Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
When I dream of the perfect religion, I dream of that which is the utmost anti-thesis of Christianity.
Sir Frederick Pheller [19-20th Century Philospher] {1912}
Evolution of Hormone Signaling
Patterning the nervous system with Bmp
No genes were lost in the making of this whale
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« I get email | Main | Anti-Stein »
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 27, 2008 8:23 PM, by PZ Myers
What a vile little man. I sincerely hope that his career is dead now … and that the rest of his life will be spent eking out speaking fees at Christian fundamentalist conventions, before audiences who will cheer him while dreaming of the day the Jews are exterminated or converted, bringing on Armageddon.
(If this isn't enough punishment for you, the complete, unedited interview on TBN is here.)
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
"Science leads you to killing people"?!?!?!?!?!?
I had no idea how low Ben Stein could go.
Posted by: notthedroids | April 27, 2008 8:31 PM
It's official. Ben Stein now gets the "Biggest Douche in the World" award.
Posted by: Jeff | April 27, 2008 8:36 PM
He came to a college near me last friday... and I did a lame little one-person protest. It was fun.
http://goldmineguttd.livejournal.com/287379.html
Posted by: Abbie | April 27, 2008 8:39 PM
Thank goodness I have not and will not see "expelled" 9 minutes of Stein on that video was way too long and 8 minutes more than was actually necessary to make him look like a complete idiot. Though the guy who made the video did a good job. Imagine sitting though over an hour of that AAAAHHHHHH!
Posted by: sailor | April 27, 2008 8:43 PM
I always enjoy seeing a new addition to Thunderf00t's "Why do People Laugh at Creationists" series, but this one was one of the few that didn't even make me laugh. It just made want to smash my fist through my computer screen. I restrained myself from doing that, but still couldn't keep myself from uttering a string of obscenities directed towards Ben Stein (rather loudly too...I'm sure my neighbors didn't appreciate it). Stein's claims here are just utterly vile and morally reprehensible.
It's also quite interesting how Stein tailors his claims based on the audience. When interviewed by the mainstream media, he shows some superficial diffidence towards science while simultaneously trying to undermine it by advocating IDiocy; but around the Xian fundies, he has no qualms about claiming that science is basically the work of the devil. (Another example of this is his Christianity Today interview, in which he says, "Anyway, I couldn't give a [profanity] whether a person calls himself a scientist. It doesn't earn any extra respect from me, because it's not as if science has covered itself with glory, morally, in my time. Scientists were the people in Germany telling Hitler that it was a good idea to kill all the Jews. Scientists were telling Stalin it was a good idea to wipe out the middle-class peasants. Scientists were telling Mao Tse-Tung it was fine to kill 50 million people in order to further the revolution.") He really is nothing more than an opportunistic political hack -- and even among opportunistic political hacks, he's on the low end of the moral spectrum.
((BTW, if you are masochistic enough to want to see the full TBN interview, it's up at the Trinity Broadcasting Network's page: http://tbn.org/video_portal/ under the April 21st post for "Behind the Scenes."))
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 27, 2008 8:44 PM
How do people get to the point where they hear things like this and are not immediately disgusted? How can this man have any sort of an audience?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | April 27, 2008 8:47 PM
Yeah, but that's the career he wanted, apparently. I mean, he didn't have much of anything going on, and ID has clearly shown that telling lies to the naive can pay at least for well over a decade.
It's a pathetic end to a pretty useless life, but I guess it's what he wants....
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 27, 2008 8:49 PM
He is probably the most boring, monotone, dull-as-dishwater speaker I have ever heard. I got about half way through and then, in an irrefutable act of adaptation for survial my retinas clouded over hence saving my brain from melting down.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | April 27, 2008 8:49 PM
But science does lead to killing people -- look at those nuclear weapons he apparently wants to stockpile "just in case."
