Ben Stein: Worst Person of the Year

Wrong. The worst person of the year is Al Franken and he didn't need to make a movie to prove it.

JE: I've worked with Al Franken. I've talked with Al Franken. Al Franken would never condone the Nazi party because he thinks for himself and understands how corrupt its thinking is. Ben Stein's thought process... speaks for itself.

I think I'm going to be sick.

I think it's time to start referring to him as B-- S----. Not B.S., because that implies just silly falsehoods. S---- goes way beyond that.

Wow wow wow.

...

Um, Merry Christmas from an atheist scientist.

As a Christian reading that statement, I'm reminded of a famous line in the bible. I'm sure even the non-Christians know it.

"Jesus wept."

With people like Stein representing him, now you know why.

JE: Jews will be equally appalled. As will anyone with a functioning brain... and conscience.

Somebody close to me said something similarly ignorant about Al Franken, "I'm glad I don't live in Minnesota! Who would want that creep for Governor?!"

Do you see what I mean? They didn't even know what they were talking about. All they know is that Al Franken is democratic, running for an office in Minnesota and that he is a "bad" man because Fox News says so. This same person refers to Obama as "Berry," his wife as "Mi-chelle my Belle" and Caroline Kennedy as "Caroline Schlossberg" so you might know who educates him form 1 to 4.

So Warren. What did Al Franken do that proves he's a good canidate for "worst person of the year?"

I finally caught up with Stein's film, and already feel that my 1 star review was a bit too kind. That his proclaimed aim is to bridge a union between science and religion would be great, except that he does absolutely zilch to follow through on it. It's ugly, shallow, shrill, naive, hateful filth. He may be a genius, but he's also a gargantuan idiot.

Hmmm.......I wonder waht Mr. Stein thinks about a fellow Jewish American that shall remain nameless...who stole over 50 Billion dollars from people's life savings and charities?????

Science = Fact

Organized Religion = Superstition

Happy Holidays from a 39 year old Agnostic who was raised Catholic. :')

I am a political conservative. I'm even a Republican. (I'm a little peevish about this Malkin Award thing--can we get O'Donnell and Olbermann Awards set up, too--we'll spot you an O'Reilly Award to balance things out.) I am trained in science, and I support the theory of evolution. I'm also a Christian (although not so's you'd notice).

So much for the disclaimers. Whatever respect I might have had for Ben Stein has gone into the bin with yesterday's leftovers. To conflate simple scientific observation and hypothesis (Darwinism) with Nazism and eugenics is the worst sort of semantic and logical torture, although not the worst imaginable. (The worst sort of tortured logic imaginable comes from those who decry (1) capital punishment, and (2) euthanizing dogs and cats at the animal shelter, but inexplicably support abortion rights. I digress.)

I'd heard Ben Stein was a smart guy. I'm now pretty sure I'm smarter. It's a good feeling.

Not that I'm saying the idiot's right, because he's not obviously, but Darwinism did make some overeager Darwinists! come up with Social Darwinism and Eugenics.

Yeah, but that was a very, very, very stupid thing to say.

JE: Yeah, and the Nazis made some overeager Nazis, too. And let's not forget that mad monk Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, whose experiments with sweet peas yielded laws of heredity, explaining how traits are passed down from one generation to the next! And let's blame all the various discoverers of the atom over the centuries for Chernobyl. Damn scientists!

Man, I wish we had religious conservatives as retarded as Stein over here! The news would be so much more colorful.

But my favorite part of this post, I must admit, is the link to the list of nominees for the Malkin Award. Now, I love your writing, Jim. But those quotes are delicious. That Reverend Dr. Peter Mullen, what a character. I haven't heard this much nonsense in a good long while, it was refreshing.

But isn't Orson Scott Card kind of out of place? I mean, saying that biology supports heterosexual marriage, and that said kind of marriage is a "biological imperative", goes against everything biology and every other relevant science - biology, anthropology, sociology, psichology - tells us about human sexuality. But amidst people saying Obama would kill his grandmother to win the election, that the liberal media wanted Palin to murder her Down syndrom baby and that science leads to genocide, Card is nothing but a novice.

I remember when The Last Temptation of Christ came out. Scorcese was excoriated by the dogmatists. The sacred was being plundered they said. Venom and vitriol everywhere, a monkey house of backlash. How can one man's "interpretation" cause all this I wondered . . .

