Let’s make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.
No less a genius than the evil Karl Marx noted that even after capitalism succumbed to Communism, society would still be imbued with the class artifacts and cultural values of the system that preceded it. Much smarter analysts than I have noted that the whole system of Marxism, especially its sharp attacks on capitalists as a class, was motivated by Karl Marx’s envy of the much wealthier industrialist/capitalist members of the Marx family.
In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air. They come from the era in which they arose and are influenced greatly by the personality and background of the writer. (In law, this theory is known as “legal realism”. Judges make up their minds on the basis of their prejudices and then rationalize their decisions by pretending to be bound by prior case law. One might call what happens with ideologies “political realism.” Persons make up their ideologies based on their times and their life situations.)
Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”)
But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was “owned” (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out,
Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.
Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.
Imperialism had a short but hideous history–of repression and murder.
But its day is done.
Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.
Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.
Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism’s life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let’s be humble about what we know and what we don’t know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.
By Ben Stein
October 31st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Attempting to explain how things work in nature does not amount to encouraging them. There is no reason why speciation cannot happen. [1] Additionally, speciation has been observed. [2] [3] [4]
[1]Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
[2]Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
[3] Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.
[4]Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Actually, you could make it shorter and sweeter by actually, you know, bringing in evidence. As pathetic as your knowledge of science is, Ben, even you must have some notion that it isn’t “Darwinism” that is being taught today, it is a combination of ideas that have been, and continue to be, tested against the evidence.
I suppose that as long as you lack intellectual integrity, however, you will equate modern evolutionary theory with “Darwinism,” not despite the dishonesty of it, but because of the dishonesty of it. Again, I know that your knowledge of science is abysmal, but you could try to tell the truth, and you could try to deal with a theory that has had many contributions made to it through time and across cultures. However, you don’t, you simply act as if science is as mindless as your sponsors are, beholden to authority rather than to the evidence. It’s much easier, of course, for you to attack strawmen dishonestly set up, than it is to actually deal with biological science, so this is part of your sleazy tactics.
Oooh, great authority there. Likely it’s true, but then Marx predicted that religion would fade away as well. Has it?
A rather simplistic analysis, but it probably played a role in it. So what? Adam Smith wrote in support of his class, and Machiavelli was an apologist for rulers to whom he hoped to suck up. One judges ideas on their merits, not on personalities. Which makes this whole attack on “Darwinism” Ben’s pathetic fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. That’s the best you can do, Ben?
Already you’re digging your own grave there, Ben. Evolutionary thought comes from across time and culture, and its origin (if we understand Darwin as the origin–there were others) happens to also be the country of Newton and the Enlightenment. Yes, it is understandable that Darwin would integrate biology into causal science in the country that largely gave rise to causal science. That’s highly preferable to the acausal non-science that you’re supporting now, Ben.
To be continued below:
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 31st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
continuing from my post above:
Yes, funny that, judges care about causation, and you do too in the area of history, Ben. Yet you’re pushing magic as an appropriate alternative to your causal methods in the biological realm, and you have absolutely no basis from which to do this.
Very selective there, Stein. You know very well that Newton’s was an age of slavery, plunder, colonialism, and religious bigotry. Yet you praise Newton and his science, while you rubbish Darwin’s science by association. That’s not intellectually honest in the least.
What is more, Darwinism as such fits your own political posture rather well, Ben, as you favor the haves over the have-nots.
Sure, and this differs from Newton’s time, how? IOW, do you have a point that doesn’t undercut what you’ve written heretofore?
Anyway, as it happens, the capitalism of Victorian Britain is somewhat analogous to Darwinism (and is not actually very akin to traditional society, as we evolved to be more cooperative than Ben’s politics prescribes), and it may indeed have helped to give the right idea to Darwin. What of that? One has to get ideas from somewhere, the only real issue being the one that Ben avoids, the issue of evidence that so strongly supports evolutionary theory, and does not support the creationistic views that Ben and Ruloff wish to impose on science.
So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Ben the PC man. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).
Arguably, Stein is rather more an imperialist than upper-class Darwin was. Darwin didn’t much trouble with politics, he was one of the privileged Brits who dabbled in the sciences because it was very interesting and socially rewarded, not because it yielded any great imperial or capitalist prizes. Indeed, a good deal of science was done that way, while Ben selectively condemns evolutionary science simply because he’s bigoted against it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 31st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
continuing from my post above:
Colonialism was pursued in part (or at least excused by this concept) to stop the slave trade in Africa. You know, the slave trade, which America persisted in even as America came up with better ideas about government, and which Britain engaged in both at that time and during Newton’s time. Once again I note how tendentious Ben’s rendering of history is, and how really lacking in honesty it is.
More to the point, however, is that “Darwinism” didn’t cause Imperialism (which Ben tacitly allows), nor was most of the propaganda in favor of it after Darwin actually based on evolutionary ideas. God and country were the main pillars upon which imperialism was based, with God supposedly ordaining the white races to impose their rule and (again supposedly) better the world. Learn some history, Ben.
Your understanding of evolution is as deficient as your understanding of history, Stein. Modern evolutionary theory is definitely not about that, and even Darwin understood the intra-species and inter-species cooperation in an imperfect sense. After all, he had to deal with the objections involving altruism and mutualism, meaning that while his theory may have been analogous with British imperialism, it also took many exceptions to it. Try to explain that, Ben.
It’s rather funny how Ben the Social Darwinist keeps railing against Imperialism, when of course “Darwinism” tended to be used more as a prop for capitalism than for imperialism (mostly people in the UK weren’t focused on the latter, but were on the former). But in his tendentious rendering of history, the attack must be on imperialism, and not on his precious capitalism, though neither one came from “Darwinism” at all (it was used to justify both, but it’s far from what actually produced both of them).
Really? You mean that Darwin was the main propagandist for the imperialism of religious Britain? Then why is your despicable film portraying evolutionists as being opposed to religion, when by your claims the religionists of Britain were happily using “Darwinism” to support imperialism? Of course they weren’t really, they were operating on religious fictions of the ordination of their Empire, and of the “white man’s burden.” If Darwinism was used as well it hardly matters, because few were really motivated by such an abstract biological concept, while many were motivated by racialism and nationalism.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 31st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
continuing from my post above:
Much like Stein’s politics do not.
Do they now? Then why did intellectuals of the UK’s former colony, the US, take up Darwinism without much fuss? Didn’t they understand it as propaganda in favor of imperialism?
Of course they didn’t, and neither does God-soaked Mexico, which happens to maintain a historical animus against imperialism and colonialism. Why would that be, Ben? Do you think that it might just be that Newtonian physics and “Darwinian” biology just happen not to be imperialistic in and of themselves, nor atheistic in and of themselves?
And also of ridiculous people who equate science with imperialism, without any true justification for it. I think that we have little reason to expect anything honest in this film, given the appalling dishonesty of its main characters on this blog.
Well, not according to those who try to impose their views onto science. You know, Islamic fundamentalists, and IDists, the sorts of people who won’t allow science to progress according to its own standards and mutual agreements.
