Posted on 02/09/2009 10:37:36 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
No Tolerance Allowed: Stein declines university speech after 'hundreds' of angry emails
by Christine Dao*
Comedian/economist/lawyer Ben Stein backed out of delivering a spring 2009 commencement speech because of complaints to the university about his views on evolution.
The University of Vermont’s president, Daniel Mark Fogel, was bombarded with angry messages, including one from British atheist and Darwin fanatic Richard Dawkins, after inviting Stein to deliver the university’s commencement speech. Stein had given a sold-out economics lecture at UVM on April 25, 2008, and it was for his economics expertise, not his views on evolution, that Fogel invited Stein back.
After Fogel shared “profound concerns” with him over the protest, Stein voluntarily withdrew from the May 17 appearance and declined the 7,500 (USD) honorarium that came with the invitation.
“I did not ask him to withdraw,” Fogel said at a news conference. “I wrote to Ben and, because his talk last spring was about the economy, I had always assumed that that would be the subject of his talk.”
“[L]et me be clear, I did not ask Ben Stein not to come,” he reiterated. “I had invited him and I was not going to retract the invitation. But I was not going to let him be blind-sided by the controversy…. I asked him to confirm that he would speak about the economy and it was at that point that he withdrew.”1
In a university press release, Fogel wrote:
Mr. Stein has also expressed opinions on subjects unrelated to economics, most notably with respect to evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and the role of science in the Holocaust. Those views are highly controversial, to say the least. Following the announcement of Mr. Stein as Commencement speaker, profound concerns have been expressed to me by persons both internal and external to the University about his selection. Once I apprised Mr. Stein of these communications, he immediately and most graciously declined our Commencement invitation.2
Stein, who has spoken at Columbia, Yale, Stanford, and many other universities, told The Burlington Free Press that he initially didn’t want the UVM engagement but agreed to it, as well as an approximate 80 percent cut in his usual fee, because of mutual friends he and Fogel share. Stein called the whole episode “pathetic” and the university’s response “chicken sh**, and you can quote me on that.”
“I am far more pro-science than the Darwinists,” Stein told Free Press. “I want all scientific inquiry to happen—not just what the ruling clique calls science.”3
The Holocaust reference in the press release, Stein said, probably came from the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed when he interviewed the curator of a former Nazi “hospital” called Hadamar, who had cited “Darwinism” as the reason behind the horrific killings that happened there.
“I like Dr. Fogel and feel sorry that he is caught in the meat grinder of political correctness. My heart goes out to him. He’s a great guy trying to do his best in difficult circumstances.”3
Fogel said he received hundreds of emails, but only a few came from people at UVM, a signature implication of evolutionists and their intolerance bullying their way into arenas where they are not concerned, invited, or involved.
References
UVM’s president responds to questions about commencement speaker Ben Stein. Straight from the Source. Posted on straightfromthesource.wordpress.com on February 2, 2009, accessed February 4, 2009.
Office of the President, Campus Communication. The University of Vermont press release, February 2, 2009. Available on straightfromthesource.wordpress.com
Johnson, T. Ben Stein responds to UVM flap. The Burlington Free Press. Posted on burlingtonfreepress.com on February 4, 2009, accessed February 4, 2009.
* Ms. Dao is Assistant Editor.
[[I should know not to expect anything of more depth from you.]]
Lol- this statement from someoen who spouts petty insults about ID and creationism? Glass hosues and all that
Several problems with this:
1. Political correct creationism as taught by godless liberals, I was thinking perhaps godless liberals need to sit down for once and shut up!
2. There’s no reason to even include earth age as an alternative to evolution.
3. Christian (and I suspect muslim) children pretty much ALWAYS held to the belief that God created all we know. If it’s “growing” I suspect it’s becasuse:
A. they’re more willing to speak up, or more likely
B. idiot godless liberals are more in tune to to it because muslim children are a bit shall we say more vocal about their beliefs?
What’s next the obligatory ‘Gott Mitt Uns’ nazi belt buckle?
