The American Spectator : Expelled From the New York Times

drudge ette obama| 8.10.09 @ 6:29AM

NYT's loss, our gain.

don G from Memphis| 11.15.09 @ 9:34AM

Actually, I looked at the biz section of the NY Times every few weeks to see if Ben Stein had written anything; I stopped subscribing to the W/E Times when I just found the paper to have gone over the left wing end. Your articles were humorous and enjoyable, and will be missed (I only look at the car section of the NYT now).

Rocco| 8.10.09 @ 6:32AM

Ben, it's a blessing in disguise. That ship is sinking fast. Better to bail now before the rats realize it!

MJ Turkelson| 8.10.09 @ 6:56AM

Ben You light up the dialogue in our great nation. After The Continuing Crisis I immediately proceed to your column upon receipt of my new Spectator.

Since Ben Steins money you have ascended to the upper levels of thought and philosophy. Son of a giant, I bet you are a bit surprised to be approaching giant status yourself. Keep writing and constantly look for new outlets therefore. More of America needs to know of you!!

Greg Jackson, PhD | 8.10.09 @ 7:00AM

I happily tell my friends that I was reading your columns long ago. I tell my college students that you have answered my emails twice. "Expelled" is a great movie - no wonder the NY Times did not like it.

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 7:04AM

Ben Stein: Expelled From the New York Times « Sigmund, Carl and Alfred links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

the New York Times « Sigmund, Carl and Alfred Sigmund, Carl and Alfred We have spoken to your mother. We know everything. Ben Stein: Expelled From the New York Times August 10, 2009 The American Spectator …The first real super problem I had was when the movie I narrated and co-wrote, Expelled–No Intelligence Allowed, was in progress. A “science writer” for the Times…

Darin| 8.10.09 @ 7:08AM

Sir,
The NYT has become more of a glorified tabloid rather than a credible news source, so it's not surprising you were released. The last thing the Times wants is thoughtful dialog which is counter to their worldview. Frankly, I believe you're better off without them.

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 7:25AM

BEN STEIN: Expelled From the New York Times links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

The stories BEHIND the stories that make the eleven o’clock news. Enjoyable, engaging and slightly offbeat. About BEN STEIN: Expelled From the New York Times Posted at August 10, 2009 Expelled From the New York Times Ben Stein | The American Spectator …The whole subject reminds me of a conversation Bob Dylan had long ago with a reporter who asked him what he thought about how much criticism he…

Tenn Slim| 8.10.09 @ 7:44AM

Ben...
Too bad you lost a part of your income. NYT + OBNA + Anti's = demise. You can substitute almost any Company in the NYT variable and get the same result. AMAZING.
We are entering the old Rod Sterling Twilight Zone for sure.
Fortunately, west of the Appalachins and east of the Painted desert lies a land called the Flyover zone, where common sense, fair play, and the John Wayne Code of Behavior rules. Welcome aboard.
Semper fi
end

Kevin Kendrick| 8.10.09 @ 7:54AM

Should a man of your age and stature be eating pizza in airports? I think not . . .

Paul Bunker| 8.10.09 @ 8:01AM

Ben, it is really wonderful that your sister is a truly great philosopher! Nice. Seems the Times has been trying seriously to get sucked down the sewer. And it will.

'08AMA| 8.10.09 @ 8:09AM

The criminals from the Nixon administration, Buchanan, Liddy, Stein... just keep popping up all over the place. what's up with that ? shouldn't they all be in jail or some'm ?

KyMouse| 8.10.09 @ 8:14AM

If there is anything at all good coming out of this disgraceful performance by the NYT, it is that they have proven the claims you made in "Expelled" -- that liberals hate any thoughts which are truly free, and that any opinions which which they disagree are forbidden.

Thank you for all of your work on behalf of America and true freedom of thought.

Denis Higgins| 8.10.09 @ 8:31AM

Stein is contributing to the economic recovery by eating pizza at an airport. More power (pizza) to him!

Bud| 8.10.09 @ 8:36AM

Ben Stein, a national treasure, is no no longer writing for the NYT. Paul Krugman, not competent to carry Mr. Stein's luggage, continues to do so. Enough said.

personal trainer new orleans | 8.10.09 @ 8:39AM

I grew up reading the Times. What they have become is pathetic.

rusty| 8.10.09 @ 8:51AM

Who the h.... reads the New York Times?

Jay| 8.10.09 @ 8:58AM

If I were ever fired by the New York Times it would be my greatest accomplishment ever.

ellis wyatt| 8.10.09 @ 8:58AM

Ben,

I would consider it a badge of honor to be expelled from a "newspaper" for being too objective.

Wayne Johnson | 8.10.09 @ 9:00AM

When they want to move you out, any excuse will do. I wouldn't buy a copy of the NYT if it was the last paper on earth-felt that way for the past 15 years.

Ford| 8.10.09 @ 9:01AM

Q: Who the h.... reads the New York Times?
A: Not me, any more. Last straw.

One more lost subscriber.

owyheewine| 8.10.09 @ 9:03AM

Ben is probably the only person in Sandpoint that is interested in what the New York Times has to say.

Howard| 8.10.09 @ 9:07AM

I'm frankly surprised Ben Stein was hired in the first place by NYT. Because of his guilt by association with the Nixon Administration. A scribe like Stein will always find work.

Robert Gruber| 8.10.09 @ 9:08AM

I always looked forward to reading Stein's column, and am disappointed in the NYT for being as parochial as they now seem to be. At least now I know why I haven't seen his byline these last few weeks.

JohnR| 8.10.09 @ 9:15AM

Just one more example of the Left's hypocrisy. They claim to be the defenders of "diversity" and "tolerance". But, they're just the opposite. They allow NO deviation from the Party Line; they are "diverse" only in their photo-ops, which look like the bar scene from Star Wars.

2Anglico| 8.10.09 @ 9:19AM

Can anyone tell, from the posts above, who reads the bird cage liner (that's mullet wrapper to us crackers) and who does not?

John Rogitz| 8.10.09 @ 9:19AM

Sorry, feeling I've missed something. Ben Stein everyone knows. But the New York who?

OutOurWay| 8.10.09 @ 9:20AM

Ben, I'm not a big fan of contemporary conservative thought. But neither am I a fan of the fawning Obama media - I am a fan of Hillary's and she was savaged by the Olbermanns and Shusters of networks and print. They trashed her along with the DNC and ungrateful women's groups to whom Hillary devoted much of her professional life. Such is the amalgam of forces that did you in at the Times. For an organization that buckled during the Iraq build up and allowed the likes of Jason Blair to run wild to moan about your commercials is a hoot.

It makes me want to stand up and say "hypocrisy...anyone....anyone.....anyone.......Punch......Punch......anyone......."

For what its worth, this left of center Democrat enjoyed your columns and wishes you well.

mrdon| 8.10.09 @ 9:23AM

This says a lot more about the NYT than it does about Ben Stein.

Ran| 8.10.09 @ 9:24AM

Sir,
Congratulations! Being fired from the NY Times is the résumé enhancer. The other great NY Times résumé medal is to have had a Best Seller or a film that they attacked, or better, ignored.

Cheers!

Tim| 8.10.09 @ 9:26AM

God Bless you Mr. Stein. It's a hard road to walk.

Matthew 5:43-48 (New International Version)

Love for Enemies
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Appleby| 8.10.09 @ 9:32AM

To quote a great line from "Victor/Victoria" spoken by the late Robert Preston, "Getting thrown out of this place is only marginally better than being thrown out of a leper colony."

I would so advise the NYT.

Pete| 8.10.09 @ 9:48AM

Ben, call Obama, repent your white male sins and ask if you can be his media Czar. You'll get paid more and answer to no one.

Frank D. Banta| 8.10.09 @ 9:58AM

I understand your disappointment. I am never surprised that my faults have been found out; but it is discouraging when cowards pick a virtue and castigate it as a vice.

It is frightful that there is ever decreasing room for honest dissent in America. Two generations ago we made a conscious decision to substitute political correctness for truth in American society, and that appears to have been a fateful decision as those chickens are coming home to roost across our society.

To be honored among liars is no virtue, so you are well to be rid of them, but it is sometimes difficult to convince our ego that such parting is sweet.

Selfishly, as long as I have access to your thoughtful commentary via some outlet I'm happy. But it's nicer if you are happy too.

john| 8.10.09 @ 9:58AM

Ben Stein, I accuse you of being human, and knowing you are.

Tom| 8.10.09 @ 10:07AM

I will miss your column. Insight and humor are rare commodities at the NY Times.

They've sold their souls to The Joker. Eventually, he'll also throw the NYTimes under the bus.

saberzedge| 8.10.09 @ 10:07AM

Tenn Slim said: "Fortunately, west of the Appalachins and east of the Painted desert lies a land called the Flyover zone, where common sense, fair play, and the John Wayne Code of Behavior rules."

Although my family are several Texan, I was raised mostly in the North and North East because of my father's job. I am thankful that we ended up back in Texas, a state flyover liberals love to hate. Yep, proud to be a Texan, a Republican, a Christian, a NRA member and the proud parent of my two kids at Texas A&M.

JimJam| 8.10.09 @ 10:09AM

Jeez, Mr. Stein, I feel for ya'. I just got laid off by The Baron County Free Shopper News myself! Do ya' think them guys at the Times might take a look at my resume? Hell, I don't even know who Nixon is/was...

Nina| 8.10.09 @ 10:09AM

Why is it that when I think of Ben Stein I smile and when I think of the NYT I frown. My gut tells me Ben is better off.