If it weren't for science, "Expelled" never would have been made since a movie camera is a scientific invention--not to mention he wouldn't have appeared on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, either.

Comparing Ben Stein to BS is in insult to BS.

I kind of agree about Card being eclipsed by the others on this list. He isn't suggesting (in this quote) that homosexuals are evil, or would kill family members for gain, etc., etc., etc.

Andrew Sullivan (a conservative) also has the Moore award (after Michael) for extreme, ludicrous left-wing rhetoric.

Didn't Card suggest that the people should rise in revolt against any government that allowed gay marriage?

I still voted for Stein, but it was a tough choice.

Jim Hawk III: The (Michael) Moore Award is Sullivan's equivalent to the Malkin: "for divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric."

Others are explicitly anti-partisan: "The Yglesias Award is for writers, politicians, columnists or pundits who actually criticize their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe." Peggy Noonan, Warren Beatty, David Frum... and Michael Moore are nominees in this category for 2008! There are three contributors to the National Review and one from the Weekly Standard in the running for this award for integrity.

David Frum said this:

"Can we conservatives please stop kidding ourselves about Barack Obama's "qualifications"? [...] Obama's nomination was not handed to him. He fought hard for it and won against the odds. "Qualifications" predict achievement. Once you have achieved, it doesn't matter what your qualifications are. Who cares whether the guy who built a big company from nothing didn't have much of a resume when he started? But if you are applying to run a big company built by somebody else, the resume matters ...

Reading those charming quotations brings me back to a lasting line from the movie Wild at Heart: "There's a lot of people in the world with the wrong idea." Unfortunately, I get to use that line often.

(And conservatives have a simple method of dismissing David Frum's comment... he's Canadian.)

This is all leaving aside that Stein doesn't seem to know what a scientist is. The doctors sending people to the gas chambers were not scientists by any reasonable definition.

Here's the whole Card article:

http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/?id=3237

It's a really bizarre diatribe that extends beyond the "biblical definition of marriage" argument. If they legalize gay marriage, people will stop reproducing, and the United States will collapse, because only people who believe in traditional marriage have kids. And anyone who doesn't want to get married and have babies isn't doing their job as a citizen.

They could have picked better quotes, like:

"""
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
"""

I bet Stein loves science when he visits the doctor. His documentary is beyond stupid.

OK, I take it back, Card is still one of the crazies.

I still think that S---- "wins".

Really, is what Ben Stien did any worse than Bill Maher's unapologetic (and sometimes unfair) mockery of religion?

JE: No, Ben Stein and Bill Maher are pretty close in their apocalyptic hysteria. See my Toronto post about "Religulous." Stein doesn't mock science, though. He just completely misrepresents it. Maher distorts religion to make jokes, but he doesn't get at what's really dangerous/dishonest about politicized/organized religion because he's too much of a hack comic. I have no more respect for Maher than I do for Stein. Over the last ten years or so, the two Bills (Maher and O'Reilly) have shown they'll say anything depending on which way the political winds are blowing at the time.

Didn't Ben Stein say on some of the news networks earlier in the year that the economy was basically "fine"....? Yeah, a real genius...

;)

I haven't noticed any inconsistency in what Maher says so I don't understand the comment about "blowing in the wind". True, he's a comic and sometimes his views may be taken less seriously or misconstrued, but that's what happens to people who have good things to say while trying to be funny--it often happens to Michael Moore whom I respect for his integrity and willingness to challenge the powers that be.
I have much more respect for Maher and Moore than Stein because they don't misrepresent things or lie. In trying to be balanced, the media fails to recognize that deceit needs to be called out for what it is even though it may not make for good TV, i.e. it's much more appealing to the audience to have two people with opposing viewpoints fighting on your program than a calm, rational discussion with an informed host who won't put up with ignorance or deception.
Fareed Zakaria's show on CNN is a great example of what TV could be but he's only on ONCE and it's never replayed like King's crap or the Situation Room going all day with the format described above.
And by the way, anyone who watches Fox "News" and thinks it has any value whatsoever is beyond help.