Of course, those who don't care for nuclear weapons don't try to drive home the point by claiming that, therefore, atomic theory is false. The atom can't be split because there are no atoms. The only reason you'd think there are atoms is if you liked bombs.
It makes no sense. If all they really wanted was to make an argument that "people need to believe in God to be moral," then they should have no problem with theistic evolution. Hey, at least it's got God. But no.
This really has nothing to do with morality. They're using morality -- and exploiting the Holocaust -- in order to try to pinpoint Who's God God Right. Christians themselves should be disgusted.
Posted by: Sastra | April 27, 2008 8:50 PM
That video sucked.
Posted by: Alex | April 27, 2008 8:53 PM
Stupid guy that Thunderf00t. Doesn't he know that 'the love of god' refers to only the Judeo-Christina God.
/sarcasm
Seriously though, I didn't expect a 'conservative' to rail against tax cuts for the rich. Guess Stein can't be all bad.
Posted by: Professorchaos | April 27, 2008 8:53 PM
They give all this lipservice to god, I just once want one of the fundies in the interview to mention Jesus as the one true way to salvation and have Ben Stein correct him and say he doesn't believe in Jesus. How do you avoid talking about Jesus on fundie talk?
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 8:54 PM
That's just disgusting... I too hope he's done.
Posted by: anon | April 27, 2008 8:56 PM
My jaw dropped watching today's Sunday Morning. There was Ben Stein arguing that whatever those crazy FDLS people in Texas were doing--even if it involved raping 13-year-old girls--nothing was worse than separating kids from their parents. Really? Raping little girls and dumping teenage boys on the streets are not that bad in his opinion, I guess. And he's holding himself up as a leader on morality?
Posted by: Sarah | April 27, 2008 8:57 PM
Wow. I knew this guy was wacko, but I had no idea that he could actually believe and say something so horrendous. What a vile man indeed. He is dangerous.
Posted by: LisaJ | April 27, 2008 8:59 PM
I'm still waiting for the schism in the creationist/ID camp now that Ben Stein and his stupid movie has undone all the years of Intelligent Design's "we're scientific, we're not religious!" hand-waving. The Discovery Institute must be having a cow right about now, it's clear from the movie that they're very unhappy with Stein and his attempts to link ID with religion.
What's next, does the Discovery Institute have to do a documentary showing how Expelled is a pack of lies?
Posted by: Cephus | April 27, 2008 9:00 PM
"Science leads you to killing people."
Even after all the nonsense he has babbled, I still can't believe he said that.
The lazy, slurred speech, the endless stream of inanities, the endless contradictions, the obvious desire to be contrary as often as possible, in the most grating ways possible--possibly an organic mental defect. (I know it seems exactly like the mindless religiosity indulged in by millions, but the slurred speech and droopy eyes...)
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 27, 2008 9:03 PM
What an assclown.
Posted by: Alex | April 27, 2008 9:03 PM
In the video, where he's going through his spiel as to why people should see the film, he keeps talking about what he would like people to believe about humans. Is it really that hard to understand that we don't simply get to believe whatever we want and call it the truth? Because it's important to Stein to feel "part of the divine" then ID is valid and science is an evil and leads to killing people? Huh?!? That's not even an argument. He's just saying "I want to feel special. You should want to feel special too."
Posted by: mlw | April 27, 2008 9:09 PM
I told you about that snotty-faced fucker.
Posted by: danley | April 27, 2008 9:11 PM
I found it amusing the comparison of "Expelled" to a non-documentary film called; "Catwoman". The undermining practice continues...Who was the one who said, "Expelled" was only going to make 5 million? lol
Posted by: Michael | April 27, 2008 9:19 PM
I think the statement that "science leads to killing people" is about as reasonable as the claim that "religion leads to killing people".
The truth is that neither religion nor science have "killing people" as any part of their goals, but both are frequently used for precisely that end.
