also, the more scientific a person is, they are less likely to believe in God, mostly because they feel that they have to be able to explain and justify things.
There will always be debates between science and religion. For example the debate on when life begins. The church’s teaching is different from science and medicine, but WHO is actually correct? The church who has no scientific background, or science and medicine that has no religious background? Often times the 2 are not compatible.

 

[The_Barbarian]

They are not incompatible; they are just about two different things.

 

[ckeil]

That’s true. Then again you can’t base all of religion on the bible, since we know that the bible is not a historical documentary, but a series of stories, lessons and prayers, writtent over a period of many years. Yet, some people seem to continue to believe that everything that is written in the bible is historical fact, which is not true. Any scripture scholar would tell you that.
I think it comes down to the world we are in is surviving within religion and science, they should not be exclusive, but should complement each other in the knowledge each brings to society.

 

[reggieM]

It’s utter idiocy to equate belief in evolution with ethnic cleansing.

I believe in evolution because there are solid facts behind it. A gross oversimplification, but in nature only the strong survive. We can observe this.

Now explain to me why that observable fact has to have any basis on my ideas on how a perfect society should function.

A lion kills a wounded gazelle and yet I, as an atheist, don’t advocate forced euthanasia on senior citizens. The fact that that premise truly confuses people is amazing.

You, supposedly, are a product of evolution. You got to where you are because in nature, only the strong survive.

Darwin expressed his own concern that “care” of “weak members” is “highly injurious to the race of man”.

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

It’s perfectly logical for an atheist-Darwinist, therefore, to advocate the forced euthanasia of “weaker” members of the race – in favor of the strong. That’s the social danger of atheistic-Darwinism. There is no higher law to appeal to, just the law of the “survival of the strongest”.

So, developmentally disabled children can be killed in the womb (or any time after), senior citizens can be eliminated, etc.

This serves the “higher purpose” of the survival of the race – since that is the law of evolution.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Scientists since Darwin have repeatedly said that nature is the worst place to look for morals and ethics.

Yet ignorant people continue to blather that scientists want to do that.

It’s like claiming that landslides mean we should be burying people alive.

I think you need to define “scientist” 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.

Does history reflect that?

It seems many questionable practices were put under the ummbrella of science as Mary has pointed out. “Pure” scientists were unable to rush out and refute the regimes that used bad science to prop up their tyranny, so exactly what moral good are these “pure” scientists who have the super ability to be immune to prejudice and hold to the scientific method so tightly?

In fact, where are these guys? Why aren’t they bolstering the revealed Truth of the Church with scientific truth in harmony. Yet the facts of immorality and the devestation in causes are not being brought to light by scientific sociologists, the American Psychiatry Association did they remove SSA from a list of disorders? How is that science? And the list goes on where the imprimatur of science is used not as a method for truth but as a baseball bat for one group to intimidate their views on others, totally apart from the search for truth.

Science! Bleugh, it is becoming a dirty word when it should be a help leading us all to a better life toward God. How we get things messed up!

 

[reggieM]

I think people also fail to recognize that science isn’t the same as religion in that, for example, if one part of The Bible falls, the whole thing falls apart. Science isn’t the same way.

In the Origin of the Species, Darwin said that if it could be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then his system would absolutely fall apart.

 

[reggieM]

I think you need to define “scientist” 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.

Does history reflect that?

It seems many questionable practices were put under the ummbrella of science as Mary has pointed out. “Pure” scientists were unable to rush out and refute the regimes that used bad science to prop up their tyranny, so exactly what moral good are these “pure” scientists who have the super ability to be immune to prejudice and hold to the scientific method so tightly?

In fact, where are these guys? Why aren’t they bolstering the revealed Truth of the Church with scientific truth in harmony. Yet the facts of immorality and the devestation in causes are not being brought to light by scientific sociologists, the American Psychiatry Association did they remove SSA from a list of disorders? How is that science? And the list goes on where the imprimatur of science is used not as a method for truth but as a baseball bat for one group to intimidate their views on others, totally apart from the search for truth.

Science! Bleugh, it is becoming a dirty word when it should be a help leading us all to a better life toward God. How we get things messed up!

Excellent points.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think you need to define “scientist”

Person who uses the scientific method to learn about the physical universe.