Dennis Sinclair| 8.10.09 @ 10:26AM

And the NY Times seems incapable of learning and really understanding the reasons it is failing. "Carlos? Carlos Slim? Slim?" Not quite the ring of "Bueller! Bueller." Dennis Sinclair

TANSTAAFL | 8.10.09 @ 10:27AM

Mr. Stein,

We're shocked, shocked I tell you, that the management of the Grey Lady saw fit to march you off the gangplank to placate one or two of their readers/shareholders/White House occupants. It's especially hilarious that anyone associated with managing that teetering wreck of a newspaper can even spell "conflict of interest" much less use it in a complete sentence.

Here at Bludgeon & Skewer we have enjoyed your work for some time and we extend to you an open invitation to join us if you have something to say and nothing better to do. The pay is nonexistent, the readership microscopic and thus the freedom to say what you think is astronomical.

So continue to write where you will and what you will. We will continue to enjoy your work.

Mark30339| 8.10.09 @ 10:28AM

NYT: All the Orthodoxy that's Fit to Print

EmpFab| 8.10.09 @ 10:29AM

God bless the people of Sandpoint, Idaho. Having traveled there several times, I didn't imagine that one could improve upon that lovely little town, until just now, learning that you can't buy The Times there. It really is a kind of paradise!

Jerseyman| 8.10.09 @ 10:37AM

Ben Stein was one of the only reasons I kept getting the sunday Times.
Too bad, the Times used to be required reading. Nowhere else were all the strands of our civilization brought together so concisely.
But about 15 years ago a Gay and far left cabal started taking over what had been the voice of the, admittedly liberal but not insane, establishment.
There's almost nothing left now. Today in respect to Mr Stein ( who always provided a good read, and who feared not to wear his patriotism on his sleeve- a loud and persistant supporter of our warfighters) I cancel my subscription.

Percy| 8.10.09 @ 10:48AM

Ben. If you really want to brush up your resume, put in it that you were expelled from the New York Times. Just don't mention that you worked there for 6 years, it could detract from the accomplishment.

plaasjaapie| 8.10.09 @ 10:48AM

Good! I'm glad you got fired. :-)

A few days ago I decided that I was going to avoid accessing articles over the web published in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and the LA Times so that my hits on their web site wouldn't prolong their eventual well-deserved bankruptcy. Your column in the Times, which I very much enjoyed reading, gave me second thoughts about my decision. Now I don't have to worry about having deprived myself of your NYT column.

It's good you're out of that place. It's been a cesspool for far too long.

NYT=joke| 8.10.09 @ 10:48AM

The New York Times is living on borrowed time. It has become a forum for pseudo-intellectuals (which makes it the perfect source for TV shows) like Tom Friedman. If you regard the New York Times as credible, you are lying to yourself.

Larry| 8.10.09 @ 10:50AM

This is a blessing in surprise. Just ask Carrie Prejean.

Matt Morehouse | 8.10.09 @ 10:54AM

As my wife always says, "Bless those who disappoint you for they are leading you to a better path"

Julian| 8.10.09 @ 10:54AM

Hey Ben, cheer up, you'll look back at this episode soon before you get your first social security benefit check and thank God it happened. Out here in the land of little people, the NY Times is Pravda.

Ted Tsaltas| 8.10.09 @ 10:54AM

I echo several of the comments above. The NYT has lost any claim of objectivity. The scorn of fools is praise to the wise. Liberals all talk about freedom of thought until you disagree with them. Then you must be silenced, and forcefully.
Like Reagan, I did not leave the democratic party, it left me. Watching and listening to them made clear that I, merely as a white professional male, would be persona non grata.
I love your commentary. You are waaay better than the NYT.

Lawrence| 8.10.09 @ 10:58AM

Harry Truman said " the only thing new to learn is the history you don't know." What about the NYT's history. As frivolous as it sounds, back in the 1920s, there were a couple of deadly great white shark attacks of the Jersey shore scaring away tourists. the Times to allay fears, published their version of the news describing this as " as a large fish." SO MUCH FOR HONESTY even in the mundane world before the advent of political correctness. The NYTs has been and always will be a dishonest news organization, biased by agenda, even in the simple. Good luck, and every cloud has a silver lining.

Rodger Lodger| 8.10.09 @ 11:00AM

Ben's column always struck me as strange, too common sensical, too free of cant. The Times, what has happened to my beloved Times? I still read it, of course, but how much does the Democratic party pay it for running their press releases?

Nick in Virginia| 8.10.09 @ 11:01AM

I have an idea for a sure money-maker.

I read over the weekend that Cuba is facing a toilet-paper shortage that they don't expect to resolve until the end of the year. If we were to open an export business and buy up all the NY Times left over at the newsstands every night...

Nah, probably won't work. Even vicious dictators like the Castro brothers have SOME amount of standards.

musqua| 8.10.09 @ 11:02AM

While I sympathise with you, Ben about being dropped for your political views, which I largely share, I have no sympathy for your protests about "Expelled". The NYT should love you for that - you deliberately used all Michael Moore's tactics. And you by God made a documentary that made money. That sort of yellow journalism should make you part of the NYT Hall of Fame.

jakmak| 8.10.09 @ 11:05AM

Years ago, a friend was fired from the crew of a hugely expensive movie in production. That movie went on to be one of the greatest disasters in Hollywood history. And his termination is a point of great pride among his life accomplishments.

William| 8.10.09 @ 11:05AM

Look on the bright side - if NYT keeps on its current decline into readership oblivion, you can write an obituary of - not for - the NYT.

Anyway, it is healthy to get the toxic apparatchiki out of your life.

Not Chicken Little| 8.10.09 @ 11:11AM

Hey, Sandpoint is a great little place, and you're all right too, Ben. Don't sweat it about the NYT - they are just doing what all liberals do, just like a snake is a snake their true nature does not change (unless they happen to wise up at some point in their lives, but usually if they stumble onto the truth they just pick themselves up and keep on moving blindly).

William Collins| 8.10.09 @ 11:19AM

I have a novel idea. Let's have flexible - thinking- people at newspapers who actually appreciate real diversity of thought. Losing my business won't kill them-but I am officially boycotting - lock, stock and barrel. If anyone can read or listen to Ben Stein and not know that he is about promoting real progress, they are hopelessly dim.
They belong nowhere in publishing.

A Former Times Fan| 8.10.09 @ 11:25AM

Long live Ben. Death to the evil NYTimes.
It used to be my news bible. But they have stooped so low as to be unreconizable. Pity the fools who still follow it blindly.

William| 8.10.09 @ 11:31AM

"Nina| 8.10.09 @ 10:09AM
Why is it that when I think of Ben Stein I smile and when I think of the NYT I frown. My gut tells me Ben is better off. "

Nina - I sure do like your litmus test! I have the same reactions you do, and I suspect MILLIONS do. Well said and I hope Mr. Stein reads your post.

dtg| 8.10.09 @ 11:42AM

I didn't know you wrote for the Times. Not a hard guess to see I don't read "all the opinions fit to print".

Doctor Right| 8.10.09 @ 11:43AM

So let me get this straight...

The New York Times...Which is in DEEP financial trouble, and is hemorrhaging readers due primarily to slip-shod journalism and a far-left stance on politics...Has decided to give any remaining Conservative or Moderate readers yet ANOTHER reason to stop reading the Times by tossing Ben Stein overboard..?

Beam me up, Scotty! There's no sign of intelligent life in Mr. Sulzberger's board-room...

hughglass| 8.10.09 @ 11:45AM

The loser here is the Slimes, and both it's readers. Pinchie forgot rule one from his mooslim masters. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. " Ben is too much a gentleman to get nasty....BUT..the slimes has just created another very capable opponent. Give 'em hell Ben.

Trentamj| 8.10.09 @ 11:46AM

Ben:
The minute my editors nixed your article that was critical of the Obama administration, I would have started very carefully measuring the worth of my personal integrity against the value of the NYT's paycheck. It was probably accidental, but they absolutely did you a favor by firing you; indeed, if they wanted to destroy you, then they should have retained you.

Ammo Guy| 8.10.09 @ 11:46AM

I shuddered when I scrolled down to the comments section for this wonderful article by Mr. Stein – I feared a repeat of last week’s freak show concerning a certain country inhabited by a certain people in a certain dangerous part of the world. To my relief, the lads at TAS have kept on top of these invaders and your comments were well worth reading. I can only echo your sentiments so I shan’t bother…other than to say that I betcha Ben and his financial column would be welcome at Steve Forbes’ magazine.

Darwin| 8.10.09 @ 11:46AM

Ben, tell those neo-Darwinists I'm doing just fine up here.

Ruben| 8.10.09 @ 11:48AM

I can't understand how an intelligent man like Ben Stein can fall for the ID theory unless he has some financial deal somewhere.

That said, I think NYT made a great mistake by expelling him.

In the recent years they keep firing the best writers and keeping the boring ones. The good ones surviving have learned how to become a bore too. Oh and liberal, very liberal, so illiberally liberal.

baldwin| 8.10.09 @ 11:51AM

No doubt the poo-bahs have dry eyes. But are they clear? Doubtful.

TMazgal| 8.10.09 @ 11:52AM

Mr Stein, I never knew you wrote for the Times.
I'm sure you'll get another gig, thank-go0dness, because I'd never buy the Times.