Posted by: Richard Kilgore | April 27, 2008 9:21 PM
Yeah, Michael, you have a point; he was going way too easy on the movie. Comparing it to Catwoman is giving it a break. Comparing it to another documentary would be much more fair/ Bowling for Columbine is at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 9:22 PM
Some new thoughts on this, that go beyond what i wrote above...
I suspect that Ben Stein is a victim of a typically Dawkins-like confusion. He apparently identifies "science" with "an atheistic/materialistic, and Darwinistic worldview", just as Dawkins does.
It is in this latter sense that his statement "science leads to killing people" is to be taken. And if my interpretation is correct, then his statement is not all that inaccurate, after all.
Posted by: Richard Kilgore | April 27, 2008 9:25 PM
Hey, thanks for the longsword, science!
Oh no! the sword is controlling my brain! It's making me kill people with it! Curse you, science!!
Posted by: Ryan | April 27, 2008 9:29 PM
#20 You're absolutely right. Let's compare it to other documentaries.
The Fog of War: 98%
An Inconvenient Truth: 96%
Super Size Me: 93%
Bomb It: 85%
OK, let's look at the worst documentaries on Rotten Tomatoes:
Synthetic Pleasures: 17%
Condo Painting: 17%
The War on the War on Drugs: 14%
Celsius 41.11 12%
Faces of Death: 11%
In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War: 11%
Running with Arnold: 0%
He's in great company.
Posted by: James F | April 27, 2008 9:30 PM
And no one has ever died in the name of religion.
Posted by: davidlpf | April 27, 2008 9:33 PM
Well I can see your point. There was a great deal more science and realism in Catwoman. And there is a sentence somewhere on the Internet that wants its semicolon back.
Posted by: eewolf | April 27, 2008 9:33 PM
IDiots: Don't tell me. Show me.
If you REALLY REALLY believe that science is bad, then make absolutely no use of it. Get sick? Don't go to the doctor, don't take any meds. Just get a prayer group together and let your deity fix you.
Put your TV on the street. Toss your phones, DVD players, your car, your.... wait! You would have nothing left right down to your very skin. You are a hypocrite if you believe "science is killing people" and retain any use of science in your life.
Can't wait to see the expelledthestonetablet.com site.
It seems BS is on damage control nowadays. The vile, little man will disappear on his own.
Posted by: henryb | April 27, 2008 9:34 PM
I think I'll start using this as part of my email signature:
"Science leads you to killing people."
Vile is too endearing a term for the likes of Ben Stein.
Posted by: azcowboy | April 27, 2008 9:35 PM
#23
If I understand you correctly, you are implying an "atheistic/materialistic" worldview leads to killing. Or are you saying implementing social Darwinism leads to killing. The latter is true and the former is false. I would like to know where you think morality comes from, and what you have to back it up. Again, I may just be misinterpreting you.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 9:36 PM
See, this is the success of Dawkins' propaganda.
Dawkins is a mediocre thinker, at best, outside his narrow biological area of specialization.
But by using the word "science" to refer to his own atheistic and Darwinist philosophy of the world, Dawkins makes it hard to even criticize that worldview, without also attacking "science".
Stein has fallen victim to this confusion, and his detractors are now pouncing on it.
What Stein should have said, and what he must have meant, is that "atheism (or Darwinism) leads to killing people", and that is defensible.
Posted by: Richard Kilgore | April 27, 2008 9:39 PM
Richard Kilgore #23 wrote:
Richard Dawkins does not equate science with atheism. Science is a method. His argument is that, if the concept of God is considered as a scientific hypothesis, then it is both inconsistent with the discoveries of modern science, and unnecessary.
The quarrel many people have with Dawkins is not with his views on science. It is that "God" should not be approached as if it were a scientific hypothesis. It should be regarded as being in some other kind of category, and not subject to the same kind of analysis.
What Stein (and creationists) are doing is
1.) treating God as if it were a scientific hypothesis (and then doing BAD science)
2.) arguing that morality depends on believing in God (and therefore, any science theory which does not include God will make you immoral.)