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.

You think so? If so, you haven’t been reading my posts. As you would have learned, the creationists here go ballistic when I show that science isn’t much different than plumbing.

Does history reflect that?

Sure. Science is merely an organized way to apply common sense. It has become arcane only because there’s so much to learn and because the methodology has become increasingly mathematical.

It seems many questionable practices were put under the ummbrella of science as Mary has pointed out.

Engineering, mostly. Some medicine. Mary was extremely frustrated when she couldn’t find one case of a scientist (as opposed to engineers or doctors) who took part in the Holocaust.

I’m sure there must have been some, but clearly scientists were much less inclined than other Germans to do so.

“Pure” scientists were unable to rush out and refute the regimes that used bad science to prop up their tyranny, so exactly what moral good are these “pure” scientists who have the super ability to be immune to prejudice and hold to the scientific method so tightly?

Such people are merely products of your imagination. Scientists are pretty much like everyone else, albeit a bit more law-abiding and tolerant.

In fact, where are these guys? Why aren’t they bolstering the revealed Truth of the Church with scientific truth in harmony.

Can’t. The great limitation of science is that it can’t say anything at all about the supernatural.

Yet the facts of immorality and the devestation in causes are not being brought to light by scientific sociologists, the American Psychiatry Association did they remove SSA from a list of disorders? How is that science? And the list goes on where the imprimatur of science is used not as a method for truth but as a baseball bat for one group to intimidate their views on others, totally apart from the search for truth.

Ah, you have a political axe to grind. Sorry, science can’t help you with that. Psychiatrists are physicians, not scientists, BTW.

Science! Bleugh, it is becoming a dirty word when it should be a help leading us all to a better life toward God.

Science can only make that possible. To get it done requires a faith in God and a willingness to do His will. If you don’t have it, science can’t get it for you. Is that the problem?

How we get things messed up!

Indeed. As pointed out previously, you might as well assail plumbing for not leading us to a better life toward God. There is a way, but it requires setting your pride aside and letting Him take charge.

Will you do that?

---

 

[The_Barbarian]

In the Origin of the Species, Darwin said that if it could be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then his system would absolutely fall apart.

He did, but it since has been shown that saltation, although unlikely, can happen in a variety of ways, by neotony, (retention of juvenile characteristics in sexually mature adults, for example)

 

[The_Barbarian]

You, supposedly, are a product of evolution. You got to where you are because in nature, only the strong survive.

No. That is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

Darwin expressed his own concern that “care” of “weak members” is “highly injurious to the race of man”.

Ah, quote-mining time. Let’s see what selective editing can do…

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

(the text in red is the part you deleted to change the meaning; I took the liberty of restoring it)

It’s perfectly logical for an atheist-Darwinist, therefore, to advocate the forced euthanasia of “weaker” members of the race – in favor of the strong.

I know you were hoping we’d believe it, but as you know, that is a falsehood. Nice try.

It is a fact that humans have urges that are not kind and not good. Darwin’s observation that we are not and should not be, slaves to our urges is the relevant fact. As we keep reminding you, nature is a very bad place to find morals and ethics.

 

[TomPiltoff]

You, supposedly, are a product of evolution. You got to where you are because in nature, only the strong survive.

And? Explain to me why that has to be reflected in my moral or political beliefs.

Darwin expressed his own concern that “care” of “weak members” is “highly injurious to the race of man”.

And?

Look, if I were to try and paint the Christian God as an immoral character you’d be required to defend him because your belief system revolves around the idea that worshiping said God is a good and moral thing.

Darwin isn’t my god. He could have advocated mandatory child-rape for all I care, I am only interested in the mans science.

It’s perfectly logical for an atheist-Darwinist, therefore, to advocate the forced euthanasia of “weaker” members of the race – in favor of the strong. That’s the social danger of atheistic-Darwinism.

Actually it’s quite the opposite. Evolution has instilled human beings with certain values that help it survive. For example, you won’t find a society where cowardice, lying, thieving and murder were admired traits. Why? Because any society that advocated those things wouldn’t have survived.

In the Origin of the Species, Darwin said that if it could be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then his system would absolutely fall apart.