Wow, I guess that’s true–if you totally ignore the substantial developments since then, as, of course, Ben does. So is much of Newtonian physics alive (like evolution, significantly added to and superseded in some areas), from an even darker and more brutal time.
And geology from that time and place also serves as the basis for geology today in many aspects.
Species aren’t created, they evolve. And yes, we have huge amounts of evidence that species have evolved through Darwinian (and the other processes of evolution) means. One does not write of “Darwinist means,” unless one is a science illiterate, as Ben is.
Behe, btw, accepts evolution by natural selection, with an unevidenced role for the “designer” as one who supplies the right mutations. So Ben is using his ad hominem fallacy against “Darwinism”, while one of his precious IDists largely accepts Darwin’s contribution to evolution, disagreeing sans merit with MET vis-a-vis the source of variation and of new information.
And yes, Ben has failed to answer the three questions I have posed, which is how to explain the Linnaean taxonomic system with its apparent genealogical structure, why the mostly sexual eukaryotes evolve quite differently from asexual prokaryotes (and in the manner predicted by MET), and why it is that vertebrate wings are derived from legs, when no known designer would make wings out of legs. I think it’s safe to conclude that he has no answer, while all of these provide evidence for MET, or what Ben tendentiously labels “Darwinism”.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 31st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
continuing from my post above:
It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one, because other processes than evolutionary mechanisms come into play during the origins of life. Darwin even allowed at one time that the Creator may have made life, while Darwin himself was simply explaining the patterns that we see in life, including the speciation of finches on the Galapagos Islands.
No, those were your buddies, who distorted a scientific concept into excuses for ravaging and despoiling peoples, including their own countrymen.
I wouldn’t suppose that someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges. He blames the science of evolution for the decidedly unscientific and unsupportable beliefs of Hitler. Well, why not violate Godwin’s law, when you yourself can’t support a single one of your statements, Ben?
The true fact of history is that the Enlightenment spawned Darwin’s thought in the birthplace of the Enlightenment, England (Newton, above all exemplifies such Enlightenment). The Enlightenment was anathema in much of Germany, and especially to the faction which took over Germany in the 1930s (the Nazis were also not in favor of Darwin, for the most part). The Enlightenment countries, which unquestionably had many faults, were the ones who had both the science and the decency to defeat the fascists. Ben disparages the Enlightenment types who promote science and decency, and who defeated the rank evil of Hitler.
Yes, and they always have. The IDists, of course, are not “questioning Darwinism”, they’re using labels, like Ben does, to suggest that evolutionary theory depends on a man and moment in history, when in fact MET is a cross-cultural, cross-religion phenomenon, accepted by religionists and atheists, and by East and West. IDists simply hate the Enlightenment, tell lies about science being “materialistic”, and try to impose their anti-Enlightenment beliefs upon free societies.
Until bigoted theists (and, fortunately, many theists are totally unlike Ben and his cohorts) destroy it along with the rest of science. And it’s not “Darwinism” (not in the US–in the UK that term is conflated with MET much more than here), that’s just dishonest propaganda.
More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything. Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.
Yes, see, if you really understood history, you’d know why non-Enlightenment, non-scientific Marxism had to perish of its own contradictions, while evolutionary theory remains indispensible for doing biology.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 31st, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’m trying to post this section of my reply again, since it doesn’t show up in the preview.
Continuing from my post above:
It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one, because other processes than evolutionary mechanisms come into play during the origins of life. Darwin even allowed at one time that the Creator may have made life, while Darwin was simply explaining the patterns that we see in life, including the speciation of finches on the Galapagos Islands.
No, those were your buddies, who distorted a scientific concept into excuses for ravaging and despoiling peoples, including their own countrymen.
I wouldn’t suppose that someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges. He blames the science of evolution for the decidedly unscientific and unsupportable beliefs of Hitler. Why not violate
Godwin’s law, when you yourself can’t support a single one of your statements, Ben?
The true fact of history is that the Enlightenment spawned Darwin’s thought in the birthplace of the Enlightenment, England (Newton, above all exemplifies this). The Enlightenment was anathema to much of Germany, and especially to the faction which took over Germany in the 1930s (the Nazis were also not in favor of Darwin, for the most part). The Enlightenment countries, which had many faults indeed, were the ones who had both the science and the decency to defeat the fascists, and Ben despises the Enlightenment types who
promote science and decency.
Yes, and they always have. The IDists, of course, are not “questioning Darwinism” (though they’re attacking it), they’re using labels like Ben does to suggest that evolutionary theory depends on a man and moment in history, when in fact MET is a cross-cultural, cross-religion phenomenon, accepted by religionists and atheists, and by East and West. IDists simply hate the Enlightenment, tell lies about science being “materialistic”, and try to impose their anti-Enlightenment beliefs upon free societies.
Until bigoted theists (and many theists are totally unlike Ben and his cohorts) destroy it along with the rest of science. And it’s not “Darwinism” (not in the US–in the UK that term is conflated with MET much more than here). That’s just dishonest propaganda.
More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything (not even Marxism did, in fact, though it went well beyond reasonable grounds). Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.
Yes, see, if you really understood history, you’d know why non-Enlightenment, non-scientific Marxism had to perish of its own contradictions, while evolutionary theory remains indispensible for doing biology.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 31st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
continuing from my post above:
It survived the efforts of Marxists to stamp it out in the Soviet Union. You know why? Because it’s science. If you had the slightest notion of what science is, Stein, you’d cease trying to impose your version of Social Darwinism upon science.
I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that “Darwinism” presumes to explain everything. Or where you got the notion that MET is without much evidence. I’d guess from evil liars, most likely the sorts of anti-science anti-intellectual persons that you claim were “persecuted,” when in fact they’ve merely been held to account for their own tendentious nonsense.
That’s why Lysenkoism and ID have never been able to last in science, and why both have attempted (Lysenkoism succeeded) to use government to impose themselves into a science whose rules and methods end up excluding them based on their lack of evidence. Indeed, evolutionary thought has lasted where other ideas have fallen by the wayside, although many specific ideas about evolution have been brought up only to be ultimately rejected by the science (like Haeckel’s ideas were).
It isn’t a “dominant force”, it is just the primary theory in biology. What is more, it isn’t “Darwinism”, for Darwin’s writings did contain a fair amount of Victorian baggage which needed to be discarded (expelled, something science does to bad ideas), and did not know about many of the details of evolution (like neutral evolutionary concepts), and has been substantially modified in light of the evidence.
Maybe you need to learn what the present theory is, and even to know what must be in scientific theories, like actual explanations of phenomena–which ID lacks.
Not all of us are as pitiful as you anti-science ranters.
And life is more like “imaginably complex,” for we use evolutionary algorithms precisely where our human design processes fail due to complexity, yet where evolutionary processes succeed. Evolution is something like a computational program, one that is massively parallel.
Yes, we are still trying to figure it out, which is why we’re unwilling to give up the only theory that reduces conceptual complexity, evolutionary theory. ID only wants us to abandon the predictive theory, in preference of dealing with everything as if it were only contingency (or where it understands data according to MET, yet denies MET’s causal mechanisms which predict those data).