They argue with Dawkins on the science (evolution), and on the source of morality. They do not really argue that God is "outside of science."
Many people who don't like Dawkins' approach to God will agree that ethics are not dependent on whether there is a supernatural source.
Posted by: Sastra | April 27, 2008 9:40 PM
Richard Kilgore, "It is in this latter sense that his statement "science leads to killing people" is to be taken. And if my interpretation is correct, then his statement is not all that inaccurate, after all."
Are you translating what Stein believes, or are you making an assertion?
So it's not science or religion that proffers the goal of killing people; it's atheism, materialism, disbelief in the supernatural, and belief in evolution--that leads to killing people?
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 27, 2008 9:40 PM
Richard Kilgore,
You're a bored college student killing time by trolling a blog, aren't you?
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 27, 2008 9:43 PM
I am not a victim of Richard Dawkins. He is a very intelligent man. I don't think its defensible to claim "atheism (or Darwinism) leads to killing people". Please explain that. I must apologize that, at least for me, the reason I don't go around killing isn't God. I just happen to have empathy. It is frightening to think Hell is all that is keeping you moral. Also, I would prefer, if in the future, you would refer to it as evolution, and not "Darwinism". That is not the proper term around here. If you put up a fuss and insist upon using "Darwinism", you have already lost.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 9:45 PM
#30,
I think atheism leads to killing people, in exactly the same sense in which people say "religion leads to killing people". Not always, not necessarily, but there is a clear causal link here.
My reasons are that
(a) atheism depends on, and hence leads to, Darwinism (atheists have no other explanation for the origins of biological diversity).
(b) Darwinism, as an account of the origins of man, casts doubt on our moral intuitions and thoughts (this was argued by Darwinist Michael Ruse).
(c) Anything that casts doubt on our moral intuitions and thoughts also casts doubt on the moral prohibition against killing people.
Posted by: Richard Kilgore | April 27, 2008 9:46 PM
What a POS Ben Stein is. Pure human garbage. The man apparently has no morals at all.
Posted by: bigjohn756 | April 27, 2008 9:47 PM
"Richard Dawkins does not equate science with atheism."
Not explicitly, but the way he uses the term "science" shows he identifies it with "atheism". So, for example, he keeps talking about the debate concerning God's existence as a debate between religion and science. But it is really a debate between two worldviews, both of which try to cite science as evidence.
Posted by: Richard Kilgore | April 27, 2008 9:50 PM
Stein says there were tears among the audience. Considering his movie has one of the lowest ratings, and who their "star" is, perhaps he might consider they were sleep tears.
Ho hum.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | April 27, 2008 9:51 PM
#34,
I'm a bored college student interested in these issues.
Posted by: Richard Kilgore | April 27, 2008 9:51 PM
I think BS saw an opportunity to make a buck off the rubes. Not so sure how it works out for the rubes. Care to comment Mr. Kilgore?
Posted by: afterthought | April 27, 2008 9:52 PM
By the way, I had to fight to stay awake during his appearances in this video. Caffeine helped.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | April 27, 2008 9:52 PM
I guess this is what you get when two like-minded people who agree on a sensationalist idea get together. It's frightening that a video like this has an audience at all...
Posted by: Ted Goas | April 27, 2008 9:54 PM
Richard Kilgore sez:I think atheism leads to killing people, in exactly the same sense in which people say "religion leads to killing people". Not always, not necessarily, but there is a clear causal link here.
So if atheism leads to killing people in exactly the same sense that religion leads to killing people, we're kind of stuck, aren't we?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | April 27, 2008 9:55 PM
The asshat will not be going away anytime soon. No doubt he has other asshats willing to back him up, not to mention the shilling. It's bad enough I have to hear his voice on the radio when I'm too slow switching the dial. Can we protest these guys next?
http://www.cleareyes.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcH-3d-BZn4
Posted by: Janeothejungle | April 27, 2008 9:57 PM
(a) Atheism does not depend on evolution. Atheism was around much earlier than 1859. I'd also point out that the Roman Catholic Church also has no other explanation for the origins of biological diversity. However, there are other pseudo-scientific theories such as Lamarckism.