Jim, hysteria is gonna be built-in to any conversation about an apocalypse. Do you feel that Gore and the climate change crowd are equally hysterical? I don't happen to think that Gore is hysterical, and I don't think that Maher and Stein are either. Between ecological disaster, religious warfare and the next generation of weaponry (things that don't explode, they spread) there isn't a whole lot of apocalyptic spiel out there that I'm willing to dismiss. Heck, even Cormac McCarthy, this generation's William Faulkner, used an apocalypse as the basis for his most recent book, The Road.

I seem to remember Isaac Asimov commenting in his autobiography that he once shared a panel with the famous Nazi hunter Elie Weisel, who commented that he didn't trust scientists because some of them helped commit the holocaust.

You can imagine how the Good Doctor felt about that.

Really, this is nothing more than prejudice - prejudice against people with larger brains who have been trained to use them.

Amen, Ken. Maher is absolutely a hack, prone to conversions to the opposite site of the political spectrum based on current events. Recall his "Gush and Bore", and repeated hosting of Ann Coulter beyond all reason when Bushism was in ascendancy, and now his bashing of Bush based on proof he is an idiot. No real thought, no analysis, and unfunny to boot.

I have to wonder how many of those commenting watched Ben Stein's film before condemning him for it. He repeatedly discounts the proposed argument from the beginning of this blog, that God Love = Compassion therefore Science = Murder. He states that is clearly not so. He mentions in the very beginning of his respect for science and scientists.

I take from the movie 2 basic points:
1. There is a current movement to not allow even the discussion of ideas other than what is currently considered by some as "the consensus".
2. The pursuit of science alone, without considering other factors of a spiritual nature, runs the risk, again, of having a group of people use scientific arguments for selecting the percieved weak among us and eliminating them.

On the first point, it is clear this is so. Even from the comments in this blog that is shown. People don't even want to allow the discussion to take place. Can they be so afraid of the strength of their position that they cannot allow discussion on the matter and need to vilify or call stupid anyone that disagrees with them? Also, since when does consensus equal truth? It was consensus the earth was flat, the sun traveled around the earth, that whites were better than others. Consensus didn't make these things true, just the most popular. Truth is truth, regardless of how many people believe it.

The second point is clearly supported by history and therefore why Stein uses his own personal tie to the Nazi history. It's good to look at our past to try not to repeat it, yes? Look at some here who think simply because they carry what they percieve as the right view makes them superior over everyone else - that they have the "larger brains". That level of arrogance is the road to the kind of dangers Stein points out in his film.

For those that have not seen the film, I recommend you view it before making your opinion. Stein gives the opportunity for both sides to make their case. He even says near the end of the film, "But, if the intelligent design people are right, God isn't hidden. We may even be able to encouter God through science - if we have the freedom to go there. What could be more intriguing than that?"

Stein does not condemn science. He condemns restricting freedom and close mindedness. He condemns the raw pursuit of scientific knowledge without keeping love for humanity in mind as well. He condemns the systematic firings of people who don't share the "consensus" view. I think if the consensus was a religious one and people were fired for not being religious, most would condemn that as well, would we not?

JE: Let me suggest that if someone's aim is to "further discussion," comparing those who disagree with you to Nazis is not a profitable route. In the first part of the movie Stein makes his "Some of my best friends..." disclaimers ("Not ALL scientists are like this, but..."). By the end of the film, he's taken a film crew to Dachau to tie together Darwinian ideas, Nazi eugenics programs and Planned Parenthood. The film begins to sound like the ravings of a DUI Mel Gibson, raging against "Darwinists" instead of Jews. My central complaint with the movie, as I wrote, is that it doesn't attempt discussion because it doesn't present one bit of evidence on behalf of Intelligent Design. All it does is say that those it defines as "Darwinists" are wrong and won't listen. Well, OK, where's the science that supports Intelligent Design? None is offered. This is not a sterling example of the scientific method at work.

As for the quotation above, it speaks for itself: "...the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that's where science -- in my opinion, this is just an opinion -- that's where science leads you... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." Not a lot of room for ambiguity in those words.

I have to wonder how many of those commenting watched Ben Stein's film before condemning him for it. He repeatedly discounts the proposed argument from the beginning of this blog, that God Love = Compassion therefore Science = Murder. He states that is clearly not so. He mentions in the very beginning of his respect for science and scientists and throughout says there is not a causal linkage of science to murder and makes most of his points on the sides of intelligent design using scientists to do so.