Barbara | 8.10.09 @ 11:53AM

Mr. Stein: "No place, not one place, in Sandpoint sells the Times." .....And thank God for that! We in this North Idaho sector are far more concerned with how many dogs we own (six scottish terriers and one blue heeler) and how long the wait will be to get our pizza from 2nd Avenue Pizza. Also, I am purt near positive The Almost Daily Bee will add you as a columnist!
I loved your "Expelled" movie and hope to catch a "Ben Stein" sighting next time I'm cooling my heels, stuck in traffic behind a cattle truck in downtown Sandpoint.

a.men| 8.10.09 @ 11:54AM

Ben, the NYT is nuts. Good luck in all your future endeavors. We will support you.

pat | 8.10.09 @ 12:00PM

When the Gray Lady lies deep in the bay, you will be dry on the shore,pencil in hand. It's a blessing is disguise.

Doctor Right| 8.10.09 @ 12:02PM

@ Ruben:

I, personally, can't understand how an intelligent man can fall for Darwinism, which HAS NOT been proven, which has holes in it's theoretical foundation bigger than The Chunnel, and which postulates, at it's core, that:

1. Nothingness somehow figured out how to produce something-ness
2. Lifeless, inanimate matter somehow felt "compelled" to organize itself, despite the fact that it was lifeless, inanimate, and devoid of any sensory apparatus that would cause it to be "compelled".

Sorry, Ruben...But Darwinian Evolution is...Dare I say it...Not a Fact. It's not even a real Theory. It's a base hypothesis.

And to it's adherents, Darwinism is a religion.

Kali| 8.10.09 @ 12:05PM

The only major draw back that Mr. Stein suffers from is when he says that americans need to pay more taxes. Mr. Stein you should pay more taxes. get your check book out and write a check. for me I would like your check to take the place of any taxes I pay for welfare programs, global warming farce, cap and crap, etc. I don't mind paying for interstate roads and the military.

Peter Wynne| 8.10.09 @ 12:06PM

Ben, The advertisements that you do have more integrity than the NYT plus they are entertaining. Pinch , Bill Keller and the other yahoos are as out of touch with this country as the far left liberal politicians that they pimp. I look forward to your next gig.

Paige| 8.10.09 @ 12:08PM

Hi Ben,

Too bad Expelled revealed you're a kook.

david| 8.10.09 @ 12:17PM

Ben Stein's film Expelled was brimming with misinformation and occasionally flat out propaganda. People are free to express both, but don't be surprised when it's critically panned and shot down by the scientific community (which it was). To make such a film that distorts so many facts is a direct assault on the educators of the country who are desperately trying to keep our kids on par with other first world nations (who teach facts, not unicorns). I feel like I'm in freaking crazy town. In this article, Ben keeps referring to his film as the "real" reason he was fired. Yet, like in his movie, he offers no evidence to prove his point. Only a series of logical fallacies.

Westman | 8.10.09 @ 12:23PM

I have the utmost respect for Ben Stein. Thank you, Sir, for standing up for truth, and against error (such as Darwinism).

valwayne| 8.10.09 @ 12:24PM

Take heart Mr. Stein. The NYT has become nothing more than an Obama propoganda rag. Your column was just too much of a threat to Obama to be tolerated! Intelligent people who aren't committed left wing Obama worshippers now have one less reason to read it, hopefully hastening its decline and probable bankrupcy. In a period in which the White House urges some Americans to become spies and turn in the names of Opponents of Obamacare to the White House, in which elderly Americans and the Handicapped are designated Unamerican by high Government officials for speaking out at townhalls, and now the expulsion of Ben Stein by the Great New York Times for having an idea or ideas at all critical of the Government and Obama? How does it feel to join the ranks of those oppressed by a Government, and its minions, seeking to stifle dissent and the free expression of ideas? It can and is happening here!

GFR| 8.10.09 @ 12:25PM

Why would the NYT bother to do this?

How will this help their bottom line?

Who at the NYT or it's parent company is so powerful that it is willing to run the paper into the ground rather than offend obama?

Why don't the NYT board of directors revolt?

MFB| 8.10.09 @ 12:27PM

Ben, do not despair, The New York Times represents The Inquisition Tribunal of this Dark Age. This period in our country will be scrutinize in the future by better men, and this kind of unjust leaders will recieve the scorn and horror they deserve. Base on their partisan actions, they will be judge. Everything on this earth is a matter of time.

Greg| 8.10.09 @ 12:27PM

Ben,
It is a shame that the NY Times did not appreciate you, your talent, or your work. I wish you the best in all your future endeavors.

RAB88| 8.10.09 @ 12:28PM

Ben,
I am thankful that you don't write for "the times" any longer. Now I can actually read you because I refuse to support that liberal rag. I look forward to reading your future articles wherever they might be published.

Bob| 8.10.09 @ 12:31PM

David, you are absolutely correct about the difference between science and belief. Those who think "Intelligent (and I use that word loosely) Design" is a scientific theory probably still don't walk completely upright.

As to the NYT, they have a primarily liberal readership. I doubt whether many people who frequent this site subscribe to that newspaper. When the comments or contributors cross the line between intelligent discourse and lunacy, it hurts their readership. IT IS A BUSINESS ISSUE.

This is similar to the fact that Fox News will not hire strong liberal hosts since that will turn off their audience.

Personally, I liked to hear Stein's comments on economics, but he must have suffered from multiple personality syndrome because many of his other beliefs are downright crazy.

Besides, crying over spilled milk is not something we should encourage -- and this article, trying to find excuses, is not something that a grown responsible man should do.

Yardo| 8.10.09 @ 12:38PM

Ben -

Tour story reminds me of a short-story written by O. Henry of the ex-con who repeatedly tried to do something wrong so he could re-enter prison where they would take care of him. When he finally decided to change his ways and live a fruitful and productive life, a policeman came along and took him to jail for something meaningless (or even contrived) like vagrancy, or loitering.

Doctor Right?| 8.10.09 @ 12:40PM

Doctor Right,
Evolution is a proven Theory. You need to brush up on your scientific terminology. Evolution has been supported by decades of research and it's basic tenants are no currently in dispute by the scientific community at large, both faithful and atheistic scientists alike.

The points #1 and #2 you make are philosophical questions, not scientific ones. Keep you religion in theology class, your philosophy in philosophy class and your science in science class.

Cecelia Cox| 8.10.09 @ 12:43PM

Dear Mr. Stein,
I have enjoyed reading your NYT Sunday Business column for so long I almost feel like I know you! I recall especially the column you wrote when your daughter went off to Davidson College. I remember one time recently you casually mentioned you were a Republican, which surprised me, because I thought David Brooks was the only Republican the Times would let write columns for them! I will very much miss your column. I am generally speaking a "liberal" on many issues but on the topic of "Intelligent Design" -- someone, I think it might have been CS Lewis, once said, it takes a WAY bigger "leap of faith" to believe in random chance resulting in our glorious universe than to believe in an Intelligent Designer. Best wishes on your new projects.

jim Spence| 8.10.09 @ 12:52PM

To David . . . just keep watching those Mikie Moore films! Your weakened brain can't be damaged any more than it already is!

JIM WHITTAKER, Hemet, CA| 8.10.09 @ 12:52PM

It's like getting expelled from the Nazi party...

DeadMediaWalking| 8.10.09 @ 1:04PM

Ben, it's obvious that your list of mentors had an omission that would have probably redeemed you in the eyes of the NYT: Jayson Blair.

BC| 8.10.09 @ 1:10PM

While there are two sides to every story it is disquieting when any general news publication does not confine their lean to the editorial pages but also trys to infuse their editorial slant in their news stories and choice of non ideological columnists. Regardless of liberal or conservative the NYTIMES has been headed down this path especially in the last couple of years leaving readers without the objectivity necessary for the NYT to continue to call themselves the paper of record. One should read a variety of news sources anyway and in particular I think I'm going to stick with The Economist which has a lot of info about the world instead of the narrow US centric focus of most American newsmedia.

Carrie| 8.10.09 @ 1:15PM

Thank you, Mr. Stein, for being unafraid in this day and age to speak your mind. The New York Times is a victim of its bloated ego and lack of self-introspection. You have your ego and self-perception firmly in check. Welcome to the ranks of those who are intelligent enough not to rely on the NYT for real news.

Alex Kroll| 8.10.09 @ 1:20PM

Don't talk down about Ben Stein, Ben Stein. That's OUR Ben Stein you're talking about. Long life, Ben, and as much happiness as you bring us. Which is lots. Besides, those NYT commissars will turn on each other with even more spectacular violence.

Brad Jensen | 8.10.09 @ 1:23PM

Ben, as my saintly father says, "Don't get mad, get even."

Wy not do a little expose journalism on other columnists and writers at the times, and their actual conflicts of interest? Or how about some things on the coziness of Goldman Sachs with certain journalists?

You might do something for journalism and the future of our country, in the process.

Frank C.| 8.10.09 @ 1:26PM

Frankly, I like the NYT - it fits the bottom of my bird cage.

Douglas Sharpe| 8.10.09 @ 1:34PM

Thank you, Mr. Stein, for your beautiful NYT business column that is now, I think wrongly, ended. Perhaps I'm being a little too critical toward some of those who wrote the comments that are appended to your American Spectator article. But it seems that some of them, in praising you, may have dismissed -- as if it were an unimportant element in your message -- your statement, "There were some great people there [at the New York Times], really standup people. I got to love some of them." I am sure that many of them are, and that you have.

Someone, I forget who, said, "All human institutions are corrupt." I think that is correct. I worry about The New York Times, in a way that the paper's management would be worried if they weren't so distracted by their being full of themselves. Even so, if the NYT were to crash on the rocks and sink, I would be sad.

