Evolution Spat Nixes Ben Stein Speech

Evolution Spat Nixes Ben Stein Speech

There are 179 comments on the www.newsmax.com story from Feb 4, 2009, titled Evolution Spat Nixes Ben Stein Speech. In it, www.newsmax.com reports that:

Comedian Ben Stein has withdrawn as the University of Vermont's commencement speaker because of complaints about his critical views on evolution in favor of intelligent design.

UVM President Daniel Fogel said he chose Stein based on the warm response to a lecture he gave on campus last spring. Fogel said, however, he was deluged with e-mail messages from people offended by Stein's views of science.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.newsmax.com.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
Rob

Nebo, KY

#161 Mar 3, 2011
“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human Evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.”
(John Reader,- Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805)

“The Evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before.”
Wolfgang Smith,- Ph.D.

“The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.”
Niles Eldridge,- PhD., Palaeontologist and Evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History
2. Darwin’s Own Confession
“Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.”
Charles Darwin,- My Life & Letters

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I Freely Confess, Absurd In The Highest Degree.”
Charles Darwin,- Origin of Species, Chapter Difficulties
Rob

Nebo, KY

#162 Mar 3, 2011
In the last few decades, some of the world's finest minds in the field of Science have been critically reviewing their conclusions of the past and have, belive it or not, come to the logical conclusion that this Universe had a Designer ! The best way to demonstrate that is to let them speak for themselves. Most of these men have high degrees in the various fields of science and most are Evolutionists/Atheist and are certainly no friend of Creation Science. Notice this poll first.

One of the most authoritative polls was conducted in October 1981 by the Associated Press/NBCNews polling organization. The results were as follows
:“Only evolution should be taught” 8%
“Only creation should be taught 10%
“Both creation & evolution should be taught” 76%
“Not sure which should be taught” 6%

Thus, nationwide no less than 86% of the people in the United States believe that creation should be taught in public schools.

In August 1982, another Gallup poll was conducted and found that 44%(i.e., almost half)of the population believed not only in creation, but in a recent creation occurring less than 10,000 years ago (see Morris, 1982b, pp. 12,130,164; also see San Diego Union, 1982).

Amazingly, after almost a decade (and in some cases more than a decade), these figures have changed very little. On November 28, 1991, results were released from yet another Gallup poll regarding the biblical account of origins. The results may be summarized as follows. On origins: 47% believed God created man within the last 10,000 years (up 3% from the 1982 poll mentioned above); 40% believed man evolved over millions of years, but that God guided the process; 9% believed man evolved over millions of years without God; 4% were “other/don’t know.”
Rob

Nebo, KY

#163 Mar 3, 2011
On the Bible: 32% believed the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and that it should be taken literally; 49% believed the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, but that it should not always be taken literally; 16% believed the Bible to be entirely the product of men; 3% were “other/don’t know”(see Major, 1991a, 11:48; John Morris, 1992, p. d).

A 1997 Gallup survey found that 44% of Americans (including 31% who were college graduates) subscribed to a fairly literal reading of the Genesis account of creation, while another 39%(53% of whom were college graduates) believed God played at least some part in creating the Universe. Only 10%(17% college graduates) embraced a purely naturalistic, evolutionary view (see Bishop, 1998, pp. 39-48; Sheler, 1999, pp. 48-49).

In its March 11, 2000 issue, the New York Times ran a story titled “Survey Finds Support is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories,” which reported on a poll commissioned by the liberal civil rights group, People for the American Way, and conducted by the prestigious polling/public research firm,DYG, of Danbury, Connecticut. According to the report, 79% of the people polled felt that the scientific evidence for creation should be included in the curriculum of public schools (see Glanz, 2000, p. A-1).