I take from the movie 2 basic points:
1. There is a current movement to not allow even the discussion of ideas other than what is currently considered by some as "the consensus".
2. The pursuit of science alone, without considering other factors of a spiritual nature, runs the risk, again, of having a group of people use scientific arguments for selecting the percieved weak among us and eliminating them.

On the first point, it is clear this is so. Even from the comments in this blog that is shown. People don't even want to allow the discussion to take place. Can they be so afraid of the strength of their position that they cannot allow discussion on the matter and need to vilify or call stupid anyone that disagrees with them? Also, since when does consensus equal truth? It was consensus the earth was flat, the sun traveled around the earth, that whites were better than others. Consensus didn't make these things true, just the most popular. Truth is truth, regardless of how many people believe it.

The second point is clearly supported by history and therefore why Stein uses his own personal tie to the Nazi history. It's good to look at our past to try not to repeat it, yes? Look at some here who think simply because they carry what they percieve as the right view makes them superior over everyone else - that they have the "larger brains". That level of arrogance is the road to the kind of dangers Stein points out in his film.

For those that have not seen the film, I recommend you view it before making your opinion. Stein gives the opportunity for both sides to make their case. He even says near the end of the film, "But, if the intelligent design people are right, God isn't hidden. We may even be able to encouter God through science - if we have the freedom to go there. What could be more intriguing than that?"

Stein does not condemn science. He condemns restricting freedom and close mindedness. He condemns the raw pursuit of scientific knowledge without keeping love for humanity in mind as well. He condemns the systematic firings of people who don't share the "consensus" view. I think if the consensus was a religious one and people were fired for not being religious, most would condemn that as well, would we not?

Incredibly disappointed in Ben Stein.

ID is not a scientific theory, and, in fact, at the beginning of the ID movement, its proponents were honest about that. The key factor is *observability*. "Traditional" (ha) science is based on the study of all things observable. ID would like to expand that definition to include an "intelligence" that cannot be observed. That's the argument in two sentences.

It's not bad or wrong, I (and others) just prefer the definition we've been using for years. It's brought us medicine, the internets, space travel, and (not coincidentally) TV and movies.

I'd recently had a look at 'Expelled' (given the overwhelmingly negative reviews, how could I not?), and was surprised that Jeffrey Dahmer's rationalization of why he'd committed his acts (as articulated in the following link) wasn't lumped in with the rest of the arguments favoring ID (or used in place of the Nazi footage, altogether), as it would've, if anything, complemented the film's principal objective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjW7bezdddE

What he'd said, in this clip, by the way, is still relatively fresh in my mind, because I've seen, first-hand, the devastation Jeffrey Dahmer had left behind.

I, of course, wasn't privy to what he'd done (I was only a kid at the time), but I'd travelled to the U.S. last month, and Milwaukee was among my stops, as I'd read that a memorial park was to be built on the site where Dahmer's apartment once stood, but it failed to come to fruition, and I was compelled to see why. I am somewhat sorry I had, as it is a still-wounded neighborhood, and the site remains a fenced-in, empty lot (a few blocks over is the Ambassador Hotel, where the sixth of his 17 murders took place; I had the opportunity to engage in conversation with one of the management there, and they're still pretty much gutted over the whole thing).

I'm not going to disclose which philosophy I cleave to, but an evolutionist could also argue that Creationists, in centuries past, were butchers, because THEIR belief system compelled them to be, as Stein did, with those of the Third Reich.

Of course, the Nazi atrocities no more represent Darwinism than the Inquisition would the philosophies of Christianity. They're simply a feeble excuse for a select group of intolerant people (the being a part of the whole, but, unfortunately, possessing the loudest voices) to feebly justify or rationalize evil.

The inclusion of the Nazi component in 'Expelled' is beyond misrepresentation; it is digression in the guise of a prominent argument.

Perhaps a film will one day be made that will properly (or at least BETTER) represent the interests of those who champion ID. 'Expelled' sure isn't that film.