Anyway, I thank you again. You are a wonderful writer.

marc S.| 8.10.09 @ 1:40PM

You were fired for not slavishly supporting Obama. See, what you were missing Ben is that the NYT is not actually a newspaper. It is a Liberal PAC. And in a PAC, you do not criticize their anointed one.

Your firing is good for you, bad for them. NYT is becoming increasingly irrelevent and alienting writers like you just hurries them more quickly down that path. Insolvency won't be far behind.

Is it not interetsing that the more liberal papers are the ones in the worst financial jam, while others like the WSJ and USA Today, are healthy.

Mandelay| 8.10.09 @ 1:40PM

Many in the NYT and many in the Dem party have become the very thing they said they hated. And attacks on free speech have been increasing lately, Mr. Stein. Attacks from the Dem party. How puzzling is this?
You're in good company, Mr. Stein. Millions of American citizens have, just this week, been labeled as "Un-American" by our own Speaker of the House. And only because they dared to open their mouths and disagree with the menu we will be forced to eat.
You're in good company. I don't always agree with what you say, but you have every right to say it. And, whether I agree with you or not, you always say it well. Loved your sis' insight and also the quote from Dylan. Be well!

larry vaughan| 8.10.09 @ 1:47PM

fired from the ministry of truth?..how awful!

alaska_badger| 8.10.09 @ 1:49PM

Re Doctor Right and "Doctor Right?":
1. "Evolution is a proven theory.." Proven by whom?

2. Doctor Right's points 1&2 aren't "scientific questions..." Spoken like a true proponent of Scientism (the religion, not the field of study)

The heck they're NOT scientific questions! Science has the responsibility to try to ascertain "why", just as importantly as "what".

You prove Ben's point, which is that neo-Darwinists and followers of Scientism will brook no debate... just as one is free to attack our government institutions and principles from the left, but not from the right!

James Wimbrow| 8.10.09 @ 1:49PM

Ben : Did anyone run the the Obama column that the NYTs refused to print? I would love to read it.

RKL| 8.10.09 @ 1:53PM

I used to be a moderate Democrat who believed that this "the press has a strong liberal bias" theme was probably greatly exaggerated. Then came the 2008 primaries and I began to pay closer attention ... it wasn't pretty! And what the NY Times has become since Obama won the election is absolutely appalling. Anyway, I am no longer a Democrat, but Mr. Stein, for what it's worth, I am a fan of yours! Really, it's probably an honor to be canned from that propaganda machine.

Cathy| 8.10.09 @ 1:53PM

I never read the NYT so I wasn't even aware you had a column there. Anyway, good riddance to them, you are too good for them in any event. Now if we could just get of that irritating woman on the Progressive commercial and substitute Stein. That would be a hoot!

Tony in Central PA| 8.10.09 @ 1:56PM

Back in my neighborhood we had a saying about a kid if he was a bully, " He can dish it out, but he can't take it ". This describes so much of what we now have in the media and at the federal level of government. Bullies are always cowards, and cowards, when they are finally exposed, receive the derision they deserve.

alaska_badger| 8.10.09 @ 1:57PM

Flo is the only reason Progressive commercials bear watching at all! She's a JEWEL!!

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 2:07PM

You got canned because your writing sucks. They used the Freecreditreport.com as an excuse. You have made everyone here dumber by posting this crap. Go pat yourself on the back in front of someone who cares like your sister.

Allen Woodhouse| 8.10.09 @ 2:08PM

Ben is a good guy and a man of integrity. We need him on Fox as a regular.

UmpireD| 8.10.09 @ 2:10PM

Gotta tell you Ben, if this wasn't so indicative of the leaning of this country to the far left this might be comical. First people are "un-american for speaking their minds" and "people need to stay out of the way so that the libs (read: Obama) can fix things" and now.... "Ben Stein must go!" This gets a little scarier every day..... more to come...............

sbone| 8.10.09 @ 2:13PM

I have been collecting the nytimes from the recycle bin to house break my dog. That paper gives my dog constipation. With you gone, neither me nor my dog has any future use for that rag.

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 2:16PM

I could care less if you wrote about George Bush being the best president since Abraham Lincoln or if you thought Darwin was a closet fan of "INtelligent Design". The fact is you got fired because you are incompetent. Notice how you are stuck writing to sheep on American Spectator? 1 out of 10 will question your ideas here. That way you won't feel like the left is attacking you for your beliefs. Deal with it you got canned now move on.

Bobb Dobbs| 8.10.09 @ 2:18PM

Two things. The NYT sucks. And Stein acted unethically.

Oh, and Stein endorsed Al Franken.

E| 8.10.09 @ 2:19PM

Sanderson, you are one angry Pixie!

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 2:29PM

"On May 14, 2006, during an appearance on the Fox News program Your World with Neil Cavuto, Stein called for a tax increase of 3.5% for wealthy Americans, to be earmarked for soldiers and military initiatives. Indeed, Stein wrote an editorial for The New York Times critical of those who would rather make money in the world of finance than fight terrorism"

Here's to taxing the rich sheeple.

NoMOreTimes| 8.10.09 @ 2:31PM

I only bought the New York times to line my kitty litter box.

TJ Dillon| 8.10.09 @ 2:33PM

FreeScore.com has an "F" rating with the Better Business Bureau for a pattern of complaints with unauthorized charges to consumers’ credit cards.
It's call integrity Mr. Stein. Get some.

Patty| 8.10.09 @ 2:34PM

Ben: What a sweet man you seem to be. And a clear thinker on top of that. I especially like your comments about the internet - there does seem to be an overabundance of frustrated negativity on the internet. I wonder sometimes if its the rapid eye movements combined with the sitting for prolonged periods of time...

I wish you all the best and will be looking for your next project.

SIncerely.

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 2:35PM

Here's another Stein intelligent quote:

"On March 18, 2007, in a column for CBS News' online version of CBS News Sunday Morning, Stein famously proclaimed in the beginning of the subprime mortgage crisis that the foreclosure problem would "blow over and the people who buy now, in due time, will be glad they did," the economy was "still very strong," and the "smart money" was "now trying to buy — not sell — as much distressed merchandise" in mortgages as possible".

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 2:36PM

On August 18, 2007, on Fox News Channel's Cavuto on Business, Stein appeared with other financial experts dismissing worries of a coming credit crunch. The lone dissenter was Peter Schiff, who predicted that the mortgage sector would create a crisis leading to massive recession, a view that produced laughter from the other experts. Stein strongly recommended investing in then-troubled financial institutions

defeated pigss| 8.10.09 @ 2:39PM

Ben Stein: The credit crunch is way overblown. The [financial institutions] are being given away; they're so unbelievably cheap...The subprime problem is a problem, but it's a tiny problem in the context of this economy...It's a buying opportunity, especially for the financials, maybe like I've never seen before in my entire life.

[...]

Peter Schiff: This is just getting started. It's not just subprimes. This is a problem for the entire mortgage industry. It's not just people with bad credit that committed to mortgages they couldn't afford. It's not just people with bad credit who are going to see their home equity vanish... This is going to be an enormous credit crunch...

Neil Cavuto: You must be a laugh-riot at parties.

(LAUGHTER)

[...]

Ben Stein: ...subprime is tiny. Subprime is a tiny, tiny blip.

Peter Schiff: It's not tiny. And again, it's not just subprime. It's the entire mortgage market.

Ben Stein: You're simply wrong about that... Defaults for the whole mortgage market are tiny.

[...]

Ben Stein: I think stocks will be a heck of a lot higher a year from now than they are now.

A year and a month later, in the Global Financial Crisis of September 2008, global stock markets crashed, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the US government, AIG was bailed out by the Federal Reserve, Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America Corporation, and Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs confirmed that they would become traditional bank holding companies.

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 2:43PM

Though often labeled as a political and economic conservative, Stein has criticized the U.S. tax code for being too lenient on the wealthy. He has repeated the observation made by Warren Buffett, one of the richest individuals in the world (who pays mostly capital gains tax), that Buffett pays a lower overall tax rate than his secretaries (who pay income taxes). Stein has advocated increasing taxation on the wealthy

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 2:45PM

Looney:

[Stein] co-wrote and stars in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a film that aims to persuade viewers that the theory of evolution was instrumental to the rise of the eugenics movement, Nazi Germany, and the Holocaust, and portrays advocates of intelligent design as victims of intellectual discrimination by the scientific community, which has rejected intelligent design as creationist pseudoscience.

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 2:48PM

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Stein was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League for the use of the Holocaust to further an anti-evolution agenda.

Big Leo| 8.10.09 @ 2:48PM

Last year, I read my son's college biology book. He goes to ASU here in Arizona. The whole book had over six hundred pages, six of which dealt with evolution. That's six, not six hundred. Most biological science doesn't require belief or disbelief in random macroevolution. You can get a sold A without any knowledge of it whatsoever. Of course, any sensible person would learn what the best arguments for a Darwinian random evolution . It's the predominant paradigm. However, treating it as a shibboleth that automatically casts the doubter into the outer darkness reveals it for what it is-- a secular religion. As science, it is an interesting theory, though pretty dubious in my opinion. As a religion, it of course has no scientific standing whatsoever.

Its proponents should decide whether they want Darwinism to be treated as a scientific belief open to doubt and debate, or a religious belief that is beyond questioning, at least by the faithful. They can't have it both ways.

joe ptak| 8.10.09 @ 2:50PM

You write for an organization that prints lies and you say nothing.