Seriously dude...we’re almost ALWAYS talking about what occured in THIS country (NOT England, or Saudia Arabia, etc.) that worked fine thank you very much, before the godless liberal secular humanist NEA types ruined it for everyone.
But you’re right about spineless...they can’t get science right, they can’t get Christianity right, and they count on the U.S. to bail them out in more ways than one.
Politcal correctness is killing western civilization.
[[I can see why you wish to lump the two, but it is not reality.]]
Hey- heres a thought- instead pf blatting on and on about how ID isn’t science- hows about showing how the ID science is infact not science? Oh and I’m not itnerested in more rediculous generaliztions that come straight from DC- Those type assinine arguements belong in play ground tiffs- not intellctual arguments.
So, let’s here it Allmen- Tell us all how Baraminology isn’t science, how Radio halos are not science, how discontinuity isn’t science, how the Predictable, falsifiable sciecne of ID isn’t infact science- Let’s here soem specifics- we’ve certsainly got our fill of generalized rediculous statements from you- let’s now see you put your money where your mouth is- Address sceintifically how IC isn’t sciecne, how ID isn’t science- How message theory, metainfo etc aren’t science- and what specifically it is that makes them not science.
[[The specific claims of Behe and “irreducible complexity”, so far the totality of the intellectual output from the Discovery Institute (completely discredited I might add,]]
NOPE 0-sorry- Strike one- that’s a bunch of bull- Behe’s IC has NOT been ‘thoroughly discreditted- Not with any REAL SCIENCE-
Try again-
Maybe you don't consider this “Real Science” after all, it doesn't include Noah herding dinosaurs.
: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2000 Jan;24(1):21-44. Links
Secretion and assembly of regular surface structures in Gram-negative bacteria.Fernández LA, Berenguer J.
Departamento de Biotecnología Microbiana, Centro Nacional de Biotecnología, C.S.I.C. Campus Cantoblanco, 28049, Madrid, Spain.
Bacteria synthesize large-sized surface structures through the ordered polymerization of protein subunits. This results in planar or tubular regular structures that have evolved to accomplish specific functions related to the particular environment in which these bacteria are found. Tubular assemblies known as flagella are the most complex structures known in bacteria and consist of a helical rigid filament, a torsion adapter or hook and a proton-fueled rotator known as the basal body. Pili or fimbriae are less complicated helical filaments, which consist of a major subunit and 3-5 minor subunits or pilins, whose main function is the attachment to specific surfaces. Planar structures known as S-layers are the simplest of these regular assemblies and are generally made up of a single subunit packed as a bidimensional crystal around the whole cell surface. Most of the components of these structures have to be secreted through the inner membrane (IM), the periplasm and the outer membrane (OM) before reaching their final destination. The so called general secretory pathway (GSP), or type II secretion system, appears to be implicated in this process to varying degrees, depending on the structure considered. A few S-layers and pili require GSP components but also need specific terminal branches, such as the well known chaperone-usher pathway. On the other hand, only two of the nearly 40 proteins involved in flagellar assembly are dependent on the GSP, while the external components are secreted through a specific pathway similar to the type III systems identified in some pathogens. Moreover, secretion of subunits of S-layers using dedicated type I machinery, without the involvement of any GSP component, has also been observed.
PMID: 10640597 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Several problems for you, yes. You asked me to show you a godless liberal who supported teaching creationism, and now you balk that you meant only in America?
Whatever point you were trying to make by asking the question has obviously been done away with.
Oh I see...so PC creationism taught by godless liberals counts when they teach anything but creationism...just some gobbledygook PC gibberish no one in their right mind could possibly understand or recognize as creationism?
Uh-huh...yeah...
yup, still several problems for me, AND anyone that’s not a brainwashed cultist that’s been on this side of the debate, yeah!!
Sheesh, you not only want it both ways...you want it every conceivable way and really don’t know anything else!!
Kind of like scientists speak for science only when they agree with your brand of science...