Jim, I can see why if you feel that he was comparing those that believe in science to Nazis you would be upset - and justifiably so. I don't think that was the message of the movie and certainly not what I took from it. I think his point was that a mindset focused on pure science, without consideration for humanity, risks becoming a heartless master, as was part of what happened with the Nazis. Not being Jewish I can't imagine how personal that might be for Ben so I give him grace there and figure he sees that as the frightening potential end of the current trend to not even let students know that there are other theories of the beginnings of energy, matter, and life.

I didn't expect his movie to be a treatise on Intelligent Design, rather as the title indicates, a story about the refusal to let a free flow of ideas. A study of intelligent design would be a different movie altogether.

Regarding his quote, I agree, taken alone I would not find it reasonable. But, after having watched his movie, I don't think he believes the quote as posted here, but rather a more nuanced version of that quote where it's really the abuse of science he's referring to, not pure and true science itself. To me and all the Christians I know, real honest science is valued and is simply discovering the wonderous universe that God built. Stein repeatedly honors scientific study - he just does so where people are allowed to consider the potential for an intelligent designer.

To some level, the argument is mis-guided. Science and believing in God should have no conflict. Proving evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of an intelligent designer - evolutionary mechanisms could easily be the tools a designer used.

We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. We can, though, provide all the facts and talk about the ways those facts may fit together. People should be allowed to consider and discuss all the evidence and make their own choices, not be restricted to hearing only some of the facts. Too much of Man's history has been pock marked with that error - often on the side of religion - let's not make that mistake again.

[Note: My original post failed the first time, so I sent it again. But it looks like it's been posted twice (with some small changes)]

JE: Near the end of "Expelled," Stein does say that Darwinism leads to Nazi-like eugenics experiments -- crudely juxtaposing talk about "Darwinism" with footage of Nazi death camps and the Berlin Wall. Not the way to present a nuanced argument -- about anything. You should look at the last 10 or 15 minutes again (as I just did). The way Stein frames his proposition, Intelligent Design is just science with the possibility of God as the conclusion. But science does not reach a conclusion about the existence of God or no God, because the question is beyond the scope of science. In math, 2 + 2 = 4 is a valid equation. However, 2 + 2 = 4 Because God (or Aliens or X) Designed It That Way is not -- because it brings in hypotheses that are beyond the scope of the equation. Intelligent Design is simply an attempt to employ science to prove faith. It's insulting to the intelligence behind both.

Stein frames it as an issue of academic freedom, when it's really about simple logic, reasoning, and scientific methodology. At the end of the film, ID advocates say they want the freedom to "follow the evidence wherever it leads" and Stein says he will continue to "investigate." OK, but the film never presents any evidence -- just differences of opinion. And that's most unscientific.

You write:

"To some level, the argument is mis-guided. Science and believing in God should have no conflict. Proving evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of an intelligent designer - evolutionary mechanisms could easily be the tools a designer used. We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."

That's exactly it: Depending on who's defining it, ID may qualify as theology or politics or philosophy or literature, but it's not math, it's not chemistry, it's not physics, it's not biology, it's not science. The film describes Intelligent Design as, vaguely, "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence." The unscientific logic is right there in that sentence. The study is based on a conclusion that has already been reached, not a conclusion drawn from the "patterns in nature" themselves. That's what makes it not-science.

The film doesn't even endeavor to explain why Intelligent Design should be considered preferable to existing science -- or to religion, for that matter. In the name of Freedom of Speech -- or, better yet, Freedom of Religion -- are we going to demand that churches teach science alongside their holy texts, or other holy texts alongside their holy texts? Of course not -- not in the USA, anyway. That would be as misguided as requiring that Intelligent Design be taught as if it were limited to scientific concerns. It's not an alternative form of scientific theory, but an alternative form of theology with some science thrown in as an afterthought. If scientific validation is what Intelligent Design advocates are after, let them prove their claims using the rational methods of human science. They can't. So, they want to expand the definition of science to include theology. But what kind of God could be proved -- or disproved -- in scientific terms? What kind of science would require the intervention of God? How can they be lumped into the same category of human knowledge?