These results were unexpected by evolutionists, who would have expected instead a general agreement with evolutionary theory in light of the many decades of indoctrination in the schools, textbooks, and news media to the effect that evolution is a “fact” and that the Earth is billions of years old. Little wonder, then, that many evolutionists are becoming alarmed regarding the creationist position. No doubt the shock that so many today believe in the concept of creation is devastating news to evolutionists. But now, as if to add salt to an already open and bleeding wound, some in the evolutionary camp are “defecting” as well.
Rob

Nebo, KY

#164 Mar 3, 2011
There are only two possible models of origins: Evolution or Creation.... Either the universe is eternal, or it is not. If it is, then evolution is the true explanation of its components. If it is not, then it must have been created by a Creator. These are the only two possibilities—simply stated, either it happened by accident (chance)... or it didn’t (design).... There are only these two possibilities. There may be many submodels. But there can be only two basic models—evolution or creation. The model that better fits the available scientific data is said to be the one that has the highest degree of probability of being true.
As one evolutionist put it in commenting on the upswing of creationism in America:“The climate of the times suggests that the problem will be with us for a very long time...”(Moore, 1981,
Rob

Nebo, KY

#165 Mar 3, 2011
Many in the evolutionary camp are “defecting”

Gary Parker, in the section of What Is Creation Science? that he authored, stated:
"The case for creation, however, is not based on imagination. Creation is based instead on logical inference from our scientific observations, and on simple acknowledgment that everyone, scientists and laymen alike, recognize that certain kinds of design imply creation.... According to creation, living things operate in understandable ways that can be described in terms of scientific laws—but these observations include properties of organization that logically imply a created origin for life.
The creationist, then, recognizes the orderliness that the vitalist doesn’t see. But he doesn’t limit himself only to those kinds of order that result from time, chance, and the properties of matter as the evolutionist does. Creation introduces levels of order and organization that greatly enrich the range of explorable hypotheses and turn the study of life into a scientist’s dream.
If the evidence for the creation of life is as clear as I say it is, then other scientists, even those who are evolutionists, ought to see it—and they do" (Morris and Parker, 1987, p. 47, emp. in orig.).
DrinK_the-Hive

Orlando, FL

#166 Mar 3, 2011

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#167 Mar 3, 2011
Wow. Rob's on a quote-mining, spamming tear.

Color me impressed...NOT.
imaginaryfriend

Plymouth, MI

#168 Mar 3, 2011
Evolution is real.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#169 Mar 4, 2011
Rob wrote:
Many in the evolutionary camp are “defecting”
Gary Parker, in the section of What Is Creation Science? that he authored, stated:
"The case for creation, however, is not based on imagination. Creation is based instead on logical inference from our scientific observations, and on simple acknowledgment that everyone, scientists and laymen alike, recognize that certain kinds of design imply creation.... According to creation, living things operate in understandable ways that can be described in terms of scientific laws—but these observations include properties of organization that logically imply a created origin for life.
The creationist, then, recognizes the orderliness that the vitalist doesn’t see. But he doesn’t limit himself only to those kinds of order that result from time, chance, and the properties of matter as the evolutionist does. Creation introduces levels of order and organization that greatly enrich the range of explorable hypotheses and turn the study of life into a scientist’s dream.
If the evidence for the creation of life is as clear as I say it is, then other scientists, even those who are evolutionists, ought to see it—and they do" (Morris and Parker, 1987, p. 47, emp. in orig.).
Funny! Parker's lying and deceitful writings are junk...
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#170 Mar 4, 2011
Great. So Rob's big idea was to appeal to authority (logical fallacy) and then claim his "scientific alternative" is Goddidit with magic.

