Ben Stein Blows it on Fox--ID is Religion (vanity)

Fox News | 04/20/2008 | Soliton

[Soliton]

Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!

[Fichori]

"How often does leading people to AIG on the pretext of “not spoon feeding” them work?"

I'll explain:
For information from a Creationists perspective on the Creation, go here.
For a good old fashion flaming liberal dog fight with lots of profanity, go here

I am, however, not interested in the later.

In case you haven't noticed yet, there is a difference between spoon-feeding someone, and telling them were to find information.

[tacticalogic]

When someone poses a specific question that you know the answer to, do you frequently send them off on a path you know is going to be a long-term mining operation to find the information they’re looking for?

[Ken H]

I must say you are the first apologist for Hitler who placed the teachings of Christ as par moral equivalence with that of Hitler who I have run into. You are indeed bold.

It must have dawned on you that you've lost the debate, seeing as how you've resorted to name-calling and outright distortion of my position.

Shame on you.

[freedom_forge]

When it comes to the debate of Evolutionary Science, here is what I have written about it before, you may find it interesting.

Thank you. It looks as if I'm never going to get any work done thanks to the huge reading list I'm accumulating.

[Fichori]

When someone poses a specific question that you know the answer to, do you frequently send them off on a path you know is going to be a long-term mining operation to find the information they’re looking for?

You asked where to look and I gave a link to the best resource that came to mind.

You are always welcome to come up with a better resource.

But if your going to ask me for resources, don't get mad when you get something that is not precut and ready to eat.

[Texas Songwriter]

Your comments are there for all to see, as you wrote them. Characterizing them as to what they only describes in brevity what you wrote. If you wish to disavow what you wrote, then rewrite it. I call you no names.

I think any honest reader would conclude Hitler used what he could to justify his acts, including Darwin and Christianity. Like I said, it's a package deal.

Let us take a look. You say any honest reader would conclude Hitler used what he could to justify his acts....Any honest reader...inplies someone giving an open fair assessment and would conclude Hitler used what he could to justify his acts......those are your words. He justified his acts with any words he could find. Those words of yours were written in a discussion regarding the propounding your theory that both Christianity and Darwinian theory was used by Hitler to justify his acts. There is nothing in your remarks to separate the two world views which resulted in your assessment. They were put forth as concurrent, coequal in nature,and without assertion of superiority of one over the other.

[tacticalogic]

You asked where to look and I gave a link to the best resource that came to mind.

Well, I guess I'll just have to try and not make that mistake again.

[srweaver]

It is nice that you can turn to humor when you cannot, or choose not to, respond to questions or issues you wish to avoid.

I have enjoyed the discussion with you and others.

Thanks.

I’m out.

[Ken H]

I call you no names.

You called me an "apologist for Hitler". That's name-calling. You wrote:

I must say you are the first apologist for Hitler...

______________________________

Texas Songwriter: You say any honest reader would conclude Hitler used what he could to justify his acts....Any honest reader...inplies someone giving an open fair assessment and would conclude Hitler used what he could to justify his acts......those are your words. He justified his acts with any words he could find. Those words of yours were written in a discussion regarding the propounding your theory that both Christianity and Darwinian theory was used by Hitler to justify his acts.

Yes, and I thought we had all agreed that he drew from both Darwin and Christianity for his nefarious purposes.

There is nothing in your remarks to separate the two world views which resulted in your assessment. They were put forth as concurrent, coequal in nature,and without assertion of superiority of one over the other.

Why should I make any comment at all on whether the two world views we were talking about - Darwin and Christianity - were co-equal in nature, or whether one was superior?

The fact is, Hitler drew on both of those two world views - Darwin and Christianity - and distorted them for his own evil ends.

I know you don't like to hear this, but you cannot credibly blame a scientific theory from the mid-1800's for the age old human practices of anti-semitism and genocide, any more than you can credibly blame the NT for the same age old practices.