Actually, we do not. We do not need the input of Ptolemy to understand the complexity of the heavens, we need people who understand science developments to input their knowledge and creativity. That’s why we have standards in science, among other reasons.
I saw absolutely no humility in Stein’s propaganda against “Darwinism”. Only the usual arrogance of the ignorant, as they insist that bad ideas are as deserving of consideration as the ideas which have guided biological research for at least a hundred years.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 31st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
This blog is good at allowing comments, but bad in making us wait to see if we got through. I’m going to try again to post one section (it should come after my first post), again because I don’t see it on the preview. If it is a repeat, it should be easy to ignore.
Continuing from my first post on this blog thread:
Yes, funny that, judges care about causation (well, that’s not actually Ben’s point, but what is his point? That the justice systems doesn’t work, or does it work dispense justice most of the time?), and you do too in the area of history, Ben.
Yet you’re pushing magic as an appropriate alternative to your causal methods in the biological realm, and you have absolutely no basis from which to do this.
Very selective there, Stein. You know very well that Newton’s was an age of slavery, plunder, colonialism, and religious bigotry. Yet you praise Newton and his science, while you rubbish Darwin’s science by association. That’s not honest in the least.
Anyway, at least capitalize properly. It’d be “Age of Imperialism” if you’re capitalizing “imperialism”, not “age of Imperialism.”
What is more, Darwinism as such fits your own political posture rather well, Ben, as you favor the haves over the have-nots.
Sure, and this differs from Newton’s time, how (I know it does differ, but how does it differ in a better manner?)? IOW, do you have a point that doesn’t undercut what you’ve written heretofore?
Anyway, as it happens, the capitalism of Victorian Britain is somewhat analogous to Darwinism (and is not actually very akin to traditional society, as we evolved to be more cooperative than Ben’s politics prescribes), and it may indeed have helped to give the right idea to Darwin. What of that? One has to get ideas from somewhere, the only real issue being the one that Ben avoids, the issue of evidence that so strongly supports evolutionary theory, and does not support the creationistic views that Ben and Ruloff wish to impose on science.
So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the
nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).
Arguably, Stein is rather more an imperialist than upper-class Darwin was. Darwin didn’t much trouble with politics, he was one of the privileged Brits who dabbled in the sciences because it was very interesting and socially rewarded, not because it yielded any great
imperial or capitalist prizes. Indeed, a good deal of science was done that way, while Ben selectively condemns evolutionary science simply because he’s bigoted against it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
October 31st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Until this post I was able to countenance the idea that Stein was basically an affable dupe in all this. But spreading the vile slander that Darwin was trying to justify Imperialism? Mr. Stein, have you no decency, at long last?
This is no different from the vile slander I’ve seen some other creationism apologists offer: that taking some of Darwin’s writing out of context shows him to be a racist.
Mr. Stein - are you aware that Darwin was a stauch slavery abolitionist at a time in Britian when it was not altogether popular to be such? Despite your attempted “class warfare” (I guess that’s only bad when Dems do it, eh Benny?) by insuating his “aristocratic” background made him some kind of an elitist, Darwin and his ENTIRE “elitist” family were abolitionists. Darwin learned taxidermy in Edinburgh from a black ex-slave. Darwin had great respect for this man’s skills and they corresponded for the rest of their lives. The captain of the HMS Beagle (the ship which Darwin took to the Galapagos) WAS an avowed racist on the other hand, and ironically Darwin almost got thrown off the ship a few times because of the heated arguments he and the captain would have about the “proper place” of Africans. Darwin of course argued we are all one human family.
Now let’s look at some of Mr. Stein’s friends. Old benny worked for tricky Dick Nixon, whose acolytes are in charge of the Bush administration today and they for damn sure believe in capitalist social darwinism. Look at the smears directed against the boy who spoke out in favor of the SCHIP health care bill - his family were a bunch of slackers who don’t deserve health care because they weren’t smart enough to get high paying jobs! This is being argued by people in YOUR POLITICAL PARTY TODAY, SIR!! Don’t issue veiled smears against one of the greatest and noblest scietific minds in history while ignoring the racism and classism inbred in the political party you shill for on a regular basis!!
November 1st, 2007 at 1:18 am
One of the best critique of darwinism is John Davison’s Manifesto. I reccomend it everyone who are interested in evolution and forces behind the process. It is very incentive, full of facts.
Of course there are other thinkers like Adolf Portmann who dismissed darwinism. Professor Zdenek Neubauer, prominent biologist and scientist from University Prague is a scholar with encyclopedic knowledge. He published in many peer-reviewed journals (Nature) and he has written many books about philosophy and biology (he speaks Italian, German, English and helped to traslate some ancient works from Greek).
Anyway I have tried to support John Davison at forums. John Davison is ridiculed by darwinists the same way as propnents of Copernicanian solar system were at their times. Especially instructive is behaviour of pundits at
Oxford towards Giordano Bruno who had tried to explain them the new system.
Darwinists see everywhere “evolution in action” and “natural selection”. That “natural selection” play no role even in the favourite child of darwinism - mimicry - I have showed elsewhere at ATBC forum. It was Franz Heikertinger who showed and dismissed “natural selection” as the source of the so called mimic resemblances. He called selectionists as “Hypothetiker”.
Darwinists are often only aggressive ignorants, nothing more.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:22 am
The problem with these Darwinists, is that they believe only “they” can do real “science”, where the present and past shows otherwise. It is the same as the declaration of the Dogkings who stated “you are all IDiots if you don’t believe me…you need education, education, education etc…”. The other problems tend to be based on the idea of Darwinian evolution being at the pinnacle of modern science and technology, when it is at most…belonging at the bottom of the muddy pits, the ooze pool from which it came from.
Darwinism has been dead, is now dead and will be dead in the future to come!
–Darwin, pg. 1023 Harry Potter Witches Spells
========================================================
Nothing in technology makes sense without the light of Intelligent Design, everything in science makes sense in the light of Intelligent Design.
It is inevitable
November 1st, 2007 at 2:10 am
Mr. Stein,
You’ve proved your ignorance. You can give up and move to Kentucky now.
Best Regards,
a former admirer
November 1st, 2007 at 8:27 am
Not to make light of all of Glen’s work here, but there’s a much more succinct argument to be made: The version of Darwinism that Mr Stein here opposes is a straw man Darwinism. This idea that Darwinist evolutionary theory somehow champions the strong and dominant is a newspaper headline version of the theory, with almost no relation to actual evolutionary theory as used by professional scientists. A blog comment is not the place for a primer, but if you read - the actual books, that is, not the Cliff’s Notes and certainly not the Discovery Institute’s propaganda - a couple of books such as Dawkins’s /The Blind Watchmaker/ and /The Extended Phenotype/, you’ll have a much clearer idea of what evolutionary theory is really about.
Attacking a straw man may be good Hollywood-style publicity, but in the end you’ll only be preaching to the choir.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:32 am
I see Glen Davidson has surfaced here to dominate this thread as he has attempted to do everywhere else he has been allowed. Nine of the first 10 comments are from Glen Davidson.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
November 1st, 2007 at 8:44 am
Can anyone supporting ID and feels that the “victims” portrayed in this film were unjustly treated, answer one simple question?