OR interjecting the Pope into an argument you demand religion not be interjected into...
and now the godless liberal PC creation brand actually counts as creation?
I meant creationism period, but incidentally the pre-PC, pre-NEA, pre-gobbledeygook brand of Christian American creationism IS my idea of creationism, as I’m not familiar with anything else.
Not Islam.
Not liberal PC versions.
Not purple spaghetti monsters.
Not Euroweenie...
Intelligent Design” is a specific belief that is absolutely NOT shared by those of us who believe in an omniscient creator.
I can see why you wish to lump the two, but it is not reality.
You really sound like an insecure cultist who spews everything you believe as all knowing fact...or in this case, “reality”.
But your trouble is too many people know better...
first of all...I.D. IS very much a specific belief in those of US that believe in a ominiscient creator...you don’t speak for us, not even the majority of us...
AND, secondly, “we” are not only Christian believers but also scientists:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
That’s what I don’t get about libs....they demand that God can only create a perfect system as they alone seem to be capable of understanding it, but have zero to measure perfection up against but their own ideas, and from where they get these ideas...only GOD KNOWS!
THEN, as if that’s not bad enough for them, they sometimes claim to be Christians but completely dismiss the fall!
Why don’t you instead show me how htose could arise via purely antural means without any intellgient intervention- I’ve already destryoed Miller’s supposed ‘natural evolution’ of blood clotting by exposing hte fact that he had to itnelligently design, manipulate and direct the process of lower blood clotting systems to arrived at the IC system of higher complexity blood clotting- ANYONE can take the design of an IC system and reduce it’s REDUCIBLE components- but callign that a refutation is well, quite assinine
You're right. The claims that creationists are anti-science are bogus and are being spread by the deceitful, liberal, charlatans posing as conservatives all the while supporting the efforts of groups like the NEA and the ACLU as they seek to destroy this country and the Judeo-Christian values on which it rests.
The only people who degrade conservatism are the liberals who spread lies about creationists by painting them as anti-science, ignorant, etc.
Creationists have time and again corrected those lies by reminding the God hating, liberals that creationists are not anti-science, but the God hating, liberals will have nothing to do with that.
So the the God hating, liberals set up this neat little scenario where they lie and portray creationists in a bad light, tell people that is what creationists are really all about, and then turn around and blame-shift, blaming the creationists for destroying conservatism, when in reality it's the God hating liberals who are doing it in with their lies about creationists.
The contention that conservatives are being driven from the Republican party and being *forced* to vote for Democrats because they don't want to be associated with the inaccurate portrayal of conservatives is also a lie.
No way any true conservative would so compromise their values on issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, illegal immigration, the WOT, over some lie that is being spread about creationists.
Anyone who votes liberal and dem does so because they want to. Deep down they are, and not because they are being *forced to* because they're afraid of looking bad to others.
That cannot legitimately be thrown back on creationists and Christians, and this creationist and Christian refuses to take the blame for lies spread by the God hating, liberals in their attempt to destroy the conservative movement..
[[Bacteria synthesize large-sized surface structures through the ordered polymerization of protein subunits.]]
Swell- ‘large sized surface structures’ that are specifically molded and ready for assembly in a complex motor system? No? Didn’t htink so- Tell me again how the flagellum argument has been refuted time and time again? I love that story!
[[This results in planar or tubular regular structures that have evolved to accomplish specific functions related to the particular environment in which these bacteria are found.]]
And Mr. Fernández LA, Berenguer J. knows they’ve evolved how? How is it that he, and he alone, when noone else around, knows the complex structures of the motor evovled?
you know- Miller tried to argue that a one wheeled bike ‘could function’ and htus a ‘bike is not reducible’, but his argument was crap- just like your pubmed argument is crap- because it IGNORES the FACT that the one wheeled bike relies on more IC parts in order to function- like hte chain, the links in the chain, the connecting pins in the link assemblies,- the seat stem, the seat itself, the seat assembly, the tube which hte wheel is connected to, the nuts, bolts, spokes etc- Let’s for instance remove just one link assembly- remove just one pin that holds the chain together and see how well the unicycle works?