(b) If evolution does something to take away from current moral absolute, then it has been a good thing. It benefits us greatly to study and examine morals, and to decide what is actually right and just, instead of follow an absolute authority, such as the Bible. A system that can adapt and grow is much superior to ancient sheep herding legends.
(c) Casting doubt on such gems as hatred of gays, and the subservience of women does not cast doubt on killing. You are trying to make a false slippery slope.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 9:57 PM
"Also, I would prefer, if in the future, you would refer to it as evolution, and not "Darwinism". That is not the proper term around here. If you put up a fuss and insist upon using "Darwinism", you have already lost."
I used to agree with you here, but the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution comprises a number of different theses. One of these is the the thesis of common descent, and another is a thesis about what explains the process of common descent (chance, variation, random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and all that kind of stuff). I want to merely say that thesis (2) doesn't capture the whole story behind common descent. But I don't reject evolution in the sense of thesis (1). So I need a word to capture what I reject without making it seem as though I reject common descent from a single organism. I can't think of anything better than "Darwinism".
Posted by: Richard Kilgore | April 27, 2008 9:59 PM
1) Science leads to killing people, ergo science is bad and scientists are not to be taken seriously.
2) Intelligent Design is science not religion ergo it should be taken seriously.
I missed the part where Mr. Stein reconciled these two positions.
Posted by: dybevick | April 27, 2008 10:01 PM
So seeking knowledge about physics, biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology, technology, medicine, and perhaps even the weather leads to killing? I heard somewhere that Ben Stein was a member of Mensa.
Posted by: S. Fisher | April 27, 2008 10:01 PM
As I predicted, you insist on saying "Darwinism". Check that off on my checklist. I'll be back later.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 10:04 PM
#47
Perhaps you're rejecting "philosophical naturalism."
Posted by: James F | April 27, 2008 10:04 PM
Richard Kilgore #36 wrote:
I don't quite understand this. Are you equating the term "Darwinism" with "eugenics?"
I'm going to assume here that this time you're using 'Darwinism' to mean Naturalism, and claiming that, if our common human moral intuitions and thoughts evolved, then they are somehow not as "real" as if they were given to us by something transcendent which did not evolve. This doesn't follow.
Many Naturalistic philosophers have instead argued that evolution helps explain why our moral intuitions (such as empathy and fairness) are what they are. And there are also plenty of ethical theories which are not derived from supernaturalism. God's existence -- or nonexistence -- is irrelevant. Morals deal with interpersonal relations and shared human values. How the values "got there" isn't going to come into it.
Since a natural origin for moral intuitions and thoughts doesn't cast doubt on their validity (and even helps illuminate them), this doesn't apply.
I'll also mention that many religions have, as a central core, man's inability to understand right and wrong without an external code. Instead of trusting our moral intuitions, people are discouraged from relying on humanism and searching for common ground. I think a much better case for your objection -- removing the stigma against killing people -- can be made using religion, rather than evolution (or "Darwinism") Human choices are justified to other humans. God's divine commands -- never.
Posted by: Sastra | April 27, 2008 10:04 PM
In re: materialistic worldview leading to killing people --
Some of the greatest humanitarians of the 20th century, and most outspoken opponents of atrocities such as the holocaust, were atheistic existential thinkers who believed that life was innately senseless and meaningless. And because they believed that as for-itself beings, we must create our own moral code and meaning in life, they were able to actually give a sensible critique of the actions of the likes of Hitler, beyond "Jesus says you're wrong, and you're going to hell." (To which Hitler could respond, as he wrote in Mein Kampf, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord".)
