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

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

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.

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.

If each segment can have five, seven or more interleaved, overlapping transcripts that are not bound to the linear order of the DNA, then that leaves plenty of room for the chimp genome to explain why chimps are closer in body plan and functional needs to their ape cousins than the human beings. That’s my prediction, and I will be sure to ping you when it is time to rub it in. d:op

Your “prediction” was that when comparing DNA, chimps and gorillas would be more similar (and once again, ape and gorilla are only synonymous to a simpleton).

You also “predicted” that it was a “logical impossibility” for humans and chimps to be more similar in their DNA than either is to a gorilla.

Obviously, when comparing either genetic regions, or non genetic regions, or the entirety of chromosome one and two; the OVERWHELMING pattern of similarity is between humans and chimps. This is in no way dependent upon the linearity of DNA, the same pattern of similarity and divergence is observed over the entire GENOME.

Obviously your predictive power is suspect, as is your logic, and your judgment about what is possible or impossible.

==Your “prediction” was that when comparing DNA, chimps and gorillas would be more similar

If you go back to #131, you will note that I am predicting when they are finally able to take into consideration all the differences (DNA, “junk” DNA, and epigenetics) chimps will be seen to be closer to a gorilla than to a human because their body plan and functional needs are closer to that of an ape. And like I said, when my prediction is supported by further research, I will be sure and ping you to rub it in. Creation/intelligent design is superior to Darwinistic materialism...always has been, always will be.

If I go back to your original prediction I will note that you said it was a “logical impossibility” for humans and chimps to be more similar than chimps and gorillas.

Obviously when comparing DNA sequences in either genetic regions, non genetic regions, or over an ENTIRE CHROMOSOME or two; humans and chimps are much more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla.

Denying the data at this point just makes you look like a simpleton.

For some reason you are failing to grasp that the linear DNA sequence does not explain why chimps are closer in body plan and functional needs to the other great apes (and no, I do not subscribe to the Evo ASSUMPTION that humans are members of the great ape family). Thus the fact that chimps are closer to the other apes than to humans MUST be due to something other than linear DNA. I’m predicting that it will be explained by the non-translated regions which can produce five, seven or more functionally DIFFERENT trancripts from just one segment of code.

For some reason you are failing to grasp that there is simply no way to argue that chimp and human DNA are less similar than chimp and gorilla DNA; when in fact humans and chimps are more similar to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla.

Non-translated regions make up over 95% of both chromosome 1 and chromosome 2. The data from sequence comparison of chromosome 1 and 2 show that humans and chimps are more similar than either is to a gorilla OVER BOTH TRANSLATED AND UNTRANSLATED REGIONS OF THE GENOME.

Can you read and understand that or do I have to get K-12 on you again?

I understand it perfectly. That is why I am saying something else must explain why chimps are closer in body plan and functional needs to the other great apes than to humans. This obvious fact needs an explanation. That is why I am predicting that the explanation will be found in the untranslated regions.

PS As I have demonstrated to you over and over, the linear sequence of the untranslated regions can produce five, seven or more functionally different transcripts per segment. As such, it is not only possible, but quite likely, that chimps will be found to be more closely related to the other great apes than to humans once these regions have been sufficiently explored. The fact that you can’t see this as a possibility, not to mention the fact that you can’t even see that it needs to be explained, suggests your brain has been adled by your blind-faith in the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism.

Can you not comprehend that both translated and untranslated regions of Chromosome 1 and 2 were compared?

Can you not comprehend that when you stated that it was a “logical impossibility” that humans and chimps were more similar in DNA than a chimp and a gorilla you were WRONG?

The data is in. The data shows that what you called a “logical impossibility” is unambiguously the truth.

Humans and chimps are more similar in DNA (both translated and untranslated regions) than either is to a gorilla.

So obviously your “logic” is suspect, as well as your knowledge about the subject.

Do you admit that when comparing all of chromosome one and two that humans and chimps are more similar in terms of DNA sequence, or are you still maintaining (despite me showing you the data) that such is a “logical impossibility”?

==Can you not comprehend that both translated and untranslated regions of Chromosome 1 and 2 were compared?

It was only a linear comparison, which means very little given the fact that the untranslated regions behave in a non-linear fashion (i.e. the five, seven or more interleaving, overlapping, functionally different transcripts that derive from a single segment of code mentioned earlier).

==Do you admit that when comparing all of chromosome one and two that humans and chimps are more similar in terms of DNA sequence, or are you still maintaining (despite me showing you the data) that such is a “logical impossibility”?