[Texas Songwriter]

As an apologist, I do not mean to call you a name, but I mean to characterize your statement. Others can read and make their judgement as to whether I was calling you a pejorative or whether I was characterizing your statement. Your words are your words and mine are mine. I will cede to you that Hitler used Christian terms, but never Biblical Christianity to foment his terror. It did not fit then, and it does not fit 70 years later describing his actions as in any way Christian. It does follow the prescription of social darwin as applied to the races Hitler opposed, and is consistent with the acts he and his regime committed. His acts were not Christian, and no Christian apologist would reasonably assert Hitler propagated his evil following Christian Principles. You do not want to agree as you have said several times. We will have to agree to disagree. You described it as you did. I will let my words speak for my description of Hitlers evil.

Referring to me as silly was characterizing how you evaulated my statements, but you did not call me a name. If you did, my shoulders are wide enough to bear the comment. I did not refer to you as a Nazi or any such thing. When I say something I will be as straight forward as I can. I have never been much to call others names. I have too many shortcomings myself to think I can assume a superior position to anyone. I try to discuss the issues.

The fact that you do not care to differentiate Christianity from Nazism is your choice, but you leave the reader with the impression I stated. Why should you? Your choice. Maybe so readers would understand your moral equivalency or lack of moral equivalency. To leave it hanging out there is your choice.

To fail to see Hitlers application of an alleged scienitific theory to an entire race of people, after Hitler so stated that very fact, is to fail to learn from history and risk its repetition.

I will say that rereading my statement, I do see how you understood my statement as namecalling. It was, I assure you, not meant to do other than characterize your statement. It seemed brief, concise, and to the point.

[Ken H]

To fail to see Hitlers application of an alleged scienitific theory to an entire race of people, after Hitler so stated that very fact, is to fail to learn from history and risk its repetition.

You can just as credibly state that to fail to see Hitler's application of his alleged Christianity after he so stated that very fact, is to fail to learn from history and risk its repetition.

I keep telling you, if you assign blame to a theory from the 1800's for age-old anti-semitism and genocide, then you must be consistent and do the same for the religion he espoused and cited as well.

The fact that you do not care to differentiate Christianity from Nazism is your choice, but you leave the reader with the impression I stated.

Not an honest reader. My point all along has been to demonstrate the sophistry of blaming a theory from the 1800's for an age-old human practice, and I used Hitler's citation of Christianity to illustrate such sophistry.

If Hitler had been a "true Christian" (as I use the term) he would have followed the Golden Rule and many horrors might have been avoided.

Now, if you're ready to stop mischaracterizing my position, I'd appreciate an answer to the following (third request): Anti-semitism seems to have been entrenched in mainstream Christianity for centuries. Can you put a time frame on when that changed, and which sects led the way?

[Texas Songwriter]

Your question was answered in my post #328. The answer remains the same. Regarding the sects which led the way, I cannot answer.

If Hitler had been a "true Christian" (as I use the term) he would have followed the Golden Rule and many horrors might have been avoided.

There, we agree. It wasn't that difficult.

Ken, let me try to phrase my thoughts in the following way. If the darwinists are right that morality has a natural source, then morality is not objective or absolute. For if there is no God and humans have evolved from a primordial soup we have no standard to follow and if we have no standard to follow, then we follow any impulse, because those impulses are naturally assummed.

The implications of this have not been lost on darwinists and their followers. In fact, Hitler applied Darwins theory as a philosophical justification for the Holocaust. I again repeat Hitlers words from Mein Kampf,:

"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior on; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher state of being, may thus be rendered futile. But such a preservation goes hand in hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist." (Mein Kampf-4th prinying, 1939 London-Hurst & Blackett, 1939,239-240, 242)

Now, you say he just as much assummed Christian philosophy to bring his horror (I paraphrase your words for brevity's sake).