Jim,
I believe what was actually said by one of the people he was interviwing near the end of the movie is, "Not everyone who read Darwin became a Nazi, OBVIOUSLY not, no one is making that case. Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazi-ism, but I think certainly it's a necessary one." If you have a different quote you're referring to, do you know what it was specifically? There is quite a difference between causation and being part of the needed underlying status quo. He is not saying science leads to Nazi-ism, he is saying Nazi-ism requires a collective unwillingness to be able to consider more than just the "science" of biology. I would say that religious zealotism is required for something like the Inquisition to take place. That doesn't mean being religiously zealous will definitely lead to an inquisition, but it does say if you are encouraging people to be zealous, you should also be aware and careful of some of the risks of the bad places that can go (and has gone).

Another quote you may be referring to might be when Stein says, "I know that Darwinism does NOT automatically equate to Nazi-ism, but if Darwinism inspired and justified such horrific events in the past, could it be used to rationalize similar initiatives today?" Again, he's not saying science in general leads to Nazi-ism, he's saying specifically Darwinism has at one time in one culture been part of the moving force for horrific events, so should we not be cautious to make sure we do not repeat those errors?

Personally, I would be satisified with requiring a comparative religions social studies course along with a requirement that the beginnings of the universe not be presented as "factual" something like the big bang theory necessarily independent of an intelligent creator, rather expressing what facts we see and discussing the philosophical ideas of how time/matter/energy may have come into being. There is no scientific method that will demonstrate how the universe came into being, only how it may have come into being. Looking at a historical event scientifically is not proof of how it happened, only how it might have happened.

As far as censorship, the government is absolutely censoring people. Both my parents were teachers, my son is a teacher and I had 3 kids go through the public school system. There is a broad effort to control what can and cannot be discussed in schools. Students who want to mention their faith in their graduation speeches are not allowed to. National holidays like Christmas and Easter are renamed at schools and teachers cannot even use the word Christmas. Teachers are not allowed to discuss the possibility of an intelligent creator. This was one of the key points of the film and he used numerous people who personally attested to their persecution in this area. It's so bad in my state that one of my kids upon seeing a Christmas advertisement at a mall thought the company had broken the law by mentioning Christmas in a public place.

In 2001, over 79% of United States citizens said they are Christian. By definition, they are followers of Christ, most of who by far would say that Christ is God. With that kind of makeup in our country, can our schools not even open up a conversation of the possiblity of an intelligent creator? Have a discussion around what may exist separate from time? How did the universe start - if it did start - and how didn't it if it didn't have a start (i.e., what does eternity look like in the limited universe we are exposed to - all with the possibility of including historical and current beliefs on religious belief?) Let's have a society where we can have broad an open discussions and allow for thoughts that aren't currently popular. Truth will out in the end if discussion is allowed to be free and open.

I am probably recycling at this point, but... bad science seeks data to support a hypothesis. Good science seeks data to disprove a hypothesis. If found, those data lead to a revised hypothesis. "Intelligent Design" and it's twin brother, creationism, start with a central tenet that cannot be denied, and seeks data that support it, and ignores blasphemy. You can call it science, but you cannot call it good science. Similarly, the idea that the attempted extermination of the Jews was scientific cannot be supported. It was most certainly driven by politics and, to a lesser but not insignificant degree, by religion. The co-opting of science as justification is so utterly transparent, I am surprised it warrants mentioning. It had as much to do with science as the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis, or Jeffrey Dahmer eating his neighbours, for that matter. (Oh, Jeffrey, we should behave a certain way because we are accountable to God... how about behaving a certain way because we are accountable to one another? Too crazy? Will I go to hell for that?)

Regarding Mr. Stein, his statement "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place" is fine, but I would argue that the "Love of God" part is unnecessary. Even better, I would argue that science and compassion and empathy lead us to glorious place.

Since we are talking about science, and the argument that ID is or should be included in scientific thought, let us examine some evidence. I would invite Mr. Stein to line up the people who have sought to exterminate other human beings in the name of science, and I will line up the people who have sought to exterminate other people in the name of God, and we'll do a little math. Unfair? No kidding. Love of God without compassion and empathy leads us to a most inglorious place.

About the only Internet conventional wisdom I subscribe to is that as soon as Nazis or Hitler are mentioned intelligent debate ends.

JE: Yeah, once somebody drops the N-bomb, it's pretty much game over. That's why I couldn't believe what I was seeing when, in it's last 20 minutes or so, "Expelled" started visiting scenes of Nazi atrocities -- in newsreel footage and as locations for Stein's interviews and commentary.

