Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Ken Miller reviews Expelled for the Boston Globe. And he nails this precisely:
According to Stein, science leads you to "killing people." Not to cures and vaccines, not to a deeper understanding of nature, not to wonders like computers and cellphones, and certainly not to a better life. Nope. Science is murder."Expelled" is a shoddy piece of propaganda that props up the failures of Intelligent Design by playing the victim card. It deceives its audiences, slanders the scientific community, and contributes mightily to a climate of hostility to science itself. Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science. If we actually come to believe that science leads to murder, then we deserve to lose world leadership in science.
I haven't seen a single ID advocate take Stein to task for his ridiculous claim that science leads to killing people while religion leads to panacea. Not one.
Comments
I haven't seen a single ID advocate take Stein to task for his ridiculous claim that science leads to killing people while religion leads to panacea. Not one.
That's because ID advocates aren't simply misguided and uneducated. They are bad people, straight up. Immoral, self-absorbed, blinded by ideology, they are walking examplars of ignorance congratulating itself with arrogance, able to look you right in the eye and lie brazenly and repeatedly if that what it takes (and it is) to protect the ideology to which they've chosen to be enslaved. They're truly loathsome. They'll condemn all science while clacking away on their PCs, with their cell phones strapped to their belts, eating food developed by agriculture, in their modern homes full of scientifically developed conveniences without which they would not be able to survive. Creationists are just about the worst kinds of people there are.
Posted by: Martin | May 10, 2008 9:43 AM
Science leads to murder and god leads to... let's see:
For starters, god commanded Moses and friends to kill every man woman and child (Samuel 15: 2-3). And to rape wives (Isaiah 13: 16). These were not suggestions but commands.
Fast forward to Europe where for centuries Protestants and Catholics slaughtered millions of each other, and to our time in the Middle East and Darfur, etc. where every warring faction, including (as the wingnuts would have it, the USA) is killing, killing, killing for god by whatever name, god, Yahweh, Allah.
Meanwhile 'evil' scientists are seeking cures for cancer and ways to feed the world's hungry, etc.
Posted by: Rod | May 10, 2008 10:27 AM
Far from condemning Stein's slur they'e been defending it. Why not? It's a proven propaganda strategy: demonize a minority as an oppressor and yourself - the common people - as the victims. It should be taken as a mark of desperation.
Intelligent Design has failed both as science and as a political movement and is slowly dwindling into insignificance. There will be further attempts to insert it - or make room for it - in the classroom but they will founder on the fact that, while ID studiously avoids saying anything about the designer, the sponsors of these attempts almost invariably have a religious purpose.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | May 10, 2008 10:33 AM
Yep, scientists are evil killers, just look at Norman Borlaug.
Posted by: James F | May 10, 2008 10:50 AM
Rod,
Actually, The 1 Samuel passage was a command, but the Is. passagae was not. It was a prophecy about what the Medes would do to the Babylonians a century or so later.
Posted by: heddle | May 10, 2008 11:09 AM
DaveScot at Uncommon Descent. Vehemently so. But he's the only one.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | May 10, 2008 11:50 AM
DaveScot seems to have gotten into an odd, self-policing mood lately, but credit where credit is due if he's at least done better than greeting Stein's remarks silence or even praise.
Miller's new book comes out next month: I'm excited!
Posted by: Bad | May 10, 2008 11:57 AM
I certainly agree that Steins statement about Science are outrageous. At the same time I am fascinated by the attitude of some people on this thread. The line of arguement is that Relgion is the real killer. Ah yes.. the mindless Science vs. Religion debate rears its head again. "Your side is completely evil.....No your side is completely evil...No No your side is completely evil".
Ok everyone go sit in the corner. No one gets to have snack time until they can learn to play nice.
Posted by: Cheddar | May 10, 2008 2:21 PM
If we play nice can we get some of your delicious cheese? - :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 10, 2008 2:42 PM
*WHOOOOOOOSH*
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 10, 2008 2:47 PM
I haven't seen a single ID advocate take Stein to task for his ridiculous claim that science leads to killing people while religion leads to panacea. Not one. Which is odd, since the IDiots keep insisting that Intelligent Design is a scientifically valid theory complete with real scientists who write real scientific papers.