I simply ask, Were Hitler's acts consistent with what I quoted from his own book, or were those acts consistent with the heart of Christs' teachings? I simply assert that the contrast is as stark as day and night. If I understand your postition you see no differentiation in the two worldviews as Hitlers horrors were visited upon the world. Christs' teachings were clear. He said the greatest commandment, Love the Lord Thy God with all of thy Heart, and the second was, like the first, Love your neighbor as yourself. Hitler said if someone is weak , he needs to be, yes deserves to be destroyed, in accordance with the law of nature, referring to the law of tooth and fang, or darwinism. Now, I ask you which philosophy did Hitler actually employ? That question is answered on its face. The fact, and you insist upon it and I will concede, that Christian people down through the ages have acted not in accordance with the clear teachings of Christ is true. I have never insisted on carrying their water. Augustine and Calvin have much to answer for, we agree. But their misdeads were not because they acted in concert with the teachings of Christ.

You have insisted in denying this differentiation regarding Hitler's application of Darwinism. I simply disagree with you. I don't want to disagree in a disagreeable manner.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>If the darwinists are right that morality has a natural source, then morality is not objective or absolute.<<

I don't think you are referring to "natural law," as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." and Clarence Thomas.

Instead, I think you mean that materialists claim that our morals, conscience, compassion, etc. are just particles and energy. While I think that the forms of life I am familiar with, seem to depend on such things, I don't think life is the physical things it depends on. I think that materialism leads to great evils such as genocide and abortion. Some materialist-evolutionists claim that they, too, revere life as something precious, but how can something that you could assemble "from scratch" in a laboratory, as they claim they will be able to do soon, be that precious?

Life From Scratch

I don't think that a belief in evolution implies that one is a materialist, although some of the evolutionists claim to be materialists.

I want scientists to continue learning how things work, and how physical things affect living things, and I want students to learn. But I think schools should teach science in a way that does not push a materialist or atheistic agenda.

[Ready2go]

tacticalogic said:
What tests can be applied to Genesis?

Genesis 3:19

19 By the sweat of your brow
will you have food to eat
until you return to the ground
from which you were made.
For you were made from dust,
and to dust you will return.”

What are the scientific proof that man’s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says?

The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent.

The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

[Antoninus]

That is really going to be a shock to my Jewish and Christian friends who just happen to be evolutionary biologists.

There's the rub. I can be a Christian and someone who thinks that ToE is the best explanation for the proliferation of species we've got. And the vast majority of Christians are OK with that position as it doesn't contradict anything our Faith teaches.

For an atheist, ToE is part of his belief system and must not be questioned. An atheist must look at something like ID as heresy, pure and simple.

[Texas Songwriter]

I don't think that a belief in evolution implies that one is a materialist, although some of the evolutionists claim to be materialists.

Materialism holds that all is matter or reduced to it. Pantheism or pantheistic materialism reduces all to mind. In a rigid materialist view all is matter, and nothing is mind. I believe most pure darwinists assert this must be the explaination for life on earth and its component characteristics. If a darwinist will clear up the nonmaterial nature of man, if he so asserts, I will like to try to understand this.

Natural Law is something entirely different. I do no believe this subject has been brought up on this thread, at least not in my correspondence. The strict materialist is self defeating in that he cannot prove that the theory of strict materialism is made of matter. The idea that all is made of molecules begs the question, of what molecule is an idea made of, or a thought. It seems that mind can only transend matter if it is not matter or other than matter. If it is other than energy or matter, then matter is not all that exists. It therefore follows that if human consciousness is the flow of electrons, then persons are material processes, not free human beings.

As I understand Natural Law, it is the theology or study of God based on what one can know from nature. Natural Law is in contrast to supernatural theology, which depends upon a supernatural revelation of God. Natural Law depends upon the rational arguments for God's existence and for nature. This is incontrast to naturalism or metaphysical naturalism which refers to the view that nature is the "whole show".

If true materialist darwinists believe that life evolved to a state of "other than matter" I am interested in how that happens from a darwinian world view and understanding of those processes. To say that the nonmaterial evolved from matter requires a materialistic explaination which I have not yet heard. If you can please explain.

[Fichori]

Well put.

[Fichori]

I have always believed that God made man out of dirt, but you’ve nailed it down nicely.

But humor aside, that really places it in perspective scientifically.

[tacticalogic]

That's the test of accuracy of the accounts of the events in the Book of Genesis, in toto?

[tacticalogic]

The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth.

And you're finding this to be an epiphany?