I think Ben Stein needs to revisit his history lessons. From what I learned, it wasn't the scientists that told the Jews to go into the gas chambers, but the SS. Slight difference, but one you'd think Ben Stein would notice.

@JeffT:
The problem with Intelligent Design is simple. It is not science. If schools want to have an ID, religion, or philosophy class that deals with the subject, then fine, but it should not be passed off as science, because it is the polar opposite of what science is about.

Science is about coming up with a hypothesis, testing it, showing the results, and enabling others to test and verify (or decry) the hypothesis for themselves using the same methods.

Intelligent Design is the equivalent of someone throwing up their hands and saying "we have no idea, so we'll say it was God." There is no substance, no proof, no testing, no results, no verification. This flies in the face of the scientific method.

ID is also essentially a chicken or the egg question. Did the designer come first, or the design? In truth, Darwinism provides for intelligent design: there is an ecological niche, so something evolves (is designed by itself and its surroundings) to fill that niche. ID suggests the converse, that God (or the designer) designed a creature, then created a niche for it. Even without knowing what we do about our world, the latter idea doesn't seem particularly practical, even with a designer in mind.

I agree that if ID is taught in schools, it should have strong evidentiary proof. I would be interested in a film on the topic. Hopefully one of the ID folks will do it, or at least participate in discussions like this so that they can make their case. To me, TRUTH is what's important - whereever that truth is. If Truth is some form of evolution, then so be it, but let's allow us to all openly discuss the various ideas in our educational institutions.

When scientists wanted to challenge the "factual" scientific consensus that all the heavenly bodies (i.e. Sun, Moon, etc.) traveled around the earth by saying the earth traveled around the sun, they were jailed for speaking up. There was already a consensus working theory, wasn't there, so why allow someone to even pose another idea??

Regarding using the Nazis, I would normally agree. Not every political leader that we disagree with is a new Hitler. But, in this case I understand and appreciate why Mr. Stein used them. The science he's referring to is the "science" of wanting to achieve the perfect human race (which comes at the cost of those of us that are imperfect). They mention in the film the Nazi movement was primarily political, but the Nazis used the idea of the utopian world filled with superior human beings as part of their justification for the "cleansing" they were doing. Some of us see current activities that are today killing millions using that same basic mindset, so using what happened in Germany where the pubicly claimed purpose was building the perfect race of humans is appropriate to point to. When Sarah Palin was first running I was shocked to see the volume of people in blogs who said she was cruel to bring a downs syndrome child to term. We should not kid ourselves that we are any better than the Germans of the 30s. We have the same capacity for bypassing loving considerations for the weak among us in pursuit of our own fulfillment or in some idea that only the best among us should survive.

To mostofusaredaves, most people have been murdered in wars for political reasons. Relatively few have been killed either for science or for God. The murderers may have used science or God as their stated reason and it may have had some effect, but their real reason is almost always power and control. I would echo Ben's call for caution when pursuing a one-sided scientific argument with one that called for a one-sided religious argument.

Your point is true - any activity done for any reason without compassion and empathy leads us to bad places. So, let's not do that. When someone poses an idea we disagree with, let's discuss it, not fire them.

If I may share this quote from the Bible, "And now I will show you a more excellent way, if I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and could fathom all mysteries and all knowledge and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
1Corinthians 13:1-3"

Peace

Come on, Jim. Just say Ann Coulter. You gain nothing by calling her "Agh Cuh." That's what I have to resist hearing in my mind every time you use those hyphens. Her name is Ann Coulter. Just say it. The shtick isn't cute.

How dare we say they can't teach a belief in God in schools! How dare we choose not to believe in God, or to believe in another god, or to believe in the same god in a different way! How dare we tear away the thin veil so swiftly and call Intelligent Design a Trojan horse for Creationism! After all, as George Carlin has observed, belief in God leads to love and compassion. "'Do you believe in God?' 'No.' Boom! Dead! 'Do you believe in God?' 'Yes.' 'Do you believe in my god?' 'No.' Boom! Dead! 'My god has a bigger d--- than your god!'"

I can't even listen to Ben's Clear Eyes commercials anymore without hating him. Even though it removes redness and has an added ingredient to moisturize!

