After a revolt among students and alumni, comedian and game show host Ben Stein has withdrawn as the paid spring commencement speaker and recipient of an honorary degree. Critics have cited Stein’s attacks on the theory of evolution and controversial views of science. He was to be paid $7500 for the speech.
UVM President Dan Fogel was obviously relieved by the withdrawal of Stein: “Commencement obviously is an occasion where we celebrate the achievements of our graduates and it should bring people together, it shouldn’t present a speaker who divides the community amidst heated controversy.”
Stein, 64, has denounced the theory of evolution and championed the intelligent design model. He has also tied the rise of the theory of evolution to eugenics and the Nazi movement.
As graduate of Yale Law School and former trial lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission, Stein served as a
speechwriter for presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. His most notable gigs, however, were as the host of the Comedy Central game show “Win Ben Stein’s Money,” or as the dry school teacher in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” Now that Ben Stein has a day off, it is not clear who the UVM will ask to serve as his replacement.
For the full story, click here.
Jukesgrrl:
they politely called her a nut. In their universe there is no possibility for the existence of a creator. And using the same line of thinking you could just as easily say there is a creator.
My favorite line is from Mespo about the storks. He takes a self evident biological fact and compares it to a mythology that we teach little children prior to the “talk”. This is a strategy used to dismiss discussion and pat the person on the head.
Even Buddha admitted the possibility in his opening argument and then goes on to say the opposite. From the things I have read a lot of scientists admit the possibility of a creator and so why not teach intelligent design. How badly does that scare them? Although I do agree that the evidence is pretty clear that man and dinosaurs were not contemporarys, but a prime mover setting all things in motion maybe so. My question is you have the big bang but where did all of the matter come from?
So until either God comes down from heaven or someone proves there is no God the debate will go on.
Just out of curiosity why are atheists so riled up about the possibility of the existence of God? Its as bad as the evangelicals proclaiming Gods existence. Anyone thoughts?
Jukesgrrl,
For my part, you are welcome. One lives to be of service. If one unwritten law seems to apply here it’s that respect is earned not due and that if you act with respect, you’ll get treated that way no matter what side you end up landing on. Mere disagreement is not a recipe for animosity. Lies, distortions, unnecessary provocation and propaganda on the other hand, usually get smacked down pretty hard (and not just by me). It can get a little ugly, but I think the net value of the conversations here outweigh the ugly by a long shot. I don’t think I’m out of line when I say “That’s just how this playground rolls.”
Thanks for this discussion, folks. I appreciate that Sally was treated respectfully while you were making your excellent arguments. That’s why I read this blog.
Mike Appleton:
If we teach evolution as mere theory and ID along with it to “give kids a chance to decide,” must we then not teach stork delivery as equal theory to human biological reproduction for the same reason?
Sally,
I agree with Buddha that you seem like a very nice person. You know many of us here don’t agree with ID (as shown above!) and I would like to ask you why ID does makes sense to you.
Buddha and Mike S., great summation of the intelligent design as science issue. The PBS program on the Dover case was excellent as well. The proponents of ID are unreceptive to reason because they understand neither science nor biblical scholarship. Darwin’s work caused a sensation in his time. Christian fundamentalism is actually a reaction to Darwin’s writings and, like much else in current evangelical politics, is fear-based. I’m sure everyone has seen the bumper sticker: “Evolution is just a theory. You know, like gravity.”
Thank you Buddha I consider that a real compliment. My son-in-law who is qualified to be a Rabbi, in actuality has urged me to go back to school and become one. Two major problems exist towards that. The first is that as a adult Jew I of course can read Hebrew, but due to a poor Hebrew education in my youth and my lack of sincere study, I read it poorly. Secondly, although I practice Judaism (Holidays, occasional going to Shul) it is more for meditation. Theologically I am a deist and I’d have to fake it in my sermons. There is a small branch of Judaism called Reconstructionism where deism would fit comfortably, but I’m not enamored with their teachings. Whether your hat’s on or off while discussing Judaism is actually a function of the sect you believe in. Seriously though, thank you.
Mike S.,
You speak with the wisdom of a Rabbi. My hat is off . . . or should I put it back on when discussing Judaism? 😀 Just kidding. About the hats. The other thing I meant.
Sally,
Beyond Buddha’s points and moving back to the theological. The biggest problem with ID is that it relies on the creation myth in Exodus as being actual history. If you read the first few pages of Exodus it is obvious that creation as described there is a metaphor and I believe it was understood to be as such by those living at the time of Exodus creation. There are clearly two cobbled together streams in Exodus pages 1 & 2 and they are somewhat at odds with each other. An easy example is that if Adam & Eve were the first humans, who did Cain and Abel marry? Clearly the creation was a metaphor for the belief that God made the world and was not meant as a historically accurate account.
