No Tolerance Allowed: Stein declines university speech after 'hundreds' of angry emails

ICR ^ | February 9, 2009 | Christine Dao

[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.

[dan1123]

Science cannot deal with anything that is not a natural process as the “supernatural” doesn't seem willing to act measureably, replicably and predictably.

So science is no longer in the business of experimentally proving correlations? Silly me, all you have to do as a "scientist" now is propose a materialist explanation and it is blessed as "science".

[allmendream]

It counters nothing of the sort.

If I say that “all phylogenetic studies to date show that humans and chimps are closer than either is to a gorilla”; you would have to counter that by showing me a phylogenetic study that concludes that humans and chimps are NOT the most closely related primates.

Instead all you did was try to indicate that ‘phylogeny means nothing’ and pointed us to a 10 year old article that didn’t support your contention that phylogenetic data on mammals was somehow suspect.

[allmendream]

Prove? Correlation?

Correlation is not causality.

Nothing in science is subject to “proof” only disproof.

All one has to do is propose a natural explanation for a natural phenomena and propose and carry out tests that would falsify this hypothetical explanation; THEN it would be science.

[dan1123]

If I say that “all phylogenetic studies to date show that humans and chimps are closer than either is to a gorilla”; you would have to counter that by showing me a phylogenetic study that concludes that humans and chimps are NOT the most closely related primates.

Or I could show ridiculous relationships in generated phylogenetic trees (like the ones highlighted in the article I linked) and point out that genetics is far from completely understood.

[dan1123]

Nothing in science is subject to “proof” only disproof.

With the exception of Evolution of course.

All one has to do is propose a natural explanation for a natural phenomena and propose and carry out tests that would falsify this hypothetical explanation; THEN it would be science.

Actually, all an evolutionist has to do is propose a naturalistic explanation. No tests or research is necessary.

[allmendream]

And the many TENS OF THOUSANDS of experiments done on evolution?

Any number of things could disprove the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation, including fossils or DNA evidence; but to date all the data has been a stunning confirmation of the theory to all who are capable of understanding the data.

[allmendream]

Also the MAGI assay is an in vivo assay, not an in vitro assay, and neither it nor protein detection involves “amplification” of the signal in the same way that PCR amplifies a RNA or DNA signal; so as usual your caveats are empty of any actual intellectual content, and were not stated at the beginning but only retroactively to try to shore up the gaping holes in your credibility.

[allmendream]

The conclusion of the paper you sourced from 10 years ago was that molecular (DNA) data would supersede morphological data and thus “shake the phylogenetic tree”. Far from this indicating that mammalian phylogeny was “in trouble” it was moving from a less definitive standard (body shape) to a more definitive standard (DNA sequence comparisons).

Here is the conclusion to the paper you sourced...

The current turmoil in molecular phylogeny promises
spectacular new vistas on the adaptive radiation of the major
mammalian taxa. The currently recognized 18 eutherian
orders will not all survive as natural groupings, and major
taxonomic revisions will be needed. The prospects are good
that molecular data will establish the main outline of mammalian
relationships within the next few years. This will be
just the beginning of an even greater challenge – to reconstruct
the morphological diversification of the mammals,
which for the major eutherian lineages began as early as 90–
115 Mya, during the Cretaceous continental breakup6,45. To
what extent DNA sequences will help to understand why and
how mammalian morphology evolved as it did, remains a
matter of conjecture for the time being.

[tpanther]

The fact that Creation “scientists” cannot keep the two distinct in their befuddled minds, and that their readers don’t know enough about the subject to catch the error; should show you all you need to know about their state of knowledge on the subject. ABJECT IGNORANCE, which they wish to pass on to you, their adoring adulating consumers of creationist claptrap.

You just demonstrated my point for me. The fact remains, no one has appointed you as spokesman for all biologists. There's simply no "religion" or "abject ignorance" or any evidence of what you assert in your insecure observations of scientists on this site, you only offer projections.Your insecurities are on full display!

[allmendream]

I don't need to be “spokesman for all biologists” to know and say that transcription and translation are two separate and distinct processes.

This is as basic as a physicist saying that a proton and a neutron are not the same particle. He doesn't need to be “spokesman for all physicists” to point this out.

The fact that creation so called scientists don't know enough about the subject to keep transcription and translation distinct, and that their audience is also just as ignorant; tells me all I need to know about their state of knowledge on the subject.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thank you. And I think I will stand by that statement. A chimp is going to be genetically (to include DNA, “junk” DNA, and epigenetics) closer to a gorilla than to a human because their body plan and functional needs are closer to that of an ape. This should hold true whether you look at it from a creation or an evolution point of view. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but to my mind that is what you should expect no matter which camp you are rooting for.