Ahhh... errrrmmm.... But.....
[[Pili or fimbriae are less complicated helical filaments, which consist of a major subunit and 3-5 minor subunits or pilins, whose main function is the attachment to specific surfaces.]]
Ok- let’s remove one of hte subunits and see how well it works-
No, the good Mr Fernández LA, Berenguer J is cheating and deceiving by workign from an ALREADY ESTABLISHED working order of IC and reducing JUST the reducible parts, and making hte claim that therefore, the whole system is somehow unintelligently non IC- The good Mr Fernández LA, Berenguer J is setting up a scenario whereby all the necessary workign orders are inplace, (as well as extrapolating to, and appealing to, processes for which he hasn’t the foggiest idea occured i nthe past) and he is ensuring that the intelligently designed set of parameters ar4e inplace before he even begins to attempt to dissassemble and ‘reconstruct’ just the REDUCIBLE elements of hte whole IC system
Ps I noticed a distinct lack of presence by you in the threads on William’s article on the irreducibility of life’s structures- perhaps you’d liek to mosey on over there and itnroduce this silly pubmed article, and miller’s ‘explainations’ of blood clotting supposedly not being reducible i nthose htreads? I must warn you htough, that tryign to point out that a lower complexity exists does NOT refute the irreducibility of a higher complexity system- ESPECIALLY when you NEED to intelligently design, construct, manipulate, direct, protect and then finally assemble all the intelligently designed components durign hte process of ‘natural evolution’ and later durign the cosntruction phase.
An arguemnt that relies on soemthign that can only be assumed ot have happened, and hten worse, relies on that subsystem hten dissappearing by beign coopted into higher systems at a later date is like watchign a magic show- first you don’t see it, now you don’t see it once again- Swell- fine argument. Yuo might as well state that nature was capable of miracles, and concealed it’s miraculous powers fro mthe natural observer ‘sometime in the past’.
Taking a far less complex sub-part, which has only a 1/4 of the genes of the flagellum, and claiming it has function in far less complex species, in no way refutes the idea that higher complexity exists in an IC state, and people like Miller should be ashamed of themselves for even proposing that this is the case, yet apparenetly it is impossible for naturalists to experience shame.
You mean the theory based on the work of a med-school dropout turned amateur naturalist, who presumed to rewrite the entire history of biology based on nothing more than a few minor variations between finches?
Talk about your “Willful” ignorance. LOL
[[You’re right. The claims that creationists are anti-science are bogus]]
Darwinian apologists HAVE to start their attacks.... errrr.... I mean arguments off this way because their arguments are so weak they need to be ‘beefed up’ with puffery so that people won’t recognize the actual message is worthless i nthe context of actual science. Like another poster stated- when they got no ammo- they throw spitwads-
>> Are you saying Ben Stein donated to Al Frqanken?!
Is the Stein/Franken thing really that well known? I had no idea. But frankly my opinion of Stein is already that he is quite bright but quite dishonest so this doesn’t really change anything for me...
Troll. If your goal is to keep liberals in control of the government by portraying conservatives as synonymous with pig-ignorance then you’re certainly succeeding with posts like that.
You’re just upset because you have hitched your credibility to the doomed HMS Beagle. Let me know when your part of the ship is about to go under so I can wave goodbye.
PS How does it feel to be part of the outgoing Old-Guard so early in your science career?
“My point is (I think) that the marxist they elected says he isn’t one, nor does he know any.”
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and floats on water like a duck . . . .
If it talks like a Marxist, and befriends Marxists, and pushes Marxist legislation . . . .
I’m not the one lying about creationists being anti-science and *pig ignorant*.
Liberals lie and liberals believe lies. They wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked them upside the head.
BTW, didn’t you get the memo? *Truth* is a word best avoided in science. And since another evo posted that most of the scientists he knows are liberals, it all fits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.