Posted by: (((Billy))) | May 10, 2008 3:45 PM
Wait, wait, I've got to follow Stein's logic out:
1. Science kills people.
2. If the oppressive scientific establishment would stop dogmatically following Darwinism and would consider Intelligent Design, then ID proponents would be able to do science.
3. Therefore, the Darwinist intelligentsia are preventing ID proponents from killing people.
There you go, a brilliant argument not to permit ID. (I wonder if the DI has caught on yet that Stein's disparaging science when that's what they've been claiming for their "theory" all along. If so, then they're probably just not saying it because they've been so heavily promoting this film and would look pretty stupid as a result.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 10, 2008 3:47 PM
they're probably just not saying it because they've been so heavily promoting this film and would look pretty stupid as a result.
They look pretty stupid anyhow.
Posted by: Graculus | May 10, 2008 6:42 PM
Oh, come on, Ken! Stop ming your words!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | May 11, 2008 12:11 AM
I suspect that ID advocates haven't bothered to condemned Stein's statement because they have all intuitively translated it into what Stein actually meant. They translate everything into their own idiom, because they are fighting a different war. It's not about the science.
"Science leads to killing people" doesn't really mean what it appears to say. Instead, it means:
"If you base your world view only on science -- and leave out God -- then you are an atheist. Atheism leads to killing people. Atheism is the real enemy. We're going after atheism."
Darwinism = atheism. Flat out. That's why even educated cdesign proponentists don't feel strange confusing evolution with abiogenesis. It's why they can ask how "Darwinism" explains how the planets got here, or where the universe comes from, with a straight face, and get nods of approval from their listeners.
I think this is why those who defend the theory of evolution are somewhat polarized on this issue. The obvious rebuttal is to point out that evolution does NOT mean atheism. You need not follow it strictly all the way down: there are many theists who feel comfortable incorporating any and all scientific findings into their faith. Make this clear, and the ID tactic will fail. And you don't get into the quagmire of defending atheism.
BUT -- because the ID issue has been framed by its advocates as a full-scale attack on atheism -- atheists feel required to fight back. What group wouldn't, under the same circumstances? Otherwise, it feels as if the evolutionary side is conceding that yes, atheism is immoral, and atheism leads to immorality -- but evolutionists aren't all atheists, so that makes it okay.
Posted by: Sastra | May 11, 2008 2:10 PM
Sastra: The problem I've found is that it is very easy to be misunderstood when defending evolution by making it clear that it is not atheism, which of course it isn't. But it can easily sound like, "The ToE would be bad if it was atheism or fit well with atheism, but it isn't, it doesn't, so it's OK."
The only reason the theory of evolution is OK is that it is good science, and correct insofar as we know to date. Whether it helps me as a theist fill out my theological system, or whether it helps one be a fulfilled atheist as Dawkins noted is irrelevant.
I agree with what you're saying, but the propaganda against atheism is so pervasive and has been so effective, that when one quite properly separates the theory of evolution from atheism, one can be readily misunderstood as acknowledging that atheists are immoral or that if the theory of evolution supported atheism, it would be thereby be a bad theory.
To repeat myself redundantly, a scientific theory is valid based on the science involved, not on what philosophical or theological systems make use of it, what people feel comfortable with it, or what ideas propagandists associate with it.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | May 11, 2008 4:03 PM
Henry Neufeld wrote:
Exactly: I agree.
But it puts those who defend evolution in a difficult position, because the creationists are hiding one target behind another.
Maybe we need an official slogan like:
"Accepting evolution does NOT mean you're an atheist (not that there's anything wrong with that)."
Posted by: Sastra | May 11, 2008 4:34 PM
Cheddar -
Perhaps that's because Stein doesn't just denigrate science, he sets it up as the evil counterpoint to "good" religion. It's appropriate to point out all his errors. Science and religion aren't opposites, science isn't inherently evil, and religion isn't inherently good.Posted by: Taz | May 11, 2008 10:50 PM
What Martin said.
Posted by: Josh | May 12, 2008 8:40 AM