I found Ben Stein's "theory" which he supports using "imperialism" and the usual killer statements, to back up his science with. Not that anyone here is surprised by that. What is surprising is how many new ways they found to demonize us. I think lawyers call this "hate speech" but there might be a better word or phrase that would be used in court.

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/1 ... f-biology/

Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?

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

That's just plain crazy and wrong. The Brits had been conquerors for a couple thousand years or more before Darwin came along. The Crusades, remember? They didn't call it "imperialism," but the British Empire was built by brute force. Survival of the fittest in real life.

In the Revolutionary War, survival of the fittest and best adapted to the environment proved the Redcoats' undoing. They marched in ranks straight toward the colonists, arrayed in bright red coats with crossing white straps forming a target on their chests, while the colonists hid behind trees and picked them off -- a much better adaptation to the environment.

The Brits failed to understand the environment -- one of guerrilla warfare, not one of formal armies marching toward each other in ranks. Therefore, they fell.

One might make other parallels related to misunderstanding the environment in a number of American engagements. But you all know them.

In summary, Ben Stein is a smart man, and therefore, that much more a fool when he writes the tripe he wrote about the "Age of Imperialism" and "Darwinism." Let's remember that Stein is an economist. And also an opportunist. He was offered money to do this travesty, and he likes money, so voila! He's doing "Expelled."

If he doesn't think the fittest survive to reproduce, how does he think things work? And how does he think Darwin's personality influenced his work? Darwin had a unique opportunity to observe nature, and he had time to collect specimens, study them, and speculate as to how life had evolved. Nearly all of his observations have been validated by modern science. That's pretty darned good for someone essentially collecting the evidence for natural selection for the first time, and more than 150 years ago. If Darwin had known Mendel and his work, he could even have worked genetics into his theory.

As a scientist, Ben Stein makes a good game show host.

Good points Liz. And evolutionary theory also prevents the labeling of another group as "subhuman" that brings on slavery and the war he blamed on us. Easy to heard people like cattle when you were brought up to believe you're of special creation and other races are somewhere between a human and a cow or monkey.

Also looks like he doesn't even know that biological evolution does not explain the origin of life which as we know is an entirely separate science.



I hope you see it too. In my experience the phrase "explain everything" means they are under the impression that evolutionary theory is supposed to also explain the OOL. If that's true then he was also kept in the dark as to what's happening in education. Not that I expect the Discovery Institute to keep up on the science they said they were going to do. Having science is bad for them anyway, they would no longer have their noise about being persecuted that gives them the illusion of having a theory that counters evolutionary theory.

It looks like I said all I can about his rant. But I would like to link to another post I just wrote about evidence for God that shows what they're up against. The power of reason!

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9584#9584

That's solid science, except for the "Amen". But what could the Discovery Institute do in response to something like that? Nothing!!! And would a well studied scientist believe them? Not even a dunking stool or breast ripper would work!!! And could they take that perspective? No!!!! They have to explain some entity with a beard flying around in outer space or space aliens or magic turtles or a thousand other things or their supporters leave them then they go broke!

I'm sure that when reasonable people see what's going on they will want nothing to do with them anymore. Which further compounds Ben's dilemma. Reason replacing unreasonable is only stoppable with torture, confinement, bloody war, and other forms of oppression. So if he helps start a war or something, everyone hates him. If everything goes well then he's dressed up in what is in essence a clown suit supporting an institute that went the way of Disco, and the clergy will thank God we survived that era, the most.

The DI also feeds on a bad science and history education. But the public schools are not like they were in Ben's day, and when the fossil evidence in museum storage all over the world are put in one place and displayed as a cladogram, people will roll over laughing at the DI. Few fossils? More like millions of tons of them but the Discovery Institute can get away with their hoax because people can't see all that. Advances in education and technology also takes the DI down, so up can come reason.

We have what always wins. ALWAYS with NO eXceptions. Even if they pull out our eyeballs then pop our heads in their now famous torture vise they already tested on the poor Darwin doll, it only delays the inevitable!