Why would the Templeton Foundation, which by no stretch of the imagination would exclude God from any form of research, and states that “We believe that open debate and competition among positions is the best long-term
method for choosing a wise course of action” say this about the Intelligent Design movement?
“The foundation doesn’t support the political movement known as ‘Intelligent Design.’ This is for three reasons: We don’t believe the science underpinning the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement is sound, we don’t support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge and the foundation is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements.”
Anyone? Anyone?
November 1st, 2007 at 8:54 am
I have to say my experiences in public schools in which macroevolution is being presented with free reign, lacked any of the temperance of the macroevolutionists posting ot this forum. Unless something’s chained in the last 7 years, what’s being covered in public schools is classic Darwinian evolution and it’s being supported with examples that have been disproved or shown to be invalid.
Furthermore, Darwin may not have been a racist but his theory lends itself to imperialistic ideals. The idea that for one reason or another a person can be physically or intellectually more fit then another gives free reign to imperialistic actions. I don’t believe that Darwin consciously wrote his theories to support imperialism or racism but rather viewed the evidence at hand threw the imperialistic mindset prevalent in his time. People are influenced by the societies in which they live and Darwin was no different. Macroevolutionists suffer from this problem as well. For the last 150ish years marcoevolutionists have surrounded themselves with a culture that dogmatically believes in macroevolution. It makes total sense that the birth of a theory (and it is in the formative stages) would cause macroevolutionists tremendous heart ache. It also makes sense that any evidence, which seems to contradict macroevoutionery principles, would be brushed away as swiftly as possible. Science that’s actually sticking and contradicting this dogmatic faith in macroevolution is a scary thing for macroevolutionists. In closing I agree with Mr. Stein, macroevolution will not stand the test of time. The very existence of this forum and the movie coming out is testament to the crumbling within the macroevolutionery faith. People have begun to view the evidence at hand and reject the blind acceptance of macroevolutionery dogma. Macroevolution may hang on for a few more years, but if things persist the way they are, it will soon be dead in the water.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:26 am
Ben Stein’s Brain’s Day Off
November 1st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
It remains for anyone truly interested in understanding the theories of evolution to read in detail Ramine’s Biotic Message. It will take some time as Remine spend more than a decade of intense study and investigation of so called MOE as well as neo-Darwinianism.
Yes MOE has many elements of Darwinism, neo-Darwinianism,
Punctualism, Saltation, Neutral Theory…etc.
YOu see MOE needs many, many alternative formulations to form a smorgasbord of explanations for the plethoras of problems encountered when any one is used.
Sort of like if there were 14 formulations of gravitational attraction (for perihelion actions say)or maybe 6 laws of motion and maybe 19 versions of reflection and refraction.
Ever notice that the basic laws of physics and chemistry, astronomy, mathmatics that we can actually observe, repeat, examine in action, test empirically…etc. either work or they don’t in real time and we only need one set qwith perhaps minor adjustments for extreme conditions.
As a history of science student both formally and informally I can assure that 99% of the material presented recently in that vein by the evo champs is absolutly erroneous. I will be pleased to offer a reading list if needed.
AS regards the evos just follow the money to understand their motives practically and their atheist world view to understand their hatred of ID.
If you read only one chapter in detail by Remine try the material on Haldane’s problem…replacement cost, etc.
No one can state the MOE because no one version exists anywhere and whatever was stated would be immediately attacked by others evos as incomplete and erroneous because its total meaningless plasticity has to be kept fluid.
Poor little evos…blood in their underwear, no spittal in their mouths…watching their little theory disolving, facing intense public scrutiny in the weeks ahead.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Well… I’m sure glad to see that Glen is keeping verbosity alive and well! I was beginning to get a bit worried about that.
Hey Glen…
You need to get your own blog, or your own talk show… or better yet, a life! Really bro… you do go on and the sarcasm, while I’m sure feels good coming off the chest, only further emphasizes the Neanderthal mentality of your suppressive beliefs. Gee… that reminds me of a movie coming out I read about recently… Hmmmm? Now what was that flick again?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
VMartin
Thanks for the support and best regards.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Hey Java, if you weren’t a slimy little worm, and actually knew something, I’m sure you could have written something intelligent. Barring intelligence and learning, you have to repeat your anti-intellectual rant ad nauseam, like your typical know-nothing ID proponent.
Glen D
tinyurl.com/2kxycy
November 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“only further emphasizes the Neanderthal mentality of your suppressive beliefs”
Validate that claim…
November 1st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Where’s the intelligence ? What is the Design ?
The Blind Watchmaker.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Don’t miss the NOVA special on PBS airing on Nov. 13. It will certainly provide a compelling examination of “intelligent design.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
November 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Is this Glen Davidson on suicide watch yet?
Maybe he’s Lenny’s alter ego…two biggest shrews on the net.
I mean really… Darwin gave us Stalin and Hitler but at least the’re dead.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
ooo! Glenny… Good one!
“slimy little worm,” “anti-intellectual rant ad nauseam…”
Now see THAT’S what’s going to put the butts in the seats at theaters!
Nice work Glenny. Night-night.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I’m not even sure how to respond to this post. All I can say for sure is that I am very upset. Ben, I used to respect you.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Rheinhard said,
“Mr. Stein - are you aware that Darwin was a stauch slavery abolitionist at a time in Britian when it was not altogether popular to be such?”
Good point, Rheinhard. I’ll bet Mr. Stein didn’t know that, but I doubt he will answer any of us. I’d like to know if Mr. Stein realizes that his hero, Albert Einstein, while outstanding in so many ways, was a passionate womanizer.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:07 pm
OK Ben….this is a joke, right?….you can’t seriously be in bed with these paranoid, nut jobs.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Note to the webmaster: Why are you guys allowing this Glen Davidson fellow to dominate the comments section of your blog? And Glen, get a life, please. Or at least get your own blog. Do you honestly think anyone has the time or patience to read through your ramblings? If you really have something to say, think it through a bit and then write it down succintly. Less is more.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
[Rheinhard on October 31, 2007]”the vile slander that Darwin was trying to justify Imperialism”
Darwin to W. Graham
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_08.html
Down, July 3rd, 1881.
==
Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not
so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the
Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The
more civilised so-called Caucasian races have
beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for
existence. Looking to the world at no very distant
date, what an endless number of the lower races
will have been eliminated by the higher civilized
races throughout the world. But I will write no more,
and not even mention the many points in your work
which have much interested me. I have indeed
cause to apologise for troubling you with my
impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement
in my mind which your book has aroused.
I beg leave to remain,
Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully and obliged,
CHARLES DARWIN.