That is true. My point, though, was that just posting ‘look, that evil Charles Darwin said xyz’ doesn’t prove anything.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

In fact, where are these guys? Why aren’t they bolstering the revealed Truth of the Church with scientific truth in harmony. Yet the facts of immorality and the devestation in causes are not being brought to light by scientific sociologists, the American Psychiatry Association did they remove SSA from a list of disorders? How is that science? And the list goes on where the imprimatur of science is used not as a method for truth but as a baseball bat for one group to intimidate their views on others, totally apart from the search for truth.

Science! Bleugh, it is becoming a dirty word when it should be a help leading us all to a better life toward God. How we get things messed up!

Agreed! You are so right because many professional ‘scientist’ must have to turn things upside down just to keep the status quo direction in psychology. The fact that there are problems in our cultural view is obvious with the high rate of depression and disorders prevalent in young people, but it is almost as if they have to push forward because the secular progrssive agenda is more important than the devastating results they see right in front of them.

take the area of sex education ( sorry to bounce back to that ugly topic)…Seems PP is big time into promoting abstinence these days in their own way…

This was from the All American Life League website:
…
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio – the same group that poisons several neighborhoods in my Cincinnati hometown – has a brand new web site to teach kids all about sex. It’s called “The ‘A’ Word Ohio.”

Now, since Planned Parenthood is the world’s largest abortion provider, maybe you, like me, assumed the “A” word meant abortion. It makes sense.

But no, Planned Parenthood has decided to teach “abstinence” education to all the school kids they get to talk to thanks to YOUR tax dollars.

Check out PP’s TakeCareDownThere.com campaign if you’d like to hear about Planned Parenthood’s definition of abstinence – the disgustingly explicit new site promotes masturbation as a healthy, abstinent choice we should all respect.

In the twisted mentality of Planned Parenthood, abstinence equals masturbation.

So in the last two weeks, Planned Parenthood has added two more weapons in it’s campaign to sexualize our kids. As Planned Parenthood prepares to launch www.theawordohio.com right on the heels of www.takecaredownthere.com , I’m starting to get eerie flashbacks to the systematic encouragement of kid’s sex games in Brave New World; it should be required reading for the pro-life movement.

Planned Parenthood is trying hard to create a brave new world for kids – one with a condom in every kid’s pocket, “just in case,” and a Planned Parenthood abortion mill around every corner so they can reap the bloody profits of their faulty condoms. ( LINK )

all.org/

No wonder our kids are messed up with these kinds of values being presented to them. And of course all in the name of being scientifically accurate…

In Christ, MaryJohnz

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Ah, quote-mining time. Let’s see what selective editing can do…

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

(the text in red is the part you deleted to change the meaning; I took the liberty of restoring it)

I know you were hoping we’d believe it, but as you know, that is a falsehood. Nice try.

It is a fact that humans have urges that are not kind and not good. Darwin’s observation that we are not and should not be, slaves to our urges is the relevant fact. As we keep reminding you, nature is a very bad place to find morals and ethics.

---

And that is why Darwin is inconsistent in his writings about the human person. On one hand he says we are not different from animals in kind, only in degree. Then on the other hand he wants us to have a higher nature able to act against instinct in favor of compassion. Thus he contradicts his own argument that man is just another animal. You can’t say that conscience and reflective thought develop out of instinct and then go on to say it is some form of ‘higher consciousness’, separate from instinct, that brings about this altuistic attitude toward the sick and helpless.

Which is it Darwin?!

In fact the idea of being able to act contrary to instinct, or self interest, would be a nature that was not merely instinctual…hence a ‘new kind’ of nature! Not the same ‘kind’ as animal! Hence the conclusion that man is not merely animal in naturel but has a higher place in the creative order.

Darwin failed to bestow on man that more honest view of the human person that the Catholic faith has always expressed: man is made in God’s image. His thesis that man was just an animal was put forth to show that the human person developed completely through material and natural causation without Divine intervention, and that thesis fails, even in Darwin’s own writing about the ‘nobler’ aspect of man’s ability to act against what would be perceived or argued for, as a more beneficial course.

Unfortunately as long as you say man’s consciousness is evolved from animals and do away with God you also do away with the basis for any moral judgment. Darwin’s thesis just does not remain consistent in his own writing.