At least we agree he wasn't talking about science.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#171 Mar 4, 2011
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Wow. Rob's on a quote-mining, spamming tear.
Color me impressed...NOT.
Yeah. He's hitting everywhere. He must have found himself a new fundie site and is spreading the joy.
Rob

Dunmor, KY

#172 Mar 5, 2011
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. He's hitting everywhere. He must have found himself a new fundie site and is spreading the joy.
Information is information. I have a lot more. Verify the sources, prove or disprove the statements as quoted. That is something most of you seem either unwilling or unable to do. Why do you not attempt to offer a logical and INTELLIGENT refutation of the information ? Surely your vast knowledge and vocabulary is greater than you are showing.
Rob

Dunmor, KY

#173 Mar 5, 2011
For those of you who are always asking for Empirical Proof of God, here it is: Psalms 19:1

"The Heavens declare the glory of God, the Firmament Shows His Handiwork..."

The Heavens (all above us) declare (Evidence) the glory (His preeminence and majesty) of God (the Creator), the Firmament (the Earth) shows (Evidence) His (God) Handiwork (Creation)

You LIVE in the very midst of the Greatest Empirical Evidence of God's Existence and you can't see the Forest for the Trees ! Unbelievable . How Sad !!!
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#174 Mar 5, 2011
Rob wrote:
For those of you who are always asking for Empirical Proof of God, here it is: Psalms 19:1
"The Heavens declare the glory of God, the Firmament Shows His Handiwork..."
The Heavens (all above us) declare (Evidence) the glory (His preeminence and majesty) of God (the Creator), the Firmament (the Earth) shows (Evidence) His (God) Handiwork (Creation)
You LIVE in the very midst of the Greatest Empirical Evidence of God's Existence and you can't see the Forest for the Trees ! Unbelievable . How Sad !!!
Saying "the Bible is right because it says right in the Bible that the Bible is right" is STILL considered circular reasoning and, as such, is NOT a valid logical or well reasoned argument.

A passage out of bronze age book of fairy tales is NOT evidence of anything ... other than that you don't know what evidence is.

Just because YOU happen to like it (and think it is important) is IRRELEVANT.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#175 Mar 5, 2011
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
Information is information. I have a lot more. Verify the sources, prove or disprove the statements as quoted. That is something most of you seem either unwilling or unable to do. Why do you not attempt to offer a logical and INTELLIGENT refutation of the information ? Surely your vast knowledge and vocabulary is greater than you are showing.
1 - Appeal to authority = logical fallacy.

2 - Appeal to popularity = logical fallacy.

2b - More scientists disagree with you than not.:-)

3 - Many of your quotes (Darwin for example) are out of context.

4 - Many of your quotes are from people commenting out of their field of expertise (Fred Hoyle & Wolfgang Smith for example).

5 - Many of your quotes are from fundies who reject evolution on theological grounds as opposed to scientific ones (Wolfgang Smith, Parker, Morris for example).

6 - Many of your quotes are from people who utterly disagree with your position and think you're full of crapp (Eldridge and Denton for example).

7 - Your alternative "explanation" for biological diversification is GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC, and therefore nothing at all to do with science.

8 - Claiming science you reject falsifies science you reject is not only a logical fallacy but also dishonest.

9 - Your willfulness to rely on logical fallacies, dishonest representations, spam, and willingess to engage in sockpuppetry makes us doubt considerably that you are here for honest dialogue.

10 - Spam. If you really had to spam all your quotes like you did, the polite thing to do would have been to create a new thread and put all your "information" there rather than reactivate three old threads which haven't been in use for 2 years and spam all three, making the same "challenges" to the same people.

11 - If you are allowed to spam then we are allowed to spam. So if we have to debunk each and every one of your little quotes in exquisite detail then you have to debunk each and every one of these in exquisite detail:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

An examination of the (lack of) scientific validity and rank dishonesty of creationists claims

http://www.pnas.org/search...

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Currently over 15,000 papers relating to evolution available to the public. It is worth noting that these are scientifically peer-reviewed published scientific papers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/gquery

Pubmed. Literally hundreds of thousands of papers pertaining to evolution. It is worth noting that these are scientifically peer-reviewed published scientific papers.

Each and every one of these has to be debunked in order for evolution to be falsified. However this is unlikely, as the overwhelming scientific consensus shows that evolution is accepted by the majority of scientists and scientific institutions the world over, and is objected to pretty much only by religious people for religious reasons.