1871 Darwin: [CD]”the civilised races of man”– e.g. [CD]”the Caucasian”– [CD]”will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races”– e.g. [CD]”the negro or Australian,” as in Australian aborigine– with the end result being [CD]”man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com
1874 Darwin: “mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese….
population of mingled Polynesian and English blood….
population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees….
a much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of the
blood of other races”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136494819.673310.232510%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1883 Darwin: “When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad.”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136399794.077073.47030%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin: big “supra-orbital ridges… characteristic of the lower races of man”
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137443730.121635.125640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1864 Huxley on lower and higher races, and the Aryan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1142351559.965395.318780%40v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
Darwin: [Greg]”the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler & Darwin on
[Hitler & Darwin]”master[s]”
over
[Darwin]”subjugated… men”
having
[Darwin]”utility to their masters”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135100164.057260.78490%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Darwin: “the New Zealander… compares his future fate with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
November 1st, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Garrison Seeber Says:
November 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“only further emphasizes the Neanderthal mentality of your suppressive beliefs”
Validate that claim…
………………
Well, let’s see… this might be difficult but I’ll give it a shot. Below are validating quotes from our buddy Glen, the self proclaiming intellectual, that clearly exhibit his use of Neanderthal tactics in his attempts to bully others on the blog seeking only to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Follow with me if you will:
……………
GLEN QUOTES:
- As pathetic as your knowledge of science is…
- you lack intellectual integrity…
- your knowledge of science is abysmal
- you simply act as if science is as mindless as your sponsors are
- this is part of your sleazy tactics.
- A rather simplistic analysis…
- Ben’s pathetic fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
- That’s the best you can do, Ben?
- you’re digging your own grave there, Ben.
- So what’s your point?
- Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots
- Your understanding of evolution is as deficient as your understanding of history, Stein.
- One does not write of “Darwinist means,” unless one is a science illiterate, as Ben is.
- It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one…
- someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges.
- IDists simply hate the Enlightenment…
- bigoted theists…
- More tendentious nonsense.
- Ben has no truthful criticisms to make…
- I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that
- evil liars, most likely the sorts of anti-science anti-intellectual persons
- Not all of us are as pitiful as you anti-science ranters.
- the usual arrogance of the ignorant
- if you weren’t a slimy little worm, and actually knew something, I’m sure you could have written something intelligent.
- your anti-intellectual rant ad nauseam
……………..
Now maybe it’s just me but that sounds more like a Neanderthal then it does a civilized Intellectual that I think Glen would have us believe that he is.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:55 pm
[Glen Davidson on October 31, 2007]”the Nazis were also not in favor of Darwin, for the most part”
Hitler: “Mendelian Law Of Division”; “artificially hinders nature’s process of selection”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143904445.023098.35410%40j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler’s human breeding plan using [1871 Darwin]”careful selection” + mutations:
Hitler: “the process of selection can be accelerated by political
means”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1165353459.919069.200160%40j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin on [1871 Darwin]”careful selection” in connection with the breeding of humans;
1924/5 Hitler & 1871 Darwin on heterogeneous & homogeneous peoples
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133977762.788382.143030%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1942 Eichmann: “possible final remnant… is the product of natural selection”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122008128.957294.314360%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1942 Heydrich
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
The Jews… no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the
hardiest among them, must be given an appropriate
treatment, because they represent a natural selection….
Hitler: law of selection justifies incessant struggle/ war
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/6ab79a88a19145a0?
1940 Nazi film “All Life is Struggle” embraced Darwinian natural selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com
Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120450591.444214.186670%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
One might well ask why are there any Jews in the world order?
That would be exactly like asking why are there potato bugs?
Nature is dominated by the law of struggle. There will always
be parasites who will spur this struggle on and intensify the
process of selection between the strong and the weak. The
principle of struggle dominates also in human life. One must
merely know the laws of this struggle to be able to face it. ….
In nature life always takes measures against parasites; in the life
of nations that is not always the case. From this fact the Jewish
peril actually stems. There is therefore no other recourse left
for modern nations except to exterminate the Jew….
….we are forever members of the Aryan race. …. Aboriginal
man, the Fuehrer believes, did not know the lie….
The nations that have been the first to see through the Jew and
have been the first to fight him are going to take his place in the
domination of the world.
2004 Kater
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1126795817.956842.104430%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Himmler, a former chicken farmer…, was ruled by very
strong beliefs regarding the application of breeding
theories to humans– by way of positive selection for the
“Aryans” and negative selection for their natural enemies,
the Slavs, Gypsies, and Jews.
Nazis “adopted… the vocabulary of Darwin”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1177598217.454925.230300%40n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com
Darwin name “like dust in every room of a grotesque house”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1177097591.881438.168990%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
Darwinist Bolsche; Nazi Darwinist Johann S.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143660228.632158.182410%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Claim: Haeckel joined the Thule Society.
Reality: that claim is unsubstantiated:
control - f/ “find” for: the search
http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/archives/WCA0102.2.html
control - f/ “find” for: apologies
http://www.xn--enzyklopdie-s8a.de/Ernst_Haeckel.html
Gould: “Haeckel…. contributed to the rise of Nazism”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158864074.051352.81770%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
November 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
I am a physicist and have proven thru observations that the universe is infinite and these observations have also produced a concept on how the sun and earth were created. It actually seems possible that there could be an intelligent creator and the information on my web site listed below might be shed some light on the subject.
Please find the information for your review…
http://www.myspace.com/donrolando
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Ben Stein, you just lost this argument, as this post is a violation of Godwin’s Law, and a violator is almost always the person with a failing argument.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 am
From
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/catalog/godsword.php
Quote: “Who Says The Bible Is Gods Word?
Many people today are quick to spout off bold claims that there is no way in which it can be said that the Bible really did come from God. In fact, they then imply that anyone who believes this is some form of a mental idiot. However, in reality it’s the critic whose “cheese has fallen out of their sandwich” because they refuse to look at the evidence. And because of this ill-informed skepticism, when a Christian today responds that the Bible came from God, many people now reply, “Oh yeah? Who Says the Bible is God’s Word?”.
Therefore, this series “Who Says the Bible is God’s Word?” shares 10 lines of solid logical evidence that proves that the Bible really did come from God. Such evidences include, The Bible says so, Jesus says so, The Apostles say so, The Early Church and Church History say so, Transmission Standards say so, Manuscript Data says so, Archaeology says so, Predictive Prophecy says so, Science says so, and The Nature and Scope of Data says so.
As you will see, with all this overwhelming evidence from God, there really is no need to doubt that the Bible really did come from God, let alone cave into the false claims of the critic. People, be encouraged. We can know for sure that what we hold in our hands is indeed the Genuine Word of God!”
Watch For Free:
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/81306GW1.php
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/82006GW2.php
http://www.niagarafrontierbible.com/82706GW3.php
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 am
Do not try to force an unholy marriage between science and religion ben. ID will never be accepted in the scientific community.
ID does not have a leg to stand on. You want ID in the classroom? then it has to prove it’s a real science by publishing its findings in scientific journals.
this is a joke
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 am
I find it funny that John A. Davison, Still want to push ID in the science classroom, yet he agrees its not science.
“It is perfectly correct to maintain that Intelligent Design is not scientific. It is a necessary given and fundamental to any further discussion of evolution. It cannot be questioned any more than can a Copernican view of the planets. Would anyone be so weak minded as to say that a demonstrable reality need be described as scientific? I certainly hope not. To question Intelligent design is to question evolution. Without the former there could never have been the latter. The next thing you know, someone will be telling us that Newton’s Laws of Motion were produced by Natural Selection. Such fundamentals are not subject to question, only to discovery. Intelligent Design was discovered centuries ago. Only homozygous atheists (Darwinians) continue to ignore it.