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 27, 2008 10:05 PM
"Anything that casts doubt on our moral intuitions and thoughts also casts doubt on the moral prohibition against killing people."
Where do you think our un-tampered with "moral intuitions and thoughts" come from?
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 27, 2008 10:08 PM
#50,
I am sensitive to your concerns about the use of the word "Darwinism", but I did give reasons for my continuing to use it. I will retract my use of the word if these reasons are shown to be inadequate.
Posted by: Richard Kilgore | April 27, 2008 10:08 PM
Thank you. I think you're misinterpreting atheism to mean that if there is no God, then we are free to do what we want. However, this is not true. Atheists are still very moral people. Most atheists I know are secular humanists, and they give a great deal of thought to contemplating morals. We don't feel we are no free, we actually feel more of a burden to make this world a better place, because it is all we have.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 10:12 PM
Richard Kilgore #38 wrote:
There are I think 2 debates between religion and science.
Debate #1: Is the existence of God something that science can say something about, one way or the other?
Debate #2: If the answer to #1 is affirmative, then what does science say?
Posted by: Sastra | April 27, 2008 10:12 PM
No words...
Posted by: Robert Ward | April 27, 2008 10:13 PM
#56, your use of the word "Darwinism" immediately identifies you as a flat-earther who thinks everything is magic. Please see the 3rd box of the bottom row of ID Creationist Bingo:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/08/id_bingo_card_2.jpg
Posted by: BobC | April 27, 2008 10:18 PM
Science defeated the Nazis.
Posted by: Dr Benway | April 27, 2008 10:24 PM
#60,
I gave my reasons for using the word "Darwinism". You have not addressed them at all. And please don't make fun of my flat earth beliefs!
Posted by: Richard Kilgore | April 27, 2008 10:26 PM
BobC #60 wrote:
Oh ho. This is the internet. You will see every permutation and combination and strange use of vocabulary out there. I have discovered that there is no easy way to "immediately identify" anybody just by a term they've used. The Bingo Card is a fun sort of game, but be careful when it's applied to an actual individual.
No. You always have to ask. And clarify. Or else you get involved in tedious debates on "that's not what I think" "oh yes it is."
Posted by: Sastra | April 27, 2008 10:29 PM
Yes, lets move on from the words, and get to the meat of the issue. The delicious meat.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 10:30 PM
"Science leads you to killing people"
Cain was the first scientist.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Enough of this Richard Kilgore twit, one will get more sense from Kilgore Trout.
Posted by: Janine ID | April 27, 2008 10:30 PM
I'm not sure that I'd argue "religion leads to killing people," although it certainly has in some cases. I would, however, argue that religion leads to restriction of freedoms. The same can definitely not be said about atheism.
Posted by: Cosmo | April 27, 2008 10:34 PM
Stein has type cast himself. Brain dead, wacko, religious extremist.
No doubt there is a market for that. Also a lot of competition, Dobson, Hovind, Robertson, Hagee, etc..
Science brought us the 21st century so BS could rant and rave on the videos, TV, movies, and internet. All of which he is oblivious to.
Posted by: raven | April 27, 2008 10:36 PM
Cain was the first scientist.
Somehow, I suspect Abel was the first scientist : )
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 27, 2008 10:36 PM
@ #66,
I feel that if fundamental Christianity gained complete control of the country, and could over turn the Constitution like they want to, they would apply Biblical laws about killing certain people. If "fundamental" secular humanism took over the country, the Constitution would be intact and there would be no killings that result from that. Its very debatable as to whether that fingers religion itself though.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 10:43 PM
Cain, influenced by the time traveling Richard Dawkins spreading his message of atheism and Darwinism, slew Abel. You see, Cain personally knew god and if left alone, never would have killed his brother. Because knowing god leads one to glory.
Posted by: Janine ID | April 27, 2008 10:47 PM
view the full creationist video here:
http://www.tbn.org/watch/files/index.php?file=2008_4_21_300k.wmv&show=92
Posted by: Chris Lackey | April 27, 2008 10:49 PM
Posted by: eewolf | April 27, 2008 10:50 PM
Janine ID,
Ah, I see...
