Second: what has science led to recently?

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?

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.

Will look for you there

No, but Hitler and evolution does illustrate the problem with leaving the establishment of ethics to science.

Little Kim and the Mullahs aren’t going to use nuclear physics to justify killing. The Mullahs will justify using nukes with some strange religious interpretation — how many times have you heard “religion leads to killing? I have quite a bit.

Kim, I think, is basically bluffing and he will only use nukes if the thinks he can get away with it. If he did though I certainly will not blame Einstein.

Of course, but do you really think he meant them to be taken at face value?

I don’t at least in the sense that it is somehow immoral to practice the scientific method and those who do are destined to be killers.

tribune[25], I agree. I think the entire discussion is somewhat silly though. Is the theory of evolution false because of Hitler? Is nuclear physics wrong because of Kim Jong-Il or the mullahs in Iran? Ben Stein could present any arguments against evolution or in favor of ID, and he chose to bring in Hitler? He forgot rule number one in any discussion: Whoever is first to mention Hitler loses!

Professor Jun-Yuan Chen, an expert on the Cambrian Explosion at Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, famously observed: “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin” (The Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999).

The recent withdrawal of Ben Stein as speaker at UVM’s spring commencement–following a phone call from your office–highlights this very dynamic in U.S. academia. Ironically, in trying to bring the dynamic to the public’s attention in the documentary film “Expelled,” Mr. Stein has become a marked man himself. Evidently it is not only unacceptable to criticize Darwin…it has now become equally unacceptable to highlight that any such dynamic exists!

I regret that so many fine people have now fallen on the field of this battle. I take some comfort from knowing, however, that there will eventually be so many targets that they cannot possibly all be overcome.

[Sent with, I hope, at least as much respect as that displayed by Prof. O here on this blog...]