So, the New York Times fired Ben Stein, ostensibly for cutting an advertisement for a credit-ratings company without first asking for permission. However, the fact that Ben Stein refers to people who believe in evolution as “Neo-Darwinists” ought to be reason enough to terminate his muddled ass. After all, Ben Stein is no fool (try beating him at trivia) and his embrace of Intelligent Design is almost assuredly a schtick he uses to gain fame and fortune from the neanderthals the Republican base relies upon to win elections. I give extra dick points to Stein for quoting Bob Dylan in his own defense.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
.
This is big vindication for Felix Salmon who has waged a war against Ben Stein’s nutty columns since for, well, ever.
Gawker: Conflicts of interest
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Here it is.
Any discussion by proponents of Intelligent Design is neither academic nor scientific.
People like Stein are under the impression that because there are a few crackpots and proselytizers out there who argue against evolution using scientific jargon, there’s “avid scientific disagreement” when, in fact, there is none whatsoever. There is considerable debate over various of the finer aspects of biological evolution, subject to the accumulation of further clarifying evidence, but there is no more dispute over the broad outlines of evolution than there is over the surface gravity of the Earth.
The difference between scientists and creationists is that, yes, scientists acknowledge the gaps in our knowledge and actively seek to fill those gaps. Scientists are also quite open to the possibility that new evidence will shake old conclusions; most of us, in fact, look forward to that sort of thing because it’s an exciting prospect. Creationists, on the other hand, look for gaps in our knowledge just to cast doubt on the edifice of human knowledge. They aren’t interested in filling those gaps because they are already certain that they know all there is to know. And they are certainly not open to surprises, else religion could not continue to exist, at least in anything approaching its current form.
Personally, I am sick to death of these idiots claiming that there is reasonable debate over the existence of evolution or, for that matter, global warming. There’s definitely debate, but it’s no more reasonable than the debate over whether we really landed on the moon or whether the earth is round or whether it gets dark at night.
Does Stein really believe this shit? I don’t really care. I am, however, beginning to think that there ought to be some sort of civil penalty, perhaps under the truth in advertising laws, for promulgating this sort of nakedly fraudulent garbage.
“Neo-Darwinist” isn’t that far off — at least if it’s the “neo” part you’re referring to. Evolution science has moved a long way since Darwin, just as science is supposed to do.
The “Darwinist” part is more troubling to me. It suggests a cult of personality or a religious cult, or at the least, an ideology. It’s understandable that creationists would assume non-believers shared their own fealty to evidence-free belief, but this is precisely where science differs most fundamentally from belief. No one calls those who acknowledge gravity Newtonists, or those who accept the existence of black holes a Hawkingist. But I have a feeling that wasn’t the point of the comment.
“Neo-Darwinists got me fired.” WTF!!!! Ben Stein confabulates again. When you try to connect intelligent design to debate to evolution to journalism to capitalism to business decisions to web based credit reports to paranoia, well….. (you’re rapidly approaching Sarah of Moosylvania territory.) He reminds me how important it is to tell histrionic personalities that, “it wasn’t true love that killed King Kong, it was the god damned planes.”