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 27, 2008 10:50 PM
This makes me think of the argument that if God revealed himself, it would infringe on free will. Obviously it wouldn't, Satan talks to God all the time; just look at the book of Job. Moses was best buds with God, they used to chit chat all the time, and he still struck that rock instead of speaking to it (horrible crime worthy of severe punishment).
Posted by: Dennis N | April 27, 2008 10:51 PM
I tried bu the video has been pulled from YouTube
Posted by: Tom G(eologist) | April 27, 2008 10:53 PM
Ben Stein on the ACA's Meter-O-Idiocy:
Defcon 1 "F*cktard"- We have a winner!!!
Defcon 2 "A$$hat"
Defcon 3 "Douche bag"
Defcon 4 "Dillweed"
Defcon 5 "Idiot"
Posted by: Atheist Okie | April 27, 2008 10:53 PM
...said the speechwriter of Richard Nixon.
As for Richard Kilgore:
"Depends on, and hence leads to"? How can that statement be even logically true? If X depends on Y, surely Y must exist prior to X.
I despair for the reasoning powers of our youth...
Posted by: Tulse | April 27, 2008 10:58 PM
"atheism depends on, and hence leads to, Darwinism"
This is logically contradictory.
Posted by: zwa | April 27, 2008 10:59 PM
Now do not get any ideas. It is unlikely that I will get an Order Of Molly. But I was dubbed the Intelligent Dominatrix because of my desire to make creationists scream.
Posted by: Janine ID | April 27, 2008 11:00 PM
Science kills people....
What is his minimum limit for something to count as science? Because I think of science as being a continuum, right back to determining, by experimentation, which plants are safe to eat, and which are poisonous; what animals are useful as food, and how to find, kill and prepare them; how to best prepare animal skins or plant fibers for use as protection from the environment; which stones can be used as tools, and how they can be modified to be better, more efficient tools; how the heck to get in out of the rain, you idiot!
Presumably, he favors sitting, naked and starving, and exposed to the weather, with his hands folded, waiting for god to provide.
He favors, shall we say, a robust preparation for war, the tools of which, above and beyond leaping upon the enemy with teeth and fists, rely on science, even if it be only the experimentally-determined fact that thrown or knapped stones, or branches (and other arm extensions), offer many advantages in a fight.
Presumably, god expects him to eventually check out with his brain, still unused, in its original shrink-wrap.
Posted by: cicely | April 27, 2008 11:01 PM
You know it's true I've often thought while sitting over a culture plate, why bother trying to find a cure here, might as well just kill people because that's the end goal to all this research anyway.
Posted by: drew | April 27, 2008 11:04 PM
The only thing I didn't like about the video was the accusation that Stein must not believe in the rule of law simply because he doesn't accept the Dover decision as dispositive of the issue of ID.
First of all, even as a matter of law, that decision is not binding precedent outside of the (Eastern? I forget) District of Pennsylvania.
Second, you can disagree with a court decision without renouncing the rule of law. I suspect we can all name several Supreme Court decisions with which we disagree. Stein wasn't recommending that the Dover school board violate a court order; he was expressing his opinion. An ignorant, repulsive opinion, mind you, but just an opinion.
Third, the law is not the same as morality. For example, many people agree that the death penalty is legal and constitutional, but find it immoral nonetheless.
Also, I get nervous when I see "our side" trumpeting the Dover decision too loudly, especially when it comes across as "a court ruled for us, so yay! We're right!" We should be careful not to do that, because it's not inconceivable that another test case could go the other way. It could even survive appellate review with the right panel (the Fourth Circuit, perhaps).
Dover was certainly a great victory, but its power lies in the fact that Judge Jones wrote an excellent, thorough, well-reasoned opinion backed up by considerable evidence. (And also in the fact that the sensible people of Dover, including some brave Christians who took a lot of heat for doing so, stood up to the creationist clowns.)