Now you complain when they let you go.

Go away...you have no credibility.

Dan| 8.10.09 @ 2:53PM

Oh well Newspapers are about to go the way of the dinosaurs anyway.
I wish the Liberal left would follow right along behind them!

Lubar Gumler| 8.10.09 @ 2:53PM

Ben, I fired the whole staff at the NYT a long time ago (but not because of you).

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 2:54PM

Why is Stein so infatuated with Nazism?:

Stein drew fire for a 2008 interview with Glenn Beck in which Stein compared US President Barack Obama's campaign rally at Invesco Field to Adolf Hitler's Nazi rallies at Nuremberg. The Economist called Stein's invocation of Nazism an intentional use of logical fallacy to distract from the campaign. Quite notably Ben Stein endorsed Democrat Al Franken in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, calling him an "impressive guy".

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 3:02PM

At the very least, you got fired because your a crackpot. Great actor though. Stay away from the crazy pills.

hoonbelly | 8.10.09 @ 3:06PM

Badge of Honor.

John H| 8.10.09 @ 3:18PM

Two words regarding the firing of Ben Stein and the intellectual dishonesty at the NYT: Jayson Blair.

Quit too soon| 8.10.09 @ 3:19PM

I wish I hadn't stopped buying the NY Times 3 months ago because I could quit now instead.

Oakie| 8.10.09 @ 3:32PM

I grew up reading the NYT's (for 20+years everyday). But when I saw the 9/11 Commission hearing on C-Span and then read the NYT's account the next day, they lost ALL credibility with me. I cancelled my subscription.

I could always catch Ben on-line...

keep up your great work Ben.

Ichneumon | 8.10.09 @ 3:43PM

["Expelled was a plea for open discussion of the possibility that life might have started with an Intelligent Designer."]

Gee, Ben, if it was a "plea for open discussion", maybe you should have stuck to that and not used the majority of your time engaging in the most vile kind of distortion and vicious propaganda. "I just want to have an open discussion with you fools, liars, racists, eugenicists, and Hitlers, so I'll start by distorting biology!" Way to poison the well, guy...

Before you can have an academic debate, you need to know how to conduct one without becoming a conservative echo of Michael Moore's reprehensible techniques. As a conservative, I especially dislike it when one of our own stoops to that level and makes our side look bad.

I've been studying evolutionary biology, and "Intelligent Design" (and its precursor, "scientific creationism") for about 35 years now, and while evolutionary biology has only gotten stronger every year with mountains of new evidence along multiple independently cross-confirming lines, "ID" just keeps striking out -- it isn't dropped from schools by being "expelled", it flunks out as not being adequate science.

I've read every "ID" claim I can get my hands on, including the books and essays by Behe, Dembski, Meyer, and (*cough*) Stein, but they all miss the boat by being fallacious or cheap propaganda, not positive scientific evidence *for* ID. It all falls into a few major categories:

1. "I have a criticism of evolutionary biology, therefore ID." This is the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Trying to knock down evolution doesn't strengthen ID. It's possible *both* could be wrong. It's not an "either/or" choice. Some third (and/or fourth, and/or fith, etc.) explanation, perhaps ones not even yet conceived, could end up being the real deal. Worse, even the purported "problems" with evolution have major problems themselves, such as Behe's "irreducible complexity" which is fatally flawed in several ways (see my post #35 here: http://tinyurl.com/9s93p )

2. "Wow, that sure is complicated or intricate, therefore ID." This is the fallacy of the 'argument from ignorance', which in simple form is "I can't think of any other way this could happen other than the one way I can think of, so it must have happened this way". Um, no. That's a variation on the false dichotomy fallacy again. Your lack of imagination doesn't constitute proof for the one or two things you can imagine. Nor does something "looking like" a manmade machine mean it necessarily came about by similar methods, unless you can locate "tool marks" or a copyright notice or other positive physical evidence *for* its manufacture. To learn about how positive evidence works, see my post #401 here: http://tinyurl.com/b7yql

3. "Hitler!" Excuse me a moment while I roll my eyes. This, and other attempts to slur evolutionary biology ("Darwin was a racist!!", etc.) are vile examples of the fallacy of the ad hominem -- making personal attacks or guilt by association instead of arguing the facts. Nor would this disprove evolution nor prove ID even if Hitler really had abused evolutionary biology as an excuse for his crimes. And he didn't -- Hitler's handwritten notes actually cite the Bible, not Darwin, in a speech he publicly ridiculed the idea that man had evolved from apes, and the few notions from biology that Hitler abused -- selective breeding, culling "inferiors", superior races or bloodlines -- pre-dated Darwin by thousands of years. Darwin's contributions to biology were the realization that nature left to itself can also perform the kind of selection that farmers do to their herds, and that this can lead not just to new varieties, but new species, because nature acts on a grander scale and over larger periods of time than humans do. Nothing in this helps Hitler, he wasn't interested in letting nature take its course, nor in creating a new species. Blaming Darwin for Hitler is just despicably dishonest, but Ben Stein did so in a heavy-handed manner in "Expelled".

["This idea, that freedom of academic discussion on an issue as to which there is avid scientific disagreement has value, seems obvious to me."]

It seems obvious to me too, which is why I fully support the right of scientists and academics to discuss it (and have been myself participating in avid debate on the topic for over thirty years now), as long as they stick to the facts and avoid propaganda and falsehoods and fallacies, which unfortunately for you means that "intelligent design" flunks every time it is fairly considered. I do not however support your attempts to attack valid science with blatant BS as a Trojan Horse for your religious beliefs in public schools.

["But it drives the atheists and neo-Darwinists crazy and they responded viciously."]

No, Ben, what "drives the atheists and neo-Darwinists crazy" is how you ID guys lie and spin and propagandize and use multiple fallacies while pretending to be doing an "academic discussion". The "atheists and neo-Darwinists" clearly have a far higher respect for truth and fair debate than you do, which is rather ironic.

Furthermore, if you were actually interested in an academic debate and not a stealth religious agenda, you wouldn't keep petulantly whining about how your opponents are "atheists". Just how dense do you have to be to keep going, "it's us IDers against the atheists, but we aren't about promoting religion, we swear."

["They confused (or some of them seemingly confused ) FreeScore with other companies that did not have FreeScore's unblemished record with consumer protection agencies. (FreeScore has a perfect record.) "]

Wow... I see that Ben is as dishonest and/or gullible here as he is when he spouts nonsense about biology. In actual fact, FreeScore.com has an "F" rating at the Better Business Bureau site, and a simple Google search for FreeScore.com turns up a vast number of warnings and complaints about them. "Unblemished record"? "Perfect record"? Ben, you're making a fool of yourself. Don't try to play the martyr here, you messed up, and it's grossly disingenuous of you to try to play it as some kind of conspiratorial "takedown" by "atheists and neo-Darwinists" when the stated reason for your dismissal -- your shilling for a scam site -- is a valid reason on its own.

Jeff| 8.10.09 @ 4:01PM

It is truly insulting that American Spectator continues to sponsor this guy after his film lying that Darwin caused the Holocaust and that Intelligent Design is a secular, legitimate science.

This is a moral harm tantamount to Holocaust deniers or moon hoaxers.

Cathy| 8.10.09 @ 4:02PM

Flo a jewel? Hardly. She is not easy on the eyes and then when she opens her mouth, it is confirmed. She is an irritating woman. If we had Stein on there, at least we know what to expect with him. And it would be hilarious to watch him with his monotone voice and deadpan stare.

Dan| 8.10.09 @ 4:04PM

You know the issue, to me at least, has nothing to do with intelligent design vs the Darwinists.
Whats bothers me is the liberals that are the editors in charge at newspapers like the NYT, seem to have a hard time presenting both sides on any given issue be it evolution, gun control, abortion, etc.
For the most part I think they know that they are out of step with main street America, and they know its a waste of time trying to deny their bias.

American Loudspeaker | 8.10.09 @ 4:07PM

http://american-loudspeaker.blogspot.com/

Doug Welty| 8.10.09 @ 4:08PM

It's been way more than five or six years since I bought a copy of the New York Times.

Sorry to have missed all your columns, Ben. And Sandpoint sounds like an awfully nice place.

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 4:11PM

Expelled From the New York Times « THE BLACK KETTLE links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Some of them started a campaign against me in various forums, including letters to the Times. [...] The one set of intellectual thugs worse than the global warming fantacists are the Darwinistas. MORE Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) The Times inconsistency on kidnapping coverage Two Scientists, Two Standards Rev. Wright: ‘Paranoid… madman… more dangerous’ (than Holocaust…

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 4:13PM

Goodies2Choose » Blog Archive » Today’s Goodies links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Goodies2Choose » Blog Archive » Today’s Goodies « Today’s Goodies Today’s Goodies August 10th, 2009 by Mr. Goodbar Big Ben The worst of Times, yet again High Noonan An uprising against change they don’t believe in Bigg Benn Why a renewed “peace process” is going nowhere Radical Fatah Where have all the “moderate”…

jr| 8.10.09 @ 4:23PM

Ben, old boy, you are nearing one of those milestones of Americans. According to Wiki, you are currently 64, almost 65 years old. As such you will be among those who will be cast aside by the gubermint - denied by the Democrats and liberals. Keep plugging Ben, there is probably a hot spot still available on Foxnews. Perhaps with another good one there will be less time there for repeats of Michael Jackson stuff and the plane-copter crash in NY. For you see, I'm not from NY and the tragedies there are too bad, but there is a bit of other real estate in the US not being blanketed by over-coverage. There is still plenty of room at other newspapers such as the Wapo and LAT but you may have to change your sympathies.