And re: Al Franken, he's good enough, he's smart enough, and dog gone it, people like him.

And should we remember the famous words of Richard Wagner? "German music is good enough for me. Or will be, when we rid it of the Jews."
"No, Wagner! Stay in Hell where you belong!"
[Lisztomania]

JE: I forgot what her name was.

To JeffT:

You say you would be interested in a film that discussed in a...shall we say "fair and balanced?"...way the question of ID and evolution.

I hope that film gets made someday, because the discussion has already been held in science, and the verdict is that ID is not science.

Any science teacher who tries to teach ID is not doing their job right. If you don't do your job right, do expect to be allowed to continue?

I agree with you that "soulless" science can lead to atrocity. So can anything. Yes, some scientists were involved in the Holocaust (not just SS troops). I remember hearing about one German scientist who did an experiment of taking a pregnant Jewish woman who was in labour and tying her legs together to see what would happen.

Good science, that. NOT! I sincerely hope it didn't truly happen - I haven't seen any substantiation for it.

In any case, humanity has engaged in various atrocities over the millenia, and for various reasons. The United Nations Convention on Refugees defines a refugee as a person fleeing persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Any and all of these have been used as justifications for atrocities.

The Inquisitions, the Crusades, the pogroms against Jews, the Armenians, and Rwanda (indeed much of the history of Europeans in Africa) are some prime examples.

Science has been used to help justify atrocities only a few times, because scientific methods have been around and available for use for this sort of thing only for a couple of centuries. Before this, humanity did just fine in finding means to justify the horrific ends.

Curious how the same events, the same connections, the same imagery can lead to two highly different, even opposite results. In the first half of the 1970s the BBC showed one of their now classic documentary series, The Ascent of Men - A personal view by J. Bronowski; 'J' standing, of course, for Jacob, an eminent and well-known scientist. He was a professional mathematician and a scholar of William Blake's poetry, making him one of the [sadly] few men connecting the Arts with Science.

The eleventh programme, entitled 'Knowledge or Certainty', concerned itself not with Darwin or Mendel - h did that in two other programmes of the same series - but with the philosophical implications of modern physics, particularly quantum physics and the discoveries of Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger. Clearly Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty was the focus of Bronowski's essay.

The last third of 'Knowledge or Certainty' told of the differences between scientific knowledge - always on the move, always sceptic, always uncertain - and ideological dogma, always so certain of its postulates. Many artists, scientists, craftsman and others fled from the Nazis, left their home or stayed abroad where they just had been. Add Einstein to the list of names above ...

Jacob Bronowski ends up in Auschwitz, looking at the result of political certainty, how it stopped scientific and intellectual progress, humanity using gas chambers and ovens. Bronowski looks at a puddle, realises that the ashes of thousands of people lie just before him in the ground. He moves forward into the puddle, cowers down, reaches into the water, grabs a handful of weeds and earth.

It is science that grabs humanity, reaches out to the other in tolerance trying to understand how the world is made up, how it works. How humans are.

Unlike many of the posters on this thread, I have actually seen Expelled. I don't recommend the experience. The main problem with the picture is that Ben Stein attempts to criticize science (not just modern biology, but all scientific inquiry) without even remotely understanding what science is. (The writer who posted "Science = Fact" pretty much sums up the film's point of view, though he would most likely disagree with the filmmakers in matters of ontology.)

For me, the most morally offensive segment of Expelled isn't the Nazi analogy, which as I recall comes around the three-quarters mark (the Nazi business is basically the film's "third act"). That one, at least, is easy to see through, and comes across as overdone and silly. But the film's various "case studies" of alleged intolerance in the scientific community, which occur within the first twenty minutes, are chock full of factual errors and deliberate misinformation, all of which most uninformed filmgoers are not likely to spot right away. The case studies are also more subtly and skillfully handled than the Nazi and Communist gambits, and therefore IMO more deserving of opprobrium.

It seems only fair that director Nathan Frankowski should receive some sort of dishonorable mention for his work here. Since Frankowski and Michael Moore are both filmmakers, perhaps he deserves a Moore Award as much as Ben Stein himself.

I was wondering if you or Roger Ebert had been contacted by B__ S____ about a debate on the subject.
If you get an invite before the end of the world(2012, apparently!), let us know.