Does this have to conflict with your religious faith, absolutely not. The history presented in the Torah and in the Gospels is much less important than the moral messages provided. Religious leaders who focus on the history, rather than the message, are not to be trusted. As a Jew the story of Abraham and Isaac is not based on whether Abraham being willing to kill his only child for God, but on God decreeing that human sacrifice was not pleasing to the creator. Abraham, although considered a patriarch by us Jews (and Islam) was really not an exemplary figure if one read his whole story. That is the point being made: God does not demand perfection of belief, but the sincere attempt to live a moral life based on certain eternal precepts.
For Christians the Gospels, rather than Paul’s writings, deal with Jesus’ actual life and teachings. Jesus taught by actions such as: casting the moneychangers out of the temple; eating with the publicans; saving the prostitute about to be stoned. etc . His message as embodied in the “Golden Rule” is central to his teachings. The miracles performed by Jesus are interesting only as possible proof of his power and divinity, but whether or not they happened is not central to the message.
This is true by the way for other beliefs also, Buddha being tempted as he sits under the World Tree for instance, serves as a teaching metaphor and its’ historical truth is irrelevant.
Most backers of ID, however, are more interested in presenting Exodus as history and the world as much younger than it has proven to be. That is why its’ teachings in schools is invalid. It is not a “science.” It is a marginally clever way of trying to dress up religious belief as science, to slip it into secular education.
Are there problems to the entire theory of evolution? Yes there are numerous problems, but it overall is not only a valid working theory, the physical record of an Earth aged many millions of years is irrefutable.
Sally:
If you want to see the defenders of intelligent design in action, I suggest you review Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District. A PBS special on the subject is available or you can see the original sources at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/doverkitzmiller_v_dover.html
You will find the defenders dogmatic, unyielding, and downright deceptive as the trial transcript proves. If this is what it takes to buttress religion from it’s critics, I suggest the whole notion is corrupt.
“Now that Ben Stein has a day off, it is not clear who the UVM will ask to serve as his replacement.”
***************
I suggest Richard Dawkins.
“ecclesiastical oxymoron”
I’m telling you right now, FFLEO. I’m going to be using that one. 😀
Sally,
Intelligent design is a false flag argument, Sally. I’ll tell you why. The only difference between intelligent design and evolution is
1) Time – ID relies on a time frame created by belief. Evolution relies on a time frame created by scientifically verifiable methods. 7 days or millions of years is irrelevant. Why? Because the net outcome is the same. The choice is do you want verifiable fact as a basis for examination or belief when teaching science.
2) The scientific method abhors non-verifiable facts but has a method for dealing with them. An Austrian-American mathematician, Kurt Gödel, is famous for developing his Incompleteness Theorems. The math is a bit much for blogging, but the the theories combined basically states that in any given system (he used set theory) there is no way to build a comprehensive set of axioms. In other words, you can’t prove EVERYTHING. It’s impossible. Scientists know this (and in the 30’s when Kurt proposed this, many MANY scientists of the “Newtonian Clockwork” variety were appalled and outraged, none of which invalidated Mr. G’s math). But often people who back ID feel that science is a threat to belief. It follows that science is only a threat if it can totally eliminate belief. It can’t. Gödel has proven that. So why the insistence on putting religion in a science class? Fear, misunderstanding and a religious political agenda perhaps? However, you run the risk of ruining the training of future minds of science by corrupting their proven methodology by inserting a topic more fit for theological studies than science. Would we have penicillin today if Alexander Fleming had decided that people dying from infection was “God’s Will”? Probably not. We wouldn’t have it if Flemming had practiced sanitary lab procedures either, but that’s another story.
3) ID is simply a way to argue the universe is run with purpose (a belief) when facts tend to show that while the universe may have order, the purpose is irrelevant – what we see as reality in physical totality is really just the interplay of overlapping systems as they interact over time. We are all essentially trapped in differential equations. How those systems work is the business of science. Whether some being sat down and made the conscious decision that E=mc^2 or that mankind is in “His” image is irrelevant. Why? Because since everything cannot be proven, it’s not important to the operation of science – it has no impact on observation, formulating theory, testing, or verification. Prove what you can, let the theologists and philosophers sort out the rest. THAT’S science. ID is, at best, a subject for philosophy – probably theology, but science it ain’t. It RELIES on the unprovable where science seeks to LIMIT the unprovable which leads to . . .
4) ID also runs into cosmology. It seeks to assign a set value to an action that would have had to take place in those brief seconds before the formation of the observable universe where physics and other scientific laws do not apply – by science’s own admission and proofs. Ask Stephen Hawking or Roger Penrose. Not only is that value impossible to define scientifically, it’s anthropomorphic – a huge logical fallacy in it’s own right on top of the rest of ID being counter to scientific method.