John A. Davison”
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/bill_dembski_an.html#comments-open
So basically John, like Ben, is pushing a philosophy of theism and their world view into the science curriculum. Doesn’t anyone else find the irony in his statements?
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:51 am
Glen Davidson, P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all suffer from the same syndrome - congenital keyboard diarrhea. There is nothing that can be done for them.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:26 am
[Ben]”Imperialism had a short but hideous history–of repression and murder.”
Darwinist General Trotha
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134570961.050365.219870%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:36 am
[Don on November 1, 2007]”This idea that Darwinist evolutionary theory somehow champions the strong and dominant is a newspaper headline version of the theory, with almost no relation to actual evolutionary theory as used by professional scientists.
….if you read… a couple of books such as Dawkins’s /The Blind Watchmaker/ and /The Extended Phenotype/, you’ll have a much clearer idea of what evolutionary theory is really about.”
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
Press), 352pp. On 2:
….I think ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ sums up our modern
understanding of natural selection admirably.
Columbine killer & Darwinist Eric Harris
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156558811.723504.189740%40b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
flaws in [Hitler]”Nature is cruel, therefore we, too, may be cruel….”?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136822816.386743.26980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler & Darwin URLs
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7bb70dd31802664e?hl=en&
Trotha in
Darwin, T.H. Huxley, Haeckel, Trotha, Goebbels, Hitler, Marx, O’Hair
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133186735.613068.108090%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
[Hitler, and Darwin]”Nature… she,” in
Darwin in the 6th edition of _Origin_ on [Darwin]”survival of the fittest” and the [Darwin]”struggle for life”
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132161340.121874.63970%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
[Beaglelady on November 1, 2007]”Albert Einstein, while outstanding in so many ways, was a passionate womanizer”
Agreed. Einstein was a deist, and the God of deism doesn’t care about adultery.
Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
Motivations for Continuing to Cling to Philosophy of Materialism, 1999 Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net
Einstein on the “tragedy of human history in which one murders for fear of being murdered”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167153545.441102.129260%40f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 am
[Keith Eaton on November 1, 2007]”Darwin gave us Stalin and Hitler”
Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stalin allegedly preached atheism using Darwin bible
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175268167.876265.221930%40l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 am
“Saltation”
saltationist Schindewolf: “nature does indeed take leaps”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410120915.5dbf3116%40posting.google.com
1982 Gould on Frazetta’s snakes and Long’s rodents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311711.7a718a17%40posting.google.com
1977, 1980, and 1982 Gould the saltationist
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39lhabF61ut8sU1%40individual.net
Futuyma on saltation: do a “control-f”/ find for “rapp” within
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d7109e61434b5ded?dmode=source
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Another saltation item:
Larry contradicts himself on Jeffrey Schwartz
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36kvdkF531sqaU1%40individual.net
Also, Goldschmidt and Schindewolf were saltationists.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Gould: Goldschmidt was one of the premier geneticists of our century
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970728093741.24782C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Goldschmidt’s 1940 challenge to neo-Darwinists
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910222320320.1712214-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1933 and 1940 Goldschmidt on macro- vs. microevolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
gradualism and J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Schindewolf; Simpson on bats
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001222211190.17988-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Grene on Schindewolf
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970721233453.16211D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
saltationist Schindewolf: “nature does indeed take leaps”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410120915.5dbf3116%40posting.google.com
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
I, of course, discussed the issues brought up. Keith just lies.
That’s the usual with IDists.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 am
Javascript continues to do all that he can, lie and commit the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Actually, that was what I was discussing in the first place, and he just decided to prove that lies and fallacies are all that ID has.
Not that we didn’t already know that.
What is so disgusting is that one can never engage these special ed dropouts, they’re too busy spewing hate and telling lies. I only came here again because Stein actually presented material to which I could make an intellectual response, but the filth of the IDists attempts to drown out all intelligence, for they certainly can’t answer it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
Another unintelligent git who can’t respond with anything but hate and bigotry.
I haven’t dominated anything, indeed I have written a good deal less than most of the gutter snipes who attack me with all of their lack of wit and intelligence. The fact is that I just broke up a long post because I don’t like what they do to navigating the site.
Try to be honest, DAC, instead of being the stereotypical IDist, telling lies and attacking people because you have nothing intelligent to write.
Small unintelligent person, I haven’t been here nearly so much as you have. Don’t make up stories just because you lack the learning and intelligence to deal with the issues.
If you have time to read the untruths that Ben wrote, and IF you actually care about the truth, you would read through it instead of being too stupid to do anything but call them “ramblings.” Par for the ID course, nothing to do but to snipe with your incomprehension about what’s going on.
So say the anti-intellectuals. If I had merely written opinion, you sniping fools would fault me for that, so when I deal exhaustively with the lack of learning and truth in Ben’s post, and you neither comprehend nor have anything intelligent to say, you merely attack me for having the knowledge to deal with IDist untruth.
The fact is that you, like the other fallacious attackers, have absolutely nothing to show that I did anything but what was proper. You just hate truth and intelligence. It’s because you cannot deal with what I write that you attack it for having the length to deal well with all of the problems in Ben’s blog.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 am
Another ancient “joke” dredged up by the old crank who writes far more than I do on the web, only, of course, JAD only repeats his long-exploded nonsense.
And with that I’m most likely out of this thread for a while.
It’s obvious what these incompetent “critics” do whenever they have nothing to add (which is almost all of the time), which is to try to destroy the messenger. I fisked Ben’s latest to the bone, and these incompetents hate facts.
Because the dishonesty of javascript, DAC, Keith, and JAD, can be effective, sure, one must respond. However, one only has to throw back their lies into their faces a few times, and then their endless attempts at personal destruction start to look as pathetic as they in fact are.
My point was to deal with the substance, the IDists only despise those who do discuss substance. So fine, show your lack of intelligence, learning, and honesty. You have been answered, so if you wish to show that you are only capable of fallacies and dishonesty, go ahead and snipe from your gutters.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Whether Shapiro, Crick, Hoyle, Yokey…many others make the calculation they all accede to the astronomical measure of impossibility when referring of to the origin of the eukorotic cell and the prokorotic cell..there is no argument to this fact.
But the two are separated by biological gaps for which there is no hope of evolutionary transition.
Thus evos conclude that they evolved separately and unrelatedly…two miracles are no more difficult than one.
And wings from legs…right and feathers from the scales on the legs frayed from running into the wind to take off with the proto wings.
Now remember people all this leg to wing action is the result of genetic mutation effecting a new protein formulation which was useful enough to be retained and then many, many hundres more in sequence, similarly useful for something other than flying and expressed.
Remember nothing wanted to fly, was encouraged to fly, was determined to fly , was meant to fly, simply thousands of mutational changes reflected in proteins then causing anatomical expression suitably interfaced to the central nervous system every step of the way permitting functionality of some sort that was somehow beneficial.
And they call this science… not demonstrable, not observed, not elucidated at the genetic level…and we are deficient intellectually because we see waht a crock this evo fairytale is…laughable.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
One more time into the gutter with these pathetically dishonest haters.