[allmendream]

Wrong. Humans and chimps share much more DNA homology in both genetic and nongenetic DNA sequences. Obviously what you consider a "logical impossibility" is the way God made the world. All phylogenetic analysis has concluded that humans and chimps are more closely related and this is based on the FACT that humans and chimps have more similar DNA to each other than either has with a gorilla.

[allmendream]

I emphasized fact above because while we are all entitled to our own opinions and interpretations, we are not entitled to our own facts.

The fact is that over any DNA sequence comparison of sufficient scope, humans and chimps will have less differences than chimps and gorillas or humans and gorillas.

That is why all phylogenetic trees based upon DNA analysis place humans and chimps the closest, because you can count less differences when comparing homologous sequences.

Go to PubMed and “blast” some sequences if you don't believe me, or read any of the thousands of press or science articles that say the same thing.

It is simply a fact.

A fact that you find to be “logically impossible”. So much for that logic.

[GodGunsGuts]

I don’t believe I ever said the MAGI assay involves amplification. All it does is register the tripping of a genetically engineered LTR upstream of an E. coli gene that encodes LacZ. There is no way of knowing exactly what is tripping the LTR, and therefore there is no way to know for sure if it is HIV.

[GodGunsGuts]

==The fact is that over any DNA sequence comparison of sufficient scope, humans and chimps will have less differences than chimps and gorillas or humans and gorillas.

If that is the case, then why can't the Evos unambiguously say that humans and chimps split after humans and the gorilla? Why offer all the following phylogentic possibilities if it's a slam-dunk???

[allmendream]

Sure there is, they sequenced positive reactions to the MAGI assay to reveal not only that it was HIV, but what particular subtype of HIV it was.

And your quibble was that these assays were in vitro and involved amplification. The MAGI assay was in vivo and didn't involve amplification.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Sure there is, they sequenced positive reactions to the MAGI assay to reveal not only that it was HIV, but what particular subtype of HIV it was.

They didn’t sequence anything. All they detected was transcription. This tripped the LTR and caused E. coli’s LacZ to form plaques. They have no clue what tripped the LTR. They simply assume it is HIV.

[allmendream]

The conclusion of that study was that humans and chimps shared a more recent common ancestor than either shares with a gorilla. That conclusion was based on the simple fact that there were a lot less differences between human and chimp sequences than between chimp and gorilla.

Maybe I need to get K-12 on you.....

Look at the BIG picture. It, like the conclusion of all phylogenetic studies of the subject, puts humans and chimps closer than either is to a gorilla.

Look at the COLORS. The state of humans and chimps being closest is red. When you look at the figure what color do you see? It isn’t much green, which is what you claim it all should be. It is red, which you claimed was a “logical impossibility”.

God’s reality laughs at your “logical impossibility”.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/24/10/2266/FIG5

[allmendream]

Wrong, they identified which HIV subtype it was that elicited the positive reaction.

1: Biomed Environ Sci. 2005 Apr;18(2):128-36.Links
Association of neutralization sensitivity of HIV-1 primary isolates with biological properties of isolates from HIV-1 infected Chinese individuals.Hei FX, Tang HL, Hong KX, Chen JP, Peng H, Yuan L, Xu JQ, Shao YM.
Department of Virology and Immunology, National Center for AIDS/STD Control and Prevention, Chinese Centerfor Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100050, China.

OBJECTIVE: Although HIV-1 infection is prevalent in many regions in China, it remains largely unknown on the biological characteristics of dominant circulating isolates. This study was designed to isolate the circulating viral strains from different prevalent regions and to characterize their biological properties and neutralization sensitivity. METHODS: Primary viruses were isolated from fresh PBMCs using the traditional co-culture method and their capacity of inducing syncytium was tested in MT-2 cells. Meanwhile, their coreceptor usage was determined with two cell lines: Magi and GHOST (3) stably expressing CD4 and the chemokine receptor CCR5 or CXCR4. Furthermore, the sensitivity of these viruses to neutralization by HIV-1-infected patients’ plasma which were highly active to neutralize SF33 strain, was quantified in GHOST cell-based neutralization assay. RESULTS: Six primary viral strains were isolated from 4 separated regions. Isolates LTG0213, LTG0214 and XVS032691 induced syncytia in MT-2 cells, and used CXCR4 as coreceptor. Isolates XJN0021, XJN0091, or SHXDC0041 did not induce syncytia, and used CCR5 as coreceptor. Overall neutralization sensitivity differed among four representative strains: HIV-1 XVS032691 > LTG0214 >XJN0091 approximately SHXDC0041. CONCLUSION: The neutralization sensitivity of HIV isolates is linked with the phenotype of isolates, in which syncytium-inducing (SI) or CXCR4-tropic (X4) viruses are more easily neutralized than non-syncytium-inducing (NSI) or CCR5-tropic (R5) viruses. The genetic subtypes based on the phylogeny of env sequences are not classical neutralization serotypes

[allmendream]

Try hard to ignore the "logical impossibility" of the red, while you stare determinedly at the green.