Marc Jeric| 8.10.09 @ 4:25PM

I was struck by the comment made above by "Julian" - he called the NY Times "Pravda". Having escaped from a communist country back in 1957, I lived and worked in France 5 years waiting for my immigrant-refugee visa for the USA. Finally I arrived to this country of freedom i 1962. Reading the various newspapers here I started calling the NYT "The New York Pravda" - there was little difference in their coverage. They call themselves "liberal", "progressive", "democratic" but they really are marxist.

2Anglico| 8.10.09 @ 4:29PM

Good job Ben, you rattled the troll cage and they are gnashing their teeth here and now. Too funny!

timeflies| 8.10.09 @ 4:39PM

Cancelled my NYT subscription last month, after 20+ years. Only thing I missed was Stein's biz column. Now I don't have to. Won't go back, and hope he doesn't either.

defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 4:45PM

I canceled my NYT subscription because they gave Stein a forum to rant but now that he is fired, I will resubscribe.

William 5| 8.10.09 @ 4:51PM

To Big Leo and others who continue to question Darwin's Theory of Evolution: oh, here's an interesting quote from Big Leo: "Its proponents should decide whether they want Darwinism to be treated as a scientific belief open to doubt and debate, or a religious belief that is beyond questioning, at least by the faithful."

Please buy a clue about science, and scientific theory before you try to make a point. Here's how it works, it simple simple form: The theory comes first "here's what I think", says the scientist. The scientist then presents proof (through models, experiments, the like) to back up his or her theory. Often times, other scientists, either from the era, or following, will test that Theory. "is he right?" is their question, and then they go through the process of presenting their evidence either for or against.

Darwin's "Thoery" was presented in 1858 (his famous book was published in 1859). It's been tested, questioned, modeled, experimented with, argued for and against, etc. for over 150 years.

He hasn't been proven wrong yet.

So, Leo, when you say "Its proponents should decide whether they want Darwinism to be treated as a scientific belief open to doubt and debate", I wonder what you mean. We have decided. It is open to debate, on a scientific level, and has been for over 150 years. And it hasn't yet been disproved.

Do the work, mate, present your findings, your argument, prove him wrong.

Good luck and God Bless!

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 4:55PM

Ben Stein Hints: I Was Fired From New York Times For Criticizing Obama | My 2 Cents W links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…New York Times columnist over the appearance of conflict of interest arising from his role as a spokesperson for credit rating service FreeScore.com, took to the American Spectator Monday to explain why he thinks he was “expelled from the New York Times. “ In particular, Stein hinted that it was not his endorsement of FreeScore.com that proved problematic for Times editors, but his recent…

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 5:02PM

Ben Stein Hints: I Was Fired From New York Times For Criticizing Obama | My 2 Cents W links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…New York Times columnist over the appearance of conflict of interest arising from his role as a spokesperson for credit rating service FreeScore.com, took to the American Spectator Monday to explain why he thinks he was “expelled from the New York Times. “ In particular, Stein hinted that it was not his endorsement of FreeScore.com that proved problematic for Times editors, but his recent…

William 5| 8.10.09 @ 5:04PM

By the way, Mr. Stein, I actually enjoy your writings, I actually have a subscription to the NYT, and have thoroughly enjoyed your columns over the years.

That movie was quite silly tho. Perhaps I'll send my daughter, who wants to be an engineer, to the Pat Robertson University, instead of Purdue. Maybe, with a great deal of prayer, she'll figure out how to build bridges, rather than learn from other engineers and scientists.

Brad W.| 8.10.09 @ 5:04PM

It's funny how quickly people flock to social conservatism when a liberal is in the White House. Stein's Intelligent Design theories are asinine, as are most of his financial columns. He is quite the entertainer though.

tim| 8.10.09 @ 5:16PM

Love you Ben! You'll survive. The New York Times won't.

PShoptaw| 8.10.09 @ 5:24PM

Ben,
The rules of the game are changing. You don't have to do anything wrong in the times of Obama to get axed. Remeber, " Obama wants to be ready to rule on day on." I forgot which of his aids/czars said that on Chris Wallace's show.

Talis| 8.10.09 @ 5:34PM

LOL
Ben you were fired for conflicts. Get over it.
And your mentioning the GM issue is disingenuious. Wagoner wasnt fired by the US governement you rightwing crank. Why do you righties insist on lying when you know it incites the lunatics in your party? He may have been pressured but the US gov does not have the ability to fire him. Do your research a bit better at your next job and maybe you can keep it.
And while we are at it please produce your birth certificate as Obama has done. I dont believe you are an American citizen.........

Talis| 8.10.09 @ 5:36PM

I will now buy a subscription for all the members of my family since they let you go. You are an embarrassment to all Americans.

G. Moore | 8.10.09 @ 5:38PM

It's clear that the readers of "American Spectator" are filled with hope that one day they all will wake up to find that McCain-Palin really won the election... The commentators on this article show the minimal maturity it takes to get a driver's license... Ben included...

He wants to sucker all of you fools into believing Obama got him fired... Looks like he did!

All the hate in the world you readers have for Obama, and people who don't look and act like you won't change a thing... Obama will get elected again, and you "teabaggers" will have to find another reason to hide your foolish tears behind. Maybe you'll start blaming Michael Steele...

Ben Stein got fired because no one really wants to read what he has to say except you wingnuts!!! Just like Bill Kristol and the rest of you, you all are living far in the past... Not even your willingness to perform political violence will change the inevitable. White people are no longer the majority in America.

P.S. After Obama finishes his 8 years, expect a Mexican-American to take his place.

Sam| 8.10.09 @ 5:44PM

Ben, give me a break, your claims about being fired for criticizing Obama are pathetic and ridiculous. Take some responsibility for your own actions and don't blame this on Obama.

Despite all the whining about the liberal media, most of the media is in the hands of right wing corporations who are happy to lie to further their agenda. I am sure you can find plenty of newspapers to write for.

William 5| 8.10.09 @ 5:46PM

Talis - don't waste your breath, tho perhaps I should take the same advice.

It's kinda fun tho, no?

How do you argue with people who supported the Bush initiated bailout of multi-billion dollar corporations, which we grunts are paying for, but label Obama a Socialist?

Obama was crucified for saying he wanted to spread the wealth around... well Bush did spread the wealth around. Hey righties, did you see the bonuses being paid to taxpayer bailed out Goldman Sachs this quarter? Averaged $700K per person. How much of that are you gonna see? Oh, you're not, you're like me, a grunt, we're ponying up $12K a pop.

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 5:59PM

Ben Stein: The New York Times fired me for criticizing Obama | Mofo Politics | Hoping links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…last week claimed it has fired Ben Stein over the appearance of a conflict of interest arising from Stein’s role as spokesperson for credit rating service FreeScore.com. But Stein wrote today in the American Spectator that he was fired for criticizing Obama: The two main things, as I see them, were that I started criticizing Mr. Obama quite sharply over his policies and practices. I had tried to…

The Cheerful Oncologist| 8.10.09 @ 6:13PM

Ben, your intelligence, wit, patience, generosity, insight and devotion to our country have inspired us to become better parents, spouses and citizens. Long after the Times is gone will you be remembered, which is more than I can say for the seething, puerile know-nothings who infest a peculiar corner of the nation's attic known as the Left Wing.

independent observer| 8.10.09 @ 6:21PM

Ben, I have read your columns in various media (and enjoyed reading some of them), but to tell you the truth, I am glad you were fired and here's why: I am tired of media not giving more young people a chance. I would like to see Andy Rooney fired and a whole bunch of other people, too. They have had their jobs (and the spotlight) for long enough. Some people would like to be able to have an income to report to Social Security someday, and you've got enough to report. So, get your own little free blog and write away. For those struggling to pay their rent or mortgage or put food on the table, maybe it's their turn for a short at a column at the NY Times and elsewhere.

independent observer| 8.10.09 @ 6:22PM

Ben, I have read your columns in various media (and enjoyed reading some of them), but to tell you the truth, I am glad you were fired and here's why: I am tired of media not giving more young people a chance. I would like to see Andy Rooney fired and a whole bunch of other people, too. They have had their jobs (and the spotlight) for long enough. Some people would like to be able to have an income to report to Social Security someday, and you've got enough to report. So, get your own little free blog and write away. For those struggling to pay their rent or mortgage or put food on the table, maybe it's their turn for a shot at a column at the NY Times and elsewhere.

bob| 8.10.09 @ 6:25PM

Ben Stein. You are a national treasure.

Sacred Cow| 8.10.09 @ 6:30PM

Obama drones don't take too kindly to intelligent criticism of their divine plans for running our lives. If you're Sarah Palin or Billy Kristol, its no problem - you can critque away. But if you are a person of substance and intellect like Ben Stein, they will run you out of town like the zombies they are.

PCP Smoker| 8.10.09 @ 6:39PM

That must really hurt a liberal creep like you. You could have told them that you joined the little click of weak conservatives bashing Rush when he said "I hope he fails". Furthermore, you could have pointed out that you actually wished Obama success.
The Times was right in firing you. They bent you over, lube it up and then discarded you after climaxing.
Hope you enjoyed it bitznatch

kassandra| 8.10.09 @ 6:40PM

Ben you are a guy who can remember lots of trivia
but that doesn't make you smart
I don't know what has happened to you're and 3 million or so others' common sense?
Be careful because their is a lot of racism going on and you don't want to be included
No one is picking on you
Please

Jesus Loves You| 8.10.09 @ 6:46PM

Given your true talents, you can always host the next series of "Charm School" for your pals at VHI. Or better yet, "Alte Kocker of Love," with you and some senior citizen skanks.