I will grant that their DNA is more similar with respect to linear DNA. But I still maintain that what makes them so similar to the other great apes, and so different from humans, cannot be explained by the linear DNA sequences you are so fixated on. Therefore, the obvious fact that chimps are closer to in body plan and functional needs to the other great apes than to humans means the answer lies elsewhere. I am predicting that this answer will be found in the untranslated regions, and this answer will once again place chimps closer to the great apes than to humans. I also maintain that this should be obvious to anyone (unless of course they have been blinded by the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism, and thus have a vested interest in Darwood’s increasingly discredited “tree of life”).

You predict the answer will be in the untranslated region?

But over 95% of the data I showed you was untranslated regions.

It would take a lot of ‘cutting and pasting’ of those scant GREEN regions (where humans were unique) to make up for the swaths of RED regions (where gorillas were unique and humans and chimps were the same). So this is your new claim? That when comparing untranslated transcripts of humans and chimps genomes that they will be less similar than untranslated transcripts of chimps and gorillas?

That is a goal post far removed from you claiming that chimps and humans being more similar to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla being a “logical impossibility”.

But it is nice that you FINALLY acknowledge that your claim, as originally stated, was WRONG.

==That is a goal post far removed from you claiming that chimps and humans being more similar to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla being a “logical impossibility”.

Here is my exact quote, the one that you dug up from last November. Notice I said genome (which includes the nontranslated regions) and the epigenome:

“I’m calling BS on the notion that chimps are closer to humans than to apes . You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have two organism that are closer to each other than a third organism in terms of body plan and functional needs (which you freely admit), while at the same time being closer to the third organism in terms of the genome and epigenome. As I said, it’s a logical impossibility.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2181692/posts?q=1&;page=101#111

Are chromosome 1 and 2 not a significant portion of the genome? Do not chromosome 1 and 2 consist of over 95% of untranslated regions?

Now you are talking epigenome. Well the methylation patterns of humans and chimps and gorillas have not been compiled or compared, so you may well be right that the epigenomic pattern is more similar between a chimp and a gorilla; but that is not what you said originally.

My claim, which is 100% correct, was that by DNA sequence humans and chimps were more close than either was to a gorilla. You said that was a “logical impossibility”.

Based upon the data in this thread, you being right on a subject related to biology is obviously more of a “logical impossibility” than humans and chimps being more similar in terms of DNA sequence than either is to a gorilla.

==Now you are talking epigenome.

What do you mean “now”? The following quote (bottom) was taken from the link you sent to remind me what I said three months ago. Notice, I have always been talking about the genome/epigenome...in other words, the whole ball of genetic/epigenetic wax. Obviously the linear DNA similarity between humans and chimps does not explain their MANY differences, so I am predicting it will be found in the non-translated regions—and—the epigenome. But for now, I am primarily focusing on the non-translated regions because I think the five, seven or more functions per code segment (which, btw, implies a higher code) discovered by ENCODE strikes me as supplying more than enough potential to explain the majority of the body plan and functional differences between humans and chimps.

My quote from Nov:

The statement that you “called BS on” was that humans and chimps were more similar in their DNA than either was to a gorilla. You said it was a “logical impossibility”.

Are you willing to admit now that, in terms of DNA sequence, humans and chimps are close than either is to a gorilla?

So now you are only wrong about the genome, while the data is not yet in on the epigenome. The statement you “called B.S. on” was that humans and chimps were more similar in terms of DNA than either is to a gorilla.

Are you willing to admit NOW that in terms of DNA sequence, a human and a chimp are more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla?

==So now you are only wrong about the genome, while the data is not yet in on the epigenome.

No I will not. I will admit that their linear DNA is more similar, but I will not conceded that their genomes (even without the epigenome) are more similar because each code segment of the untranslated regions, which comprise 97% of the code, can have five, seven or more functions. That means that identical (linear) segments can have a set of functions for one species that are quite different from the functions these segments carry out in another species. But of course, if I need the epigenome to show chimps are closer to other great apes than to humans, I always have that to draw upon too (but I doubt I will need it). In the end, chimps are closer to other great apes than to humans both in terms of body plan and functional needs. This should be evident in whatever machinery makes chimps, chimps and humans, humans. I say the evidence for these STRIKING differences will be found in the untranslated regions and the epigenome. And I have little doubt that my prediction will be vindicated by further research.

All DNA is linear.

The Genome is all DNA.

If you are talking about spliced transcripts those are RNA.

DNA is not RNA.

So now your claim is that in untranslated RNA segments spliced together from the genome..... THOSE will be more similar between chimps and gorillas than between chimps and humans?

LOL!!! Talk about moving goal posts, now we are not even talking about DNA but spliced together RNA transcripts.

Either way, when talking about DNA (and all DNA is linear) humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla.

You deny it at the expense of your negligible credibility.

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.