That makes ID not a proper topic to teach in a science class. Period. ID is NOT science. ID is a belief masquerading as a science to hide a political agenda. Nothing more, nothing less. You want it taught? Fine. Schools should be the market place of diverse ideas. But it needs to go into the curriculum in the right spot. That spot is not in a science class. It’s just as inappropriate to teach ID in a science class as it is to teach evolution in a theology class or teach sewing in shop class. As Marcus Aurelius advised, “Ask of each and everything, what is it in itself.” Definitions are important.
I think you’re a nice person, Sally. You often speak kindness when none is merited and you are never vicious. This isn’t an attack on you and I hope you didn’t perceive it that way, but I do take exception to the notion of ID as valid science when it is demonstrably not science. ID’s validity as a theological or philosophical theory is another subject all together.
I dont know FFLEO, everything does seem to fit together in a pretty orderly way. Is it because of intelligent design/God or is it just because it has to be that way for existence to exist?
Some of the stuff that theoretical physics is involved in today is pretty wild, multiple universes, parallel universes, expanding and contracting universes. I even saw something that postulates the universe(s) is/are infinitely old and have been expanding and contracting, in other words infinite genesis and destruction.
So it could come down to at least once in that infinite progression you get the right set of conditions to have man evolve or the other possibility which is the intelligent design/God created it all/set in motion the requirements for life.
Statistical probability or intelligent desing?
“Intelligent design” is the ultimate ecclesiastical oxymoron.
I think Mr. Stein is a very smart man.
I’m with him on intelligent design.
Good for him for sticking to what he knows is right
Good. Ben Stein’s been a prick since he worked for Nixon.
Article from Human Events by Arthur Robinson
A hidden effect of the November 4 elections and the national events that preceded them during this past year is perhaps best called the “John Galt Effect” in honor of Ayn Rand’s famous character in Atlas Shrugged. It is occurring to a very significant extent.
Our technological civilization stands upon the shoulders of many generations of free Americans and the great accomplishments that they bequeathed to us. Among those Americans and their counterparts in other countries have been a small special group of people whose unusual genius, work ethic, and love for their specialties were especially outstanding. These men, by their examples, their creations, and their leadership of free enterprises, have led our civilization upward. One of the greatest privileges of my life has been to know a few such people.
Without this small group of people, the technological attainments of their generations would not have taken place. We know the names of a few of them, but there were many more — constituting perhaps one person in a thousand. Ayn Rand called these people the “men of the mind.” In Atlas Shrugged, under the leadership of John Galt, they withdrew their services. They would only work in freedom. They would not work under tyranny.
In reality, most men of the mind never withdraw. They love their work too much to stop and — most of them — love their fellow men too much to desert them. The forces of tyranny depend upon this. Without these people, even the small technological advances required by Marxist and Socialist societies would not occur. Yet, while the men of the mind do not fully withdraw, they have families and other loved ones for whom they are responsible and to whom they are more devoted than to the state.
As the pendulum of politics now swings toward tyranny in the United States and dangers to those whom they love increase, these men and women partially turn their talents more toward their personal responsibilities. Part of their thoughts, efforts, and ingenuity are lost to society — and this loss cannot be recovered by either negative or positive incentives.
Throughout our country today, the men of the mind ( women, too) are watching the awful scene in Washington and its reflection in state and local capitals throughout the United States. They understand the consequences of the government oppression that has dogged their own footsteps for many years and that will grow much worse in the near future. So, they are taking actions to protect themselves and their families.
We have no way to measure the societal effects of this distraction of the men of the mind. There are immediate effects upon our well being and long term effects from the things that they are no longer working full time to create.
What is the cost of the distraction of our real leaders — of the men of the mind — of the John Galts among us? I estimate that it is greater than the trillions of dollars being lost on government printing presses. Call this Y2009K — and this time it is very real.
Our existing power plants are still operating; our petrochemical plants are still producing; our military defense is still performing; our food supplies are still flowing; and the rest of the technological infrastructure upon which our lives depend is largely still in place. But the key people — not those we see but those we do not see because they are constantly engaged in real work — are seriously distracted and now partially engaged in personal survival.
Of one thing we can be certain. When the essentials of our civilization begin to seriously falter and this causes real harm, those who would be our masters and their fellow travelers in the media, academia, business, and politics will cast blame upon some of these men of the mind — and drag them before us for punishment. Our John Galts know this, too, and it is a further distraction for them.
Some of these people are leading great enterprises. Others are in the basements of our power plants and other heavy industries. Some are closeted away in universities quietly at work on the next generations of possible advances in science and engineering. They are easily recognized — by their genius and by the love of their work that permeates their whole beings.
One way to recognize them is that they constantly talk about their work to anyone who will listen.
Now they are distracted.
What are they talking about today?
Mr. Turley thank you from the bottom of my heart. People like yourself make America great.