Last Laugh| 8.10.09 @ 6:49PM

"But it drives the atheists and neo-Darwinists crazy and they responded viciously. "

What, they compared you to the operators of Nazi death camps?

Blow it out your ass, bigot.

Talis| 8.10.09 @ 6:52PM

PCP smoker stop ingesting animal tranqs. That and your IV of OXYRUSH Juice is going to rot your homeschooled brain.
Stein is as conservative as they come.
You actually think that the word Liberal is an insult. LOL
OXYRUSH is an Asshat wearing Clown who has convinced you and your ilk that he and his elite rich friends need you to vote down any chance for you to have a piece of the dream.
Friggen imbecile.

Occam's Razor| 8.10.09 @ 7:00PM

That's what you get for dissing hard working shrinks trying to save lives. Instant karma, baby!

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.10.09 @ 7:01PM

So, Stein goes to work at the NYT six years ago: The stock market is soaring an he is given the assignment to be the “economic” writer and as such reaches and influences the huge readership in the financial capital of the world. The NYT is renowned as the “paper of record” and the repository of the most gifted editorial content in history. Look what happened, the stock market crashes, the housing bubble bursts, the paper has sunk to the dregs, readership is plummeting, and the cellulose it is printed on is not worth recycling.
Way to go, Ben.

rog| 8.10.09 @ 7:12PM

Syndication?

fred gill| 8.10.09 @ 7:18PM

Congratulations, Ben. You may quote Livingston who said upon completing the Louisiana Purchase: "We have lived long but this is the noblest work of our whole lives." Of course, the left laments the Louisiana Purchase as well.

Allison| 8.10.09 @ 7:20PM

Ben

you were let go because you have nothing to add to the discourse
you have become a shadow of yourself

You used to give constructive comments and now you are one more angry white man

I am glad they let you go - your money column added nothing - in fact you were wrong more than you were right -- and your continuing dissolve into right wing nut points will mean you only appear in those types of print

Speak to the converted Ben - you have nothing to say to the Thinking man/woman - anymore

sad for you

RightyWrong| 8.10.09 @ 7:36PM

Well said Allison.

Ben rather reminds me of Dennis Miller. Not nearly as funny nor as smart as they used to be. Time to suck at the teet of those dumb enough to listen and make a buck or two. Next stop Ben, Fox News! If Palin can come off as smart, 'ell, they just might think you're the second coming. Tho, just by saying that, I guess I'm being blasphemous.

Bill| 8.10.09 @ 7:43PM

Since they fired you, can you collect unemployment? You should be able to jack up their insuranced rates.
You are very good at what you do. Keep it up!

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 8:01PM

cabinetmeeting.net » Blog Archive » Ben Stein is fired from the New York Times links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

« The Ten Questions Ben Stein is fired from the New York Times Looks like the New York Times no longer has a use for a voice of reason and intelligence. They just fired Ben Stein. Expelled from the New York Times by Ben Stein In Ben’s own words, his forced departure occured shortly after he wrote articles criticizing Obama. I remember reading those articles, and they were brilliantly written.…

StanM | 8.10.09 @ 8:04PM

If I were in Mr. Stein's shoes I would be more upset by the AP's lede describing him as a "monotone personality" than by being fired by the NYT. The latter, I think is a badge of honor.

IL Dan| 8.10.09 @ 8:17PM

Ben Stein's "Expelled" movie is reaching the younger generation. My daughter doesn't want to check her beliefs at the door of higher education, and is looking for places that at least consider "Intelligent Design" Mr Stein will continue to be heard in the marketplace of ideas!

RightyWrong| 8.10.09 @ 8:33PM

IL Dan, who told you and/or, your daughter, that your religion has to be checked at the door of higher education?

I'm a practicing Baptist who attended a very liberal university. I believe the big man upstairs and his son have my back. I also haven't yet seen anyone come close to proving Darwin wrong (see William 5s rant on scientific theory).

Darwin doesn't come close to making me question my beliefs. I'm not sure who convinced you that he should.

Peppered| 8.10.09 @ 8:37PM

I saw "Expelled" and it was interesting to see the perspective of freedom of thought challenged by the purveyors of free thinkers, academia. While espousing a point of view is commendable, stifling and extinguishing all others is not a vindication, but a travesty.

I watched the show twice not because I espouse a belief, but a freedom to believe in something and challenge the conventional wisdom which should be strong enough to accept challenges without oppressing dissenting views.

"Expelled" was a thought provoking expose on our society in more ways than one.

RightyWrong| 8.10.09 @ 8:41PM

And another item. Hey crazy conservatives, quit hijacking religion. Which one of you idiots decided that science and religion couldn't co-exist?

The more I learn about the world, the science of it, the more I love this earth and everything in it, and the more awe I have for the big man upstairs.

If you have to have it one way or another, I think Kansas will welcome you with open arms. As for the rest of us, we can embrace science and our religion and be better people because of it.

Intelligent Design - great idea. Let's teach our kids one language and intelligent design, all the while the Chinese, Indians, and other developing nations teach their children multiple languages and actual science. Let's see how long we stay on top with such a curriculum.

Michelle | 8.10.09 @ 8:45PM

Love you Mr. Stein, I hope that your feelings weren't hurt too badly. I love Shaq-n-stein too. Love your sense of humor. Please pretend this is a free country and keep telling the truth as you know it to be, some of us are comfortable with the truth and we know how to make up our own minds.

Jerry | 8.10.09 @ 8:50PM

Mr. Stein,

Independent, informed, free thought is not tolerated by the Orwellian DNC society - didn't you know that?

Having been a fan of your since Ferris, and only later learning that you were an intelligent conservative has really given me true hope and courage. I, for one, believe the NYT has lost a tremendous thought-provoking voice... Keep up the great work you do!

"hypocrisy...anyone....anyone.....anyone.......Punch......Punch......anyone......."

Jerry| 8.10.09 @ 8:54PM

RightyWrong... or should I say LeftyOrwellianKeepAllNonApprovedIdeasToYourself... Take a hike and return to your HuffingtonPost blog... really, I don't dirty up their waters and suggest you take your own advice and shutup.

Miles| 8.10.09 @ 8:56PM

And I love you too and your contrarian yet always insightful and often touching ways. Less about this article, it triggered me to finally watch the ID movie which probably also suffered in Hollywood due to it's racy topic... I found it fascinating, profound, clear, even-minded, in a way it had a kind of Sydney Pollack/Frank Ghery kind of vibe with wisdom, pain and beauty for days. If I'm Ari Emmanuel...I'd have a bunch of ideas for you. Peace to you and your family!

RightyWrong| 8.10.09 @ 8:59PM

Brilliant Jerry, thanks.

I think you're misunderstanding the word "informed". As in "I'm Jerry, and I'm informed".

Jeff| 8.10.09 @ 9:22PM

The dylan quote is from his song Talkin' New York from his very first album: "a very rich man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen" and "lots of people don't have much food on their table, but they got lots of forks and knives...they gotta cut somethin!"

PS Intelligent Design doesn't have considerable scientific support. Thanks

Peppered| 8.10.09 @ 9:31PM

RightyWrong aka LeftyRight:

Grow up! They may find you are out of your locker and time for a new swirlie-doo for you
/sarc

Incidentally, I was not referring to the ID/Darwin debate, but the intolerance to the point of destruction of others and differing opinions. Something with which you seem to familiar .

You apparently did not get the point of Aesop's Fables either.....too bad. It seems to be in your nature Foxy.

Zama| 8.10.09 @ 9:35PM

Wow, rich man Stein is standing up against the Marxist, communist, liberal, blah, blah, blah (what a bore) NYT. Perhaps you are the REAL agent of change mr Stein. Why don't you and your followers tell us the real reason for disliking Obama? We poor and invisible people know it. Do you honestly want us to believe the NYT is so much in Obama's pocket that they'd fire you, the greatest columnist no one under 35 ever read, for critisizing him? Perhaps you've been living in those smog filled hills in
Beverly hills too long, sir.

Haeckel et al.| 8.10.09 @ 9:46PM

My grandfather left me a set of Darwinian books published in 1896-7, and I’ve been reading them in recent months. I’ve been amazed at the overtly anti-Christian view expressed in these “scientific” works by Darwin, Haeckel, Schmidt et al. My teachers never pointed it out to me — did yours to you? Or did you hear only about the "pure, unbiased studies" they conducted?

Consider this unbiased, purely scientific quotation from the preface to volume 1 of Ernst Haeckel’s The Evolution of Man (my copy is from 1897):

“In this spiritual warfare, which now moves all thinking humanity, and which prepares the way for a future existence more worthy of man, spiritual freedom and truth, reason and culture, evolution and progress stand on the one side, marshalled under the bright banner of science; on the other side, marshalled under the black flag of hierarchy, stand spiritual servitude and falsehood, want of reason and barbarism, superstition and retrogression. The trumpet of this gigantic spiritual warfare marks the dawn of a new day and the end of the long darkness of the Middle Ages…In this mighty ‘war of culture’, affecting as it does the whole history of the World…[W]hole libraries of church wisdom and false philosophy melt away as soon as they are seen in the light afforded by the history of evolution.”

A “scientist” boasting that he is engaged in “spiritual warfare”? Seems to me that, from its earliest days, there has been that ulterior motive in Darwinian evolutionary thought.