Still need to see what the movie contains without paying if possible so U-Tube is IMO forgivable in this case but I think it's going to be too much for me to handle by then so it's best I stay out of theaters anyway. Might end up throwing soda at the screen or worse yet the Jesus trashing the place thing. Not that I have anger management issues, I don't, but I might by then.

And what the heck is this ending?



Looks like a disclaimer to make it seem like the rest above it is not what I think is hate-speech. Or at least a way overdone troll, but that depends on what the movie brings. Interesting though that it has "don't know" as in "W I Don't Know" the radio thing in it. Har!

The contrast between what is dividing Kansas and what brings it together, really shows right now. Best way I can describe it is reason setting in. We're all causing it. Liz, you just brought some to life. And rmadison posted the topic that had that glaring "not a shred of evidence for the existence of God." myth in it. By the time we're done we should all be half Creo after losing the "random chance" thinking and think forces. Wow huh? And they can look at evolution from the perspective of intelligence like they want to, if they want, and teachers can help without getting in trouble. Could in time result in spectacular models of how cells and even biosphere works. And there will be some pushing the models as close as they can be made to go, towards the "creator" they're looking for. But it will be real science, so whatever keeps our boat afloat..

I thought this would be a good time to write down a strategy for the upcoming movie, in case I have to disappear (but to came back again of course) for a while to deal with the new flock of vultures pecking at me. Next month is critical, so it's kinda ironic I'm out of the blue going through this with such perfect timing. Could be coincidence, but I guess I'll never know for sure.

Gary said,



So here's a small but important side note:



These quotations clearly refute Gary's statement, especially since evolutionists cite the driving mechanism of the theory of evolution -- natural selection -- to account for BOTH pre-biotic evolution and post-biotic evolution.

FL

Biological Evolution works on living things - the basic idea is that when living things reproduce, some of those offspring survive, while others do not. The reason some survive and others do not is due to factors in the environment (natural selection).

The concept of evolution can be applied to other systems (for example, conditions can favor the creation of organic compounds), but without reproduction with variation (mutation, lateral gene transfer, etc), it is not biological evolution.

Because abiogeneis is a speculative field, creationists want scientists to speculate that God might have done it. This complaint is the usual God in the Gaps thinking that drives ID - if it can't be demonstrated, God did it. There is no reason to think that the origins of life took a supernatural intervention, any more than evolution itself. Since we can be certain that we evolved, we can infer a natural process for abiogeneis. Just because some people have a hard time imagining that this occured, does not mean that it was a miracle.

ID has been completely unable to demonstrate their design inference or specified or irreducible complexity. This should increase our confidence in evolution, not lessen it. A bunch of bright people took their best shot a a very weak form of creationism, and could not make their case.

So now, rather than celebrate ignorance as if not knowing were proof of God's activities, let's get on with the important and difficult work of science.

You can find almost any statement you like in the scientific literature. Propositional logic will therefore support almost any conclusion. To draw scientific conclusions must use scientific literature and analytical thinking.

Um, no, they don't.

Excellent Input! Thanks for getting that started FL. And the expert replies! That was a big help. Evolution is such a complicated subject covering so many fields of science it requires a group effort to explain it in detail. I would not even want to attempt answering these questions on my own. Don't want to find myself in the situation the DI is now in from not listening to good expert advice. They seriously have what's now high-school science all confused and it's only a matter of time before the world knows it.

Thought I better add: The word "creator" could in some cases be a problem in peer review. But if the topic is how my intelligence based thinking works, then it would be appropriate. Only thing that would matter is that the science be all there. Even if it needed changing it's no big deal. In my case there were a few rounds of edits that made it better. And if they were reviewing my reply to Liz then the word "heard" would almost certainly come back corrected with the word "herd" in its place. And they might ask me to better define the term "creator" for the audience that doesn't know how I use the word but that wouldn't stop the paper either, only make it better.

Too bad the forum software didn't have an auto peer-review feature. I would use that a lot! But then again having scientists here replying when necessary is even better!

As you can see FL the science the DI has been promising, really was there all along. And would pass review.

We don't need millions of dollars and bullies to put it into science and education, just patience.