It does look like I confused DAC with others who have been here a lot. As far as I can see, DAC just writes a few stupid attacks, without any sort of comprehension. He’s been here often enough, but he never writes anything intelligent–but then what IDist ever does?
That said, clearly he’s as bigoted as he is dishonest, or he’d have unintelligently sniped at, say, Stephen B, who drones on forever about the same things that he doesn’t understand, rather than unintelligently sniping at someone like myself who only comes in to discuss the substantive matters that are beyond him (or JAD, who has only repeated himself thousands of times, or people like javascript who lack the comprehension to deal with any kind of issue–but unfortunately, neither does DAC, so…).
Anyway, I had to clear up that small mistake I made. And now, like I said before, I’m probably out, as nothing intelligent yet has been written in response to what I’ve written, but only the filthy attacks of those who hate science and intelligence.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Thanks Glen for absolutely owning this tripe of an article. It’s ironic that this blog has about as much honest and valid content and ID itself, freaking halarious.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
More Glen more, encore, I implore. It doesn’t get any better than this. I love it so! It is hard to believe isn’t it? etc, etc.
Ooooooooooh, that’s good booze. How sweet it is!
Jackie Gleason
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A.Davison
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
You claim that ‘Life is unimaginably complex’. Life is complex it is true, but not unimaginably. You’re very good at getting yourself exposure and you probably don’t care that you’re only adding fuel to the dumbing down of America. It’s funny you don’t believe in the principle of evolution, when it is as evident as the grey hair on your head. I get the feeling you care more about making a capitlist buck, than dispelling facts. I think you will be the one ‘exposed’ but only as a fool.
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
“Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others…”
This statement is simply stupid. Really, anybody with such a ridiculously wrong notion of what is being talked about has no business whatsoever blogging, making movies, or otherwise opining on the issue. Evolution by natural selection, as Darwin understood clearly back in the 1850s, has very little to do with strength or domination except in very particular circumstances. Darwin’s theory, especially as suitably modified to reflect the explosive growth of scientific knowledge since his time, applies just as well to shrinking violets, meek tubeworms, and retiring fungi as it does to brutal carnivorous animals. Because the rest of Stein’s absurd diatribe derives directly from this foundational misunderstanding of what he is talking about, the entire post is, well, simply stupid.
Stupid!
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Dear Ben,
What we are observing around us is evolution. Biologists make predictions with it all the time. It is a cruel battle of natural selection and adaptation and it is not moral at all.
Biology isnt a moral guide, it is an extremely cold hearted mechanism, it is unfair and emotionless just like gravity or entropy. It is a common fallacy to say that because it is cruel it must not be true, especially when we can observe it in DNA and in the fossil record.
I agree 100% that Social Darwinism is evil and wrong but it has nothing in common with Darwinism aside from the name. Social Darwinism comes from selfish people trying to justify their bigoted narcissism. They use Darwin as justification for their evil but Darwin made no statement about any world view.
Just because nature uses natural selection to evolve different species and dictates that the most fit individuals will survive, that doest mean that we should make this a policy for our governments and our society. Please understand that the two are not connected.
Seeing something in nature does not justify treating people like animals.
Darwinian evolution doesn’t tell us how to live our lives or how to build our societies, it doesn’t advocate capitalism, socialism or imperialism. Darwin, who was a Christian at the time he wrote his book, simply made these observations of nature and pushed scientific discovery forward. He was a great man who put aside his personal beliefs to really look at the universe around him.
I’ve always really admired you Ben, you’ve always made me laugh and you were a household name for me and my family. I’m very sad that you seem to have been duped by the “teach the controversy” line.
Its a good line because it preys on our sense of freedom and our desire for equal education. Please try and realize the truth: intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it has no data, does not utilize the Scientific Method and does not produce peer reviewed papers. It was created by bible literalists who need the universe to only be 6000 years old in order for their religious philosophy to be true for them. Because intelligent design is not science, It should never be taught in a science class as it would clearly violate the fundamentals of the constitution and separation of church and state.
evolution makes no statement of morality. it makes no statement reguarding the existance or nonexistance of God. it proposes answers the how and not the why, thats all science ever does and all it can do. its up to us to be moral, its up to us come up with our own philosophies.
The scientific method is a wonderful thing and all questions seem to unravel themselves when we confront them with this rational scientific process. we should be proud of it. but it was never meant as a means to morality.
I’ll really mis the old Ben whose apathetic voice talent was instantly recognizable on the radio or in cartoons and who was pure smart and dorky fun in Ben Stien’s Money. Come back to us Ben, we miss you.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:46 am
Darwinism - Mankind’s arrogance that there can not be any one being more intelligent than humans or of intelligent design by a higher being as minds are cemented closed with stubbornness and obstinateness. God be with you Ben Stein .
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
Anyone notice a fundamental conflict with American democracy in this debate?
We pride ourselves on freedom of speech without fear of reprocussion or prosecution.
In our history we permit everything short of hate-speech in our public discourse, particularly in our colleges and universities.
Every sort of far left neo-communisim, socialism, atheism and such are not just permitted but encouraged in economics, political science, philosophy and public administration studies throughout the higer ed domain.
No one says… stop this presentation of anti-democratic tripe. These systems are abject failures whereever they are implimented and if we keep presenting them we’re destroying real research, progress in socioeconomics will cease, we’ll be dumbing down our children…etc.
Why? Because we’re quite capable of understanding all these alternative views and picking out the one which empirically, rationally, and experiencially demonstrates its superiority.
But alternative ideas in life sciences permit no such free inquirey and militantly so.
This movie is not so much about the intricacies of the opposing views scientifically as rather the inconsistency of the educational and scientific communities militant authoritarianism, censorship, elitism, and exclusionary attitudes and actions.
Is the membership of the ASA, for instance, made of scientists in the main (yes and demonstrably so)and is its publication peer-reviewed (yes if peers means people of like capacities, credentials,expressing opinions of proposed papers, editing, critiquing, approving, etc. following mainstream constructs, protocols, and methods.)
America may well be shocked and dimayed to see the true operations and operatives of the evolutionary community, its reach, methods, and enlightened to discover the rather apparent frailities of evolution as a scientific paradigm.
If evolution is so frail, so tenuous in its position, so susceptable to challenge as to elicit the current and pathetic behaviors of its adherents….well we’ve seen this sort of desperation across the spectrum before.
Alternately, perhaps a competitive film presenting this all explanatory theory of evolution in a rationally convincing way would be the American way of public debate. But that would be quite risky considering the national intelligence..American’s ability to sniff out a shell-game when they see it clearly.
Go Ben! Let the light in! Let the system work!
Perhaps the evos are wrong when they assume the American public consists mostly of ignorant, pathetic dolts, snake handlers, flat earthers, mystics, misquided intellectuals..etc.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
The polar Bears (and other species) are going extinct all thanks to the powers of NS+RM since they don’t adapt to ever slight increasing global warming temperatures (human induced or not), evolution has long since terminated, and yes, that means evolution is not occurring.
==========================================================
Natural selection has nothing to select from!