So, Jimbo/Rob, it looks like you've got a lot of work to do.

Get crackin'.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#176 Mar 5, 2011
>>>Rob
Information is information. I have a lot more.

>>>Gillette
Information can be presented in a shady and dishonest fashion, which is done OFTEN by your Jesus Freak creationists. Information can be quoted out of context so as to be made to seem to say something other than what it's author intended to say. Again, you lying Jesus Freaks are well known for doing this.

>>>Rob
Verify the sources, prove or disprove the statements as quoted.

>>>Gillette
Why should we waste hours of our precious time on a Christian asshole like you? It's not like you are really going to listen and admit you are wrong or being deceptive here. You're just going to post more quotes, right?

And then, you'll do more Bible preaching at us.

The thing you don't realize is that we KNOW you're an ignorant asshole when it comes to SCIENCE, so why should we take anything you have to say about RELGION seriously?

Isn't it likely that you are also an ignorant asshole when it comes to spiritual matters?

Common sense, right?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#177 Mar 5, 2011
Gillette wrote:
>>>Rob
Information is information. I have a lot more.
>>>Gillette
Information can be presented in a shady and dishonest fashion, which is done OFTEN by your Jesus Freak creationists. Information can be quoted out of context so as to be made to seem to say something other than what it's author intended to say. Again, you lying Jesus Freaks are well known for doing this.
>>>Rob
Verify the sources, prove or disprove the statements as quoted.
>>>Gillette
Why should we waste hours of our precious time on a Christian asshole like you? It's not like you are really going to listen and admit you are wrong or being deceptive here. You're just going to post more quotes, right?
And then, you'll do more Bible preaching at us.
The thing you don't realize is that we KNOW you're an ignorant asshole when it comes to SCIENCE, so why should we take anything you have to say about RELGION seriously?
Isn't it likely that you are also an ignorant asshole when it comes to spiritual matters?
Common sense, right?
Nailed it...

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Rio Rancho, NM

#178 Mar 5, 2011
Rob wrote:
For those of you who are always asking for Empirical Proof of God, here it is: Psalms 19:1
"The Heavens declare the glory of God, the Firmament Shows His Handiwork..."
The Heavens (all above us) declare (Evidence) the glory (His preeminence and majesty) of God (the Creator), the Firmament (the Earth) shows (Evidence) His (God) Handiwork (Creation)
You LIVE in the very midst of the Greatest Empirical Evidence of God's Existence and you can't see the Forest for the Trees ! Unbelievable . How Sad !!!
Every day we find more evidence that we should forget the fence around Mexico and put it around Kentucky.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#179 Mar 7, 2011
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
Information is information. I have a lot more. Verify the sources, prove or disprove the statements as quoted. That is something most of you seem either unwilling or unable to do. Why do you not attempt to offer a logical and INTELLIGENT refutation of the information ? Surely your vast knowledge and vocabulary is greater than you are showing.
How about you go through some of the evolution forum threads and read about the last 500 times your 'information' has been flushed down the toilet?

Then come back.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of Vermont Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Alice Hyde President Doug DiVello resigns (May '17) Nov '17 Catman 19
News Republicans look to scrap Michelle Obama school... (Feb '17) Feb '17 Texxy the Selfie Cat 1
News Why Taking A Yoga Teacher Training May Be One O... (Dec '15) Oct '16 Eddy Donald 2
News OneCare launching care coordination software in... (Jun '16) Jun '16 Dr Pendyke 2
News Produce Trashed Students tossing veggies mandat... (Dec '15) Dec '15 Ritual Habitual 1
News Community thrilled Alcoa keeping smelter open, ... (Nov '15) Dec '15 sick of complaining 6
News The Fourteenth State: Vermont's eugenics experi... (Aug '15) Aug '15 harp 1
More from around the web