This looks like an interesting book to look into:
web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/davidstove.html
Darwinian Fairytales (Avebury, 1996)
(attacks sociobiology and Darwinian “explanations” of human altruism) (Reprint from Encounter Books with new introduction by Roger Kimball, 2006)
Joe Sobran’s column, 2006; a summary; review; another; another; 2008 article…some quotes.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

And that is why Darwin is inconsistent in his writings about the human person. On one hand he says we are not different from animals in kind, only in degree.

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.

Then on the other hand he wants us to have a higher nature able to act against instinct in favor of compassion.

Actually, he’s saying that instinct often leads us to compassion. He also says that even if it’s not strictly adaptive, we still protect the weak because not to do so is evil. This goes back to the error Reggie made: we should not always follow our nature as a guide to morals or ethics. We are, as Darwin said, called to a higher standard.

Darwin failed to bestow on man that more honest view of the human person that the Catholic faith has always expressed: man is made in God’s image.

Science can never do that. But, as several Popes have said, science is not inconsistent with such things.

This looks like an interesting book to look into:
web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/davidstove.html
Darwinian Fairytales (Avebury, 1996)

If you prefer fundamentalist Protestantism minus God. Stove was a man who held up religion as a good thing for others, but not for him. He eventually ended his own life in despair.

And from the excerpts presented to me, he had very little idea of what biology was about in general, and almost nothing about evolution in particular. I gather he was a journalist or a theologian, or a philosopher, or something.

 

[reggieM]

And? Explain to me why that has to be reflected in my moral or political beliefs.

No, it doesn’t have to be but I was pointing out that it was consistent with the idea that getting rid of weaker members would make the species stronger. That’s what natural selection does anyway. In a competition with each other, the stronger members survive and the weaker die off.

Look, if I were to try and paint the Christian God as an immoral character you’d be required to defend him because your belief system revolves around the idea that worshiping said God is a good and moral thing.

I wouldn’t start with my belief system, but rather my philosophical foundation (in other words, reason). I would say that since God is “all Good” – then it wouldn’t make sense to paint him as an immoral character. My belief is that God is the source of all goodness and perfection. So, if you could think of a being greater than my God, then that would be my God. The God I believe in is the greatest, most perfect, most good being that exists. But in any case, I would defend God – so yes, you’re right about that.

Darwin isn’t my god. He could have advocated mandatory child-rape for all I care, I am only interested in the mans science.

Well, I think his science is a matter of interpretation and subjective judgement. In that case, Darwin’s beliefs and biases are part of “his science” since he was trying to prove something based on his philosophical values.

That’s a key point. We really can’t do “just science”, since science is a subset of philosophy. Science is very much subject to bias, distortions, deceptions and other inaccuracies.

Actually it’s quite the opposite. Evolution has instilled human beings with certain values that help it survive. For example, you won’t find a society where cowardice, lying, thieving and murder were admired traits. Why? Because any society that advocated those things wouldn’t have survived.

I’m not sure if that really works. It may be true that there are no examples of societies that admired those vices that you mention. But we know that many societies of the past do not survive today. So, some other thing caused them to disappear.

I also don’t think that the most morally just societies survive the longest necessarily. It would be nice if that was true, but in the Catholic view of the world – moral justice always suffers persecution from the powers of evil in the world. So, it’s most likely that the just and virtuous people and societies end up being martyred in the end (that is what we learn from Jesus’ life).

That is true. My point, though, was that just posting ‘look, that evil Charles Darwin said xyz’ doesn’t prove anything.

That is true – agreed. I do think it’s significant that Darwin lost his faith in God though, because I believe he used his theory to communicate his unbelief. But I also do not believe his theory can be demonstrated like a mathematical formula can be, or like the demonstration of gravity, so that’s a big difference also.

 

[reggieM]

If you prefer fundamentalist Protestantism minus God.

Darwin was a Protestant, minus God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on Dave Stove:
If you prefer fundamentalist Protestantism minus God.

Reggie writes:
Darwin was a Protestant, minus God.

Odd then, that he attributed the origin of life to God in The Origin of Species. You’ve rejected that for the opinions of an atheist, because Darwin accepted evolution and your atheist rejected it.

I guess we all have priorities.