Louis- But you do know that you are putting words into Ben's mouth and stating your own views, which is fine, but they are certainly not the message of Stein's "Expelled". I believe it was Justice Scalia who pointed out that one of his teachers said, about reading Shakespeare, "When you read Shakespeare it is not Shakespeare who's on trial- It is you." Have you seen the videos and read about the movie? Ben is promoting a movie and much of the information from the movie is being presented and treated as if it were a legitimate presentation of ideas about fairness and equity. Yes, for example, scientists were interviewed in making the "documentary" portions of the movie but they were lied to about what movie they were going to be in. Please see: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know Some of the main points, for those who don't have time to review it are: "Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust." "Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup."- pure theatrics "The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there." This movie is not a fair treatment of religion and science and how they should co-exist; but is exactly the kind of propaganda that is trying to slide nonsense and religion into the curriculum for science. Tim
_______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker -----Original Message----- From: Louis Schmier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 5/4/2008 6:22 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] Ben Stein on Science Good morning, Nancy. I'm truly sorry you are taking my message as you are. I never meant any of my words as a put down. I apologize, truly apologize, if my hurried and clumsy wording, in any way conveyed that message. I merely disagree with your position that you can separate science from the scientist, and you can separate the scientist from her or his subjective, fallible humanity. That is Ben Stein's position, though I think Ben Stein was not complete in his latest statements. I have read and heard him at other times on this issue, though his too often conservative, simplistic bent grinds me more often than not. He is not talking about science per se; he is talking about an applied science in human hands that is not guided, directed, controlled by a moral and ethic code that rejects close-mindedness and bigotry, be it of theological or scientific origin, of mutual humanizing respect, the kind of science and scientist who participated in such events and atrocities of the Holocaust. Nor am I saying it was only the scientists; it was an entire society. But, science was the fair-haired boy, especially of the 1920s, the members of which were influenced by a particular combining of distortions of Einstein and Darwin that created rule-less and often lawless relativism in politics and the arts and academics and all facets of society, further moralized "might makes right" national and international contention and conflict, entrenched class stratification, and advanced racial inequality. Science was used-and often blamed--to legitimatize as "natural law" all of this, just as in this country science is in the foundation of our emphasis on the sacredness of the individual and the equality of all persons. I was also saying that science can be a source of a philosophy and a theology, a moral and ethical code, by the very nature that it is looking into the truths of nature. That is, science can be teleological no less than can religion, and these teleology's can be conflicting or compatible depending who is doing the comparison. That was very nature of the Scientific Revolution: you could use the human intellectual capacity and knowledge of nature's truth to create a moral code and social ethic such as the Voltaire's Enlightenment Creed without needing divine revelation from an organized and ordained church, although at the time the leaders of that revolution-Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Bruno, et al--saw no conflict between science and religion-if their advocates stayed within the bounds of their own realm--or between reason and faith. But, even the great Isaac Newton, who discovery of natural physical laws became the cornerstone of the modern day scientific faith, believed his greatest work was his commentary on the Bible rather than his Principia and never thought one truly destroyed the other. The scientific revolutionaries felt if the church got out of the science business and if science did not get into the church business all would be well. It did not go well since the Scientific Revolution became the essential back-beat to the Reformation. One culmination of which is in Jefferson's Enlightenment Deism inscribed in our own Declaration of Independence. It is a scientific statement fraught with a socio-cultural philosophy and theology: "human events," "Nature's God and Nature's laws," "these truths to be self-evident," "all men are created equal," "endowed by our Creator," "inalienable rights." As an American, as a self-proclaimed moralistic, non-ritual and ceremonial, Jewish-Zen-at best Deist, I see no conflict between science and religion per se. Notice I did not say "organized church." It is my contention that science can be and is a source of a viable morality and ethic just as legitimate as any religious theology. In fact, that is the magic and uniqueness of the American experience, the mergence of the Enlightenment philosophy and the theology of the Great Awakening that ennobled each person and gave to that person the power to control her or his own destiny into a partnership that is not always absent of contentiousness. Imperfect people, uninformed people, self-righteous people, however, too often have a way of screwing up a good thing. But, unbridled "in the name of science" science, as with unbridled "it is God's will" religion, as with any unbridled thing, the reins of which are in human hands, can lead to things running amok. The partnership between science and religion is then fractured, leads to a denunciation and rejection and condemnation of one by the other, and can lead to disastrous consequences. We saw that in the religious wars of the Reformation, in the Holocaust, and we are seeing it now in both Western and Eastern religious extremism. Make it a good day. --Louis-- Louis Schmier http://therandomthoughts.edublogs.org/ Department of History http://www.newforums.com/Auth_L_Schmier.asp Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\ (229-333-5947) /^\\/ \/ \ /\/\____/\ \/\ / \ \__ \/ / \ /\/ \ \ /\ //\/\/ /\ \_ / /___\/\ \ \ \/ \ /\"If you want to climb mountains \ /\ _/ \ don't practice on mole hills" -/ \ --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
<<winmail.dat>>
