Expel Ben Stein
“Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead…This attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.” - Ben Stein
Ben Stein is essentially correct in the first part of this quote. Science follows the evidence where it leads. Much to Ben Stein’s chagrin, it doesn’t lead to creationism.
I may be preaching to the choir here, but science has had hundreds of years to model neo-darwinist evolution, and none of the evidence requires a creator in the model. Still, that has not stopped creationists from infiltrating our schools and museums in the attempt to show an “alternative viewpoint.”
The attack actually comes from the creationists, in their attempt to inject religious doctrine into a scientific discipline without any evidence. Since creationists don’t provide a falsifiable model of creationism, it cannot be accepted as science.
“The theory of Intelligent Design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the ‘apparent design’ in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.” - Ben Stein
This is not actually the goal of ID… if it were, the IDers would be forced to reject it, noting that there is no way to empirically detect a Creator. Ben Stein has innaccurately reduced evolution here into a ’simple’ process and then behaves like having something behave simply is a bad thing…
‘Humans are alive, therefore life must be complex’ - it’s clearly an issue of his own ego.
“I’ve been on a mission in terms of trying to get people to think more about the role of God in their lives for a while.” - Ben Stein
And there you have it folks. It turns out Stein is not interested in conducting pure research in order to find out scientific truth “wherever it may lead.” Stein is only interested in answers that lead him to a deity. And since science cannot provide these answer, he accuses it of being biased…
Creationists are angry at evolution, because it doesn’t conform to the answers they expect or want.
Scientists have experience in getting negative results, of experiments not working, etc. Creationists cannot empirically test their ideas and have not experiences this falsification of their model. People, this is simply not science, and don’t let anyone tell you that it is.
“Darwinism does not take into account DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or the human genome.” - Ben Stein
Clearly this man thinks that evolutionists are still trying to prove Dawrin’s work right out of the “Origin of Species.” Neither does he know that evolution doesn’t need to consider the Big Bang or Relativity (neither do a lot of correct theories)… it does take into consideration the human genome, DNA and microbiology.
Ben Stein clearly does not understand modern evolutionary theory, yet he is trying to replace it with creationism. Clearly we need to ‘expel’ Ben Stein’s ideas from our minds, in search of higher scientific truth.
global RSS feed.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I share your frustration. It’s not like creationists or ID proponents are being withheld from their views or censored by some science agenda. It’s simply that their view is wrong, and is not science, and has hence been rejected as any other theory of similar ilk would be.
If one claims to be an amazing soccer player, that’s great. However, if they consistently miss the net when placed right in front of it, it’s time to challenge the validity of their original claims and perhaps seek another player to recruit for one’s own team.
Creationism and ID have been given the floor. They have been free to share their information and support their claims. They have failed. Quite simple really.
Appeals to conspiriacy and appeals to censorhip offer zero validity or empirical support to their claims. It’s time to put up or shut up.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Well they do put up… misinformation and propaganda. That’s the main reason they aren’t going away.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“Stein is only interested in answers that lead him to a deity. And since science cannot provide these answer, he accuses it of being biased…”
Excellently said.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:36 am
thanks, CDarwin.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:30 am
This is a free society. Scientists are actively seeking to prevent the God who created our world and society from coming into our classrooms. What are they so afraid of? The truth that God made the world and not Darwin. All sides should be presented in any argument and you will see that when that happens that God wins. Just like he always does in the Bible. Truth is the key. God wins in the end when these scientists all burn for their sins of rejecting God and his holy son Jesus. Not one of them will be able to stand before him because the truth is not in them. I will watch them from on high.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“This is a free society. Scientists are actively seeking to prevent the God who created our world and society from coming into our classrooms. What are they so afraid of? The truth that God made the world and not Darwin.”
You just don’t get it and that’s saying something for a fanatic Christian. Religion and science are separate things just like church and state. Religion only falls under science when you are talking about theology. Your entire religion is based on the fact that you can’t prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (God), but you have faith and because of this faith you think you will go to heaven. Having faith is not knowing and can never be the same thing; you can believe based what you know for a fact, or can believe based on what you have faith that is a fact. I’m actually and atheist but an agnostic and open to the concept of God, but I think that She doesn’t give a crap about who believes in her.
” All sides should be presented in any argument and you will see that when that happens that God wins. Just like he always does in the Bible. Truth is the key. God wins in the end when these scientists all burn for their sins of rejecting God and his holy son Jesus. Not one of them will be able to stand before him because the truth is not in them. I will watch them from on high.”
And as spiritual person I ‘m always amazed by those who think that believing in God gives them some kind of moral ‘leg-up’ with God. If what you believe is true then you already know trying to prove God existence scientifically is futile. And incidentally from your comment it sounds like you take a certain amount of personal pleasure from the idea of those who don’t think like you burning for eternity. And since you are using God’s name in vain in order to promote your own personal beliefs like it’s God’s Cannon I guess you’ll be burning in Hell just like the rest of us. Unless you go to confession before you die and then you’re home-free RIGHT.
But what if a witch-doctor puts a hex on you… didn’t make any preparations for that one did you, you stupid Jesus-Nazi!!!
March 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I would like to know why it is okay for evolutionists to file lawsuits for a school board placing a disclaimer in a text book saying that the lessons taught in the book are only theory and no evidence has proven them ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/6822028/ ), it’s justified, but when a creationist is upset because their beliefs are completely ignored, and banned from the classroom, it’s a fanatic Christian who can’t prove what he/she believes and must be disregarded. Can anyone explain that to me?
March 28th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
That’s an easy one, Brandon. To say that evolution is “only a theory and no evidence has proven them” is a complete and utter lie.
Creationism, on the other hand is, as you say, a a belief, and has no right being in a science classroom.
It is impossible for Christians to prove that creationism exists, not in terms of being a “scientific theory.” Therefore, creationism doesn’t belong in a science classroom any more than Newtonian mechanics in a bible study class.
If you don’t understand why that is, you should read this: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/ecoli/2008/02/03/why-creationism-is-not-science/
March 30th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Out of curiosity, is there an experiment capable of falsifying the underlying tenet of science, that only that which is capable of falsification can be scientifically verified? I’d be eager to hear about that experiment.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
All scientific experiments are potentially falsifiable. Observation is what we use to evaluate whether scientific models are accurate. If an observation goes against the model, that falsifies the model.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Right, so what experiment do you use to falsify the model of science. Wherein, the model = “anything not falsifiable by experiment is not scientifically knowable” Please describe an experiment whereby said model can itself be falsifiable.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
The underlying tenet of science is observations… Our observations and tools that observe for us must always be used as a filter for scientific knowledge.
So, yes, our observations may be inherently ‘flawed’ which would ‘invalidate’ science.
But, because we cannot perceive the world with anything other than our observations, a scientific model of the universe that relies on observations is good enough for scientific matters.
Not only is it good enough, but we are so good at observing the universe that we are able to build a coherent, predictable models of physical system based solely on rigorous scientific observations.