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 27, 2008 11:04 PM
This video stung worse then putting Visine drops in my eyes.
Posted by: Jim Patten | April 27, 2008 11:08 PM
Actually that's just a cop-out.
On the one hand you have theists who claim that the existence of their god is soooo obvious and that just about everything points to his existence. Now if this is true (and they're not just victims of their overactive imagination) isn't this god violating their free will?
And on the other hand there are those theists who say that even if their god came down and showed himself to everyone on earth there would still be some hardcore atheists who won't believe that it is really god.
So who's right? Or does this god only violate the free will of the extremely gullible? And if so, where's the threshold?
Posted by: Christian | April 27, 2008 11:10 PM
(a) atheism depends on, and hence leads to, Darwinism (atheists have no other explanation for the origins of biological diversity).
After reading this over, I think it means that atheists needed an explanation for biological diversity which leaves out God, so they had to invent one. Atheism depends on there being that sort of explanation.
I'm still not sure here if "Darwinism" = "believing that evolution means there's no God,"
or
Darwinism = "believing that evolution didn't involve God's direct intervention."
Posted by: Sastra | April 27, 2008 11:12 PM
"Because I think of science as being a continuum, right back to determining, by experimentation, which plants are safe to eat, and which are poisonous; what animals are useful as food, and how to find, kill and prepare them; how to best prepare animal skins or plant fibers for use as protection from the environment; which stones can be used as tools, and how they can be modified to be better, more efficient tools; how the heck to get in out of the rain, you idiot!"
Great Scott! If you're right, it means that the first scientists were very probably...not even human!
Hence your moniker, Screechy Monkey?
(You're the time traveler!!)
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 27, 2008 11:15 PM
Boycott science! The process of having a theory and testing it will turn you into a Nazi. I always suspected.
Posted by: Ryan | April 27, 2008 11:17 PM
Oops, made a mistake. Comment was posted by cicely, not Screechy Monkey.
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 27, 2008 11:18 PM
It hurt me to watch it all, but I did. Ben Stein is a horrible toad (no offense to real toads, which are terrific).
I will never understand the idea that the US is supposed to be involved in every conflict around the globe. It's not our responsibility, as a country, and it is rarely (if ever) in our best interest. Ben Stein is just an obnoxious excuse for a human being. I doubt there is language foul enough to accurately describe him! It just makes me grit my teeth, I'm so angry.
Posted by: Feast on the Lake | April 27, 2008 11:23 PM
Okay, I'm angry. I'm spittin' mad. Oh, man, I usually try to be silly when I comment on Pharyngula. But I could only take about half of that video. Bear that in mind for what I'm about to say.
I think most people here on Pharyngula and elsewhere in the godlessphere are much too kind to people like Stein and his ilk.
Why the assumption that they believe crazy things? Belief has bugger all to do with it.
Stein is lying. He's been lying about all kinds of shit all his life. As a Nixon speechwriter, he lied about Cambodia. If Ben Stein told me his pants were on fire, I'd wait to see if the chemical analysis of his charred flesh showed evidence of carbonation. He's lying now. Why do you think a guy with no formal theatrical training was able to pursue a career as a character actor? Because he's been playing a role since the day he was born. And he's no different than every blow-dried, bible-thumping, gun-totin' fundy you deal with at work every day. Every single one of them knows the difference between lying and telling the truth, and every single one of them knows the difference between right and wrong. They just. Don't. Give a shit. They have "higher priorities" than honesty.
This not about people having crazy beliefs, contra Harris. This is about honesty.
Morality, ethics, and integrity as everyone here understands them have nothing whatsoever to do with ID/creationism. Every last one of the motherfuckers knows the difference between right and wrong, between telling the truth and telling lies. Not just the leading lights of the movement, but your fundy grandmother a