Nothing in technology makes sense without the light of Intelligent Design, everything in science makes sense in the light of Intelligent Design.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
(my comments on this already on another forum)
Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. They use word games, special appeals, false connections, logical fallacies, and glittering generalities.
I’d say this film fits the definition exactly. No offense.
To really understand the whole evolution debate I’d say one needs not only a good understanding of biology, but also western history.
So don’t just take my word for it I implore you all to do your studying in an open fashion (meaning don’t just get a bunch of ID, creation books or just Evo books to decide, get both and don’t stop when you feel satisfied with one answer always look up the counter)
So lets take a honest look at some of the things he’s says in his blog.
“Shaping perceptions”
Ben Stein - “Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.”
Is he serious? This is as equally construed a version, of first of all what Evolution is, and secondly where the actual line of thinking behind it came from as any of Hovind’s Ruses. It falls victim to being a red herring and a host of other very large fallacies.
The theory of Evolution was a continued train of thought of earlier works influenced heavily by Sir Charles Lyell on geology and some thoughts from views of Imperialism brought by the paradigm of the culture were sure to of had some effect on his thinking and writing yes. But how on earth does that in anyway change the validity of the theory as a whole for which I assume is Bill’s purpose in writing? It doesn’t, the notion that Imperialism was a bigoted view of the world and therefore the fact that Darwinism was used to propagate Imperialism in turn becoming Social Darwinism and therefore Darwinian evolution is a crock itself, is false. This is an old argument fallacy known as an appeal to consequence, and even further as it turns out today an appeal to a false consequence at that. Darwin was an abolitionist, in fact he said that evolution should not at all be looked at as a means to guide human society by which is absolutely contra Social Darwinism. Even more in depth in his later book “The Decent of Man” he uses experiences he’s had with freed slaves to comment that “Negroes and Europeans” were closely related despite superficial differences in appearance. Today the use of the word “closely” in the last sentence would be consider abominable, but during his time period the very people of whom Bill Stein wants to frame Darwin with and as, thought it abominable for the entirely opposite reason. It is clear that Bill is only offering a story of history framed to his liking, and is leaving the original picture out of place and construed.
“Manipulating cognitions”
I’m not sure how much you all know of the theory of evolution, but Darwinism or “survival of the fittest” isn’t at all in terms with todays Definition or todays real competing theories in biology like punctuated equilibria, which of course he’ll never mention. But on to subject of more interest how he goes on to describe and outright lie about evolution…
Bill Stein - “Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.”
“Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology”
Darwinism defined in his first context sure isn’t its taken on many forms like in any part of science it was a falsifiable theory and as such was and has been still argued upon, updated, experimented over frequently.
“Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means”
Now he goes on to same something that is patently false, and what exactly in the world does he mean by “Darwinist means”, observation, empirical evidence, the scientific method? I assume he means speciation so what exactly type of speciation does he want? Peripatric, parapatric, sympatric, artificial, or hybrid speciation because theres been observed events with all of them.
Peripatric - Mayr bird fauna, the Australian bird Petroica, and Drosophila.
Parapatric - Larus gulls, Ensatina salamanders,and Phylloscopus trochiloides.
Sympatric - Has been observed in wheats, Salsify, Cichlids, and Xenopus laevis an African frog.
And if your looking for a lab which is minus the environment and is quite like animal husbandry you have Diane Dodd’s was able to show allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose. Or if your looking for something outside the lab Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.
I could go on and on which would become trite, so what exactly is wrong with Bill Stein, is it ignorance because well financial gurus are not biology savy, or is he like Kent Hovind out to take advantage of peoples ignorance? Next he goes on to say how Darwinism and racism are connected in a way in which borders on conspiracy and still contains all the subjective red-herring trickery it did before he reiterated it. Then he goes on further into ridiculousness by claiming that theres a similarity between a philosophy of Marxism and Evolution have the similarities of wanting to know everything… Marxism a circular philosophy on society and goverment. Evolution change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. What the hell “Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based.” only through more than 20,000 peer reviewed journals has it been “verified” what on earth is Bill talking about? And it DOESN’T seek to explain everything and never has only biological evolution, abiogensis has nothing to do with evolution and NEVER has yet he trips over this time and time again…
And then to top everything off theres this
“Directing behavior”
Bill Stein-”Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let’s be humble about what we know and what we don’t know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.”
Or may be we should study the situation, stop being ignorant and listing to people who tell bold face lies like Bill Stein. I Implore you all please, please for the sake of humanity and yes this is an emotional appeal do your homework actually study the issue. I for one only see a con-man selling something to an ignorant public that coincides with their want for solace. May be his video will bring about some revolutionary idea, but as far ID is concerned its as much a science theory as intelligent falling is a theory to replace gravity. Please study everything. This guys already proven how full of it he is in his blog, may be the movie will be ground breaking, may be this is all about religion and not about science, and may I am wrong, and may be he’s right, but as of now i seriously, seriously doubt that.
November 4th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Well, I just gotta say my little experience in denouncing Darwinism in my Senior Composition class in 1978.
I presented my arguments and its the reaction to it I wanted to record.
The teacher said it’s sad that religion can’t accommodate science and our Senior class president/homecoming queen, a dear Catholic gal, said, “Yeah!” As if she was deeply relieved that someone allowed God into biology again.
November 4th, 2007 at 6:04 am
There is nothing “frail” about evolution. What do you think my signature means?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
November 4th, 2007 at 7:02 am
[Fuddle on November 2, 2007]”I agree 100% that Social Darwinism is evil and wrong but it has nothing in common with Darwinism aside from the name. Social Darwinism comes from selfish people trying to justify their bigoted narcissism. They use Darwin as justification for their evil but Darwin made no statement about any world view.”
Darwin promoted Social Darwinism.
an exercise: parallels between 1871/4 Darwin & 1924/5 Hitler?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1134448996.907734.300780%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
4 more Hitler-Darwin parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135092414.972723.104980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin on selection of Spartan children
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135004225.246782.327080%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin on [1871 Darwin]”careful selection” in connection with the
breeding of humans;
1924/5 Hitler & 1871 Darwin on heterogeneous & homogeneous peoples
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133977762.788382.143030%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin: “the finest young men are…. exposed to early death during
war…. feebler men… are left at home”
Http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1136999331.757403.75700%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler & Darwin URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1140576033.123225.228290%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Do a control - f/ “find” for: Galton
on each of the entries on these pages to review the Darwin mentions of
Galton:
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.literature.org&sitesearch=www.literature.org&client=pub-7416764480725418&forid=1&channel=7265410994&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23000066%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23FFFFFF%3BVLC%3A000033%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A330099%3BALC%3A000066%3BLC%3A000066%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A000066%3BGIMP%3A000066%3BS%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.literature.org%2F%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en&q=galton+darwin&sa=Search+
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?oq=galton&id=26989411&pageid=r&query=galton&Find=Search&mode=ALL&search=all
Darwin to W. Graham
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_08.html
Down, July 3rd, 1881.
==
Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not
so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the
Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The
more civilised so-called Caucasian races have
beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for
existence. Looking to the world at no very distant
date, what an endless number of the lower races
will have been elimina