Judge Jones gets multiple honorary degrees, Ben Stein has his withdrawn
| February 3, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science |
Judge Jones, whose distinction prior to the Dover case was running the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, now has multiple honorary doctorates for rendering his decision, which he cribbed from the ACLU’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Ben Stein, who is an acclaimed actor, author, and economist, on the other hand, has just been denied an honorary doctorate at the University of Vermont:
“This is not, to my mind, an issue about academic freedom or the openness of the campus to all points of view. Ben Stein spoke here last spring to great acclaim,” UVM President Dan Fogel said. “It’s an issue about the appropriateness of awarding an honorary degree to someone whose views in many ways ignore or affront the fundamental values of scientific inquiry and I greatly regret that I was not attuned to those issues.” (full story click here)
That’s right, for questioning Darwin and pointing out the racist implications of his theory (implications that Darwin himself drew in his DESCENT OF MAN), Ben Stein is now an affront to science.
Perhaps one beneficial consequence of the current recession/depression is that tax-payers will pay more attention to how their tax dollars are being misused by schools like UVM. But that may be too much to hope.
We’ll know that the tide has turned when Judge Jones’s Dover decision and Darwin’s inflated claims about the power of natural selection are themselves seen as an affront to science.
35 Responses to Judge Jones gets multiple honorary degrees, Ben Stein has his withdrawn
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tribune[29,30],
Well spoken. Now let’s wait for Kirk to continue on the other thread.
Now let’s wait for Kirk to continue on the other thread.
Will look for you there
Two things:
First, William Jennings Bryan involved himself in the Scopes trial because he was afraid of the eugenics movement. Let’s not forget that. A presidential candidate traveled to backwards Tennessee the teaching of Darwinism because of his fears of what Darwinism, via eugenics, might lead to. Something to think about in this context.
Second: what has science led to recently?
How about the birth control pill which recent evidence suggests sweeps out fertilized eggs from the mother? If, as science indicates, human life begins at conception, then what about this huge loss of life? Who’s responsible for it? Where did it come from?
What about “in-vitro” fertilization, stem-cell research? Fertilized eggs–human life–sacrificed upon the altar of science by the great high priests of medical research.
So, when Stein says that science leads to the killing of people, let’s not pretend he’s simply talking about the past.
PaV:
Well said. Apart from the eradication of smallpox, the near eradication of polio, rolling back measles, cutting guinea worm infections by 99% and producing high yielding pest-resistant strains of staple food crops, what’s science achieved recently anyway?
Ben Stein could have said a lot more about Darwinism and eugenics. See here: Inbred Science and Euvolution. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.