The fish with legs stinks from the head.

Haeckel et al.| 8.10.09 @ 9:51PM

"RightyWrong| 8.10.09 @ 8:41PM
Which one of you idiots decided that science and religion couldn't co-exist?"

See my comment above. Haeckel decided that, and so did his colleagues.

cliff| 8.10.09 @ 9:52PM

Having a job is not a right, it's a privilage. BS will find an audience for his point of view if one exists. Otherwise, retire.

Sir No Bull | 8.10.09 @ 9:54PM

Dear Ben, the difference between You and NYT is that in 2-3 years they, unlink you, will not be around. Keep the faith and good fight - America needs you.

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 10:03PM

Benito Hussein Obama - Page 14 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…doctor a news release about someone leaving their place of employ? They either work there or they don't. Where is "Sty"? Conservatives get expelled from lib media: The American Spectator : Expelled From the New York Times __________________ A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. Page 14 of 14 « First < 4 12 13 14 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us…

rudy| 8.10.09 @ 10:04PM

Mr Kendrick:
I'm nobody, but I saw Mr Stein, like anybody else, having lunch in Washington DC at the Museum of Art. He was not even dressed 'to kill', what people like you fail to see, and admit, is that he is inmensely talented, and keeps in touch with reality. He does not act as a celebrity. You probably meant Pelosi and Reid.

Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 10:21PM

Benito Hussein Obama - Page 14 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…doctor a news release about someone leaving their place of employ? They either work there or they don't. Where is "Sty"? Conservatives get expelled from lib media to: The American Spectator : Expelled From the New York Times Edit add: Not that I would want to imply that the New York Times is in any way in the same league as the National Review. Sorry, no contest. __________________ A hypothesis…

Greg| 8.10.09 @ 10:22PM

So the NYT stepped on this snake (i.e. Ben Stein) before I could. An extremist neo-fascist blended with a shameless hucksterism and self-promoter. Now the Spectator needs to do the same before Ben hisses and unleashes his poisonous cant.

Sue| 8.10.09 @ 10:24PM

Are you really Bob Bartley? I wondered where he went!

No one with any sense reads the New York Times; it's always been the WSJ for me; since I was a teenager, too. But, I'm beginning to see a lot of "creeping in" of mild socialist stuff over there too. Paul Gigot is not exactly your "true conservative" and Daniel Henninger blew it during the presidential campaign - trying to make out those who disagreed with Obama's socialist policies as racists.

Mike| 8.10.09 @ 10:28PM

Hey! Now maybe you can write for townhall.com!!
BTW, loved expelled. Am going to show it to my youth group before school starts!

Billy O'Malley| 8.10.09 @ 10:34PM

Ben writes at the New York Times. Who knew?

I certaintly didn't given that I have given up on the New York Times being a real newspaper.

John| 8.10.09 @ 11:07PM

What "man" reads the New York Times anymore? They have an editorial conceit that the white heterosexual male is, by default, a proto-Nazi, and the audience of their appeal is now the pseudo-liberal shrew and the trans-gendered marionette.

Lucy| 8.10.09 @ 11:18PM

This is a lovely column, and if he is going to forgive the haters then I will have to forgive some various people also, because what happened to him was very bad indeed. thank you, Ben. Very timely.

Ross Hall| 8.10.09 @ 11:46PM

Ben. Come on back to Sandpoint..and we'll have some hot dogs and smores around the campfire on the Lake. You have hundreds hear who love you and don't even know there is a New York Times
We appreciate you, your brilliance, your openness to the realities of life and your love of life...

Richard| 8.10.09 @ 11:52PM

You know Ben, I used to be an avid daily reader of the NYT, but over the years I read less and less of that paper to the point where I don't even pick up the Sunday edition for all the non-news sections anymore. The shame of it is that I never even knew you were a columnist there since I don't bother with what used to be the best paper on earth but has since, sadly, become a bit of a rag. Now I'll be on the lookout for your written work as I do enjoy your style and your approach to the issues you discuss. I hope you continue to enjoy writing as much as we continue to enjoy reading it!

Nan St John| 8.11.09 @ 12:29AM

Ben....you are the best!!!
Who needs the NYTIMES...No one!
We will seek you out no matter the place..
America will prevail!
We the people may be slow but we are not stupid!

Prodarwinconservative| 8.11.09 @ 12:37AM

Ben, I once liked you, when you were just a silly guy in movies. But "Expelled" was the worst kind of dishonest garbage out there. ID=Creationism, if you want to push religion, do it in religious schools, if you want to say the moon is made of cheese and that the bible says the earth is flat, go ahead, but NOT in taxpayer funded schools.

As for your sleazy "free" credit company, did you even watch your commericals? Really? Sitting on a parkbench with a talking squirrel and people's heads being "Whack-a-mole" in the ground? Are you that freaking pathetic? My God man, get an ounce of self respect. Only thing missing from that ad was you wearing a diaper and clown makeup.

You lost me Ben, go open a supermarket in Racine, maybe you can learn some balloon twisting tricks.

RightyWrong| 8.11.09 @ 12:59AM

Haeckel et al...you teach your kids Intelligent Design. I'll teach my kids a few languages and science...your kids can mop up the surgery room after my kids have performed the surgery. Make sure they use enough solvent!

You conservatives rock. Truly...keep it up. Intelligent Design is a great idea!!

Skip| 8.11.09 @ 1:42AM

Ben ...with your new spare time, maybe you could head the Presidential Commission to advise Dan Rather on what's wrong with American journalism.

GG | 8.11.09 @ 2:15AM

Two cabinet ministers have strongly denied allegations of collusion in the abuse of terrorist suspects overseas.
But Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Home Secretary Alan Johnson said it was impossible to remove all risk when using intelligence obtained overseas.
This came as a committee of MPs urged a probe into the transfer of terror suspects through UK territories.
cmc　audio rca
wbt audio rca
cmc rca plugs
wbt rca plugs
Last week a committee of MPs and peers called for an independent inquiry into claims of UK complicity in torture.
The Joint Human Rights Committee said on Tuesday the government had not done enough to investigate these claims, because it had been unable to establish whether British officers were involved in mistreatment.
cmc rca jacks
wbt rca jacks
cmc tube sockets
wbt tube sockets
Now the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has also said it has grave concerns that British officers were complicit in torture.
'Hard choices'
But in a joint article in the Sunday Telegraph Mr Miliband and Mr Johnson said the UK "firmly opposed" torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
cmc binding posts
wbt binding posts
cmc banana & spades
They said there was "no truth" in suggestions it was official policy to "collude in, solicit, or directly participate in abuses of prisoners".
But "difficult judgments and hard choices" had to be made, they added, and while anyone detained in the UK would be treated well, the same guarantee could not be made about those held by foreign authorities.
wbt banana & spades
cmc　loudspeaker
wbt loudspeaker
"Operations have been halted where the risk of mistreatment was too high. But it is not possible to eradicate all risk," they wrote.

David| 8.11.09 @ 5:23AM

Ben,
I don't think you are a very good writer, but I liked reading your columns. I think you are totally nuts about Intelligent Design - I mean, *totally*. And your "conservative" philosophy is filled with inconsistencies. But it's too bad they canned you. It seems ridiculous to me they care one way or another what your views on Obama are. My advice to them: let the mad maniac rave! It's fun!

edward cropper | 8.11.09 @ 5:43AM

Ben lost credibility with me when he endorsed Al Franken for the Senate. Nothing he can say or do will garner any support from me after that shameful act of hypocrisy.

greg mark collins| 8.11.09 @ 7:26AM

Stick to the movies and out of politics.

Paul Hands| 8.11.09 @ 7:48AM

Mr Stein,

You got what you deserved. Expelled was a travesty, and a bad movie. You are a mediocre writer at best, an awful movie maker, and you know zero about the science you attempted to discredit. As for politics....a minnow swimming with sharks. Do the world a favour and retire completely.

Bruce Gorton| 8.11.09 @ 7:55AM

Ben Stein was fired because he lent his name and credibility to one of those "Free credit report" scams - all of these righties talking about how great he is, what next, championing the face of the Viagra spam you get in your inbox? 401 scammers for Congress?

Robert O'Hara| 8.11.09 @ 8:12AM

the beauty of Ben Stein is that he continues to ask and question. He believes that you can and should question: whether in in politics, or finances or, and here is the scary part - the "science community". How dare he question those who proclaim the answers when they may not even know the questions! How dare he point to the shameful reality of the connection between darwinism and the justification for heinous brutality against innocents who do not fit the utilitarian model. They continue to despise, belittle and attempt to sideline any opposition to their religion. As Ben once eulogized concerning a dear firend who was mercilessly attacked by the elites who refused to be moved or even consider evidence that contradicted their statements of faith, he too is a man "of whom his enemies are not worthy."

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 8:24AM

We made a sad old man cry | Science News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…the NYT said, but he has written a long whine in which he carefully explains that what he did wasn’t unethical at all, and he was actually fired because he offended a cabal of Goldman-Sachs bankers, Obama supporters, and…neo-Darwinists and atheists! I think that last bit was a reference to me. Watch him blubber. One final thought. Well, maybe two final thoughts: first, it’s sad that the…

Reasonsjester | 8.11.09 @ 8:27AM

No worries, Ben. Like home-brewed ale, op-ed columns are best cold and unfiltered.

12-String Infidel| 8.11.09 @ 8:34AM

This 'dismissal' was a blessing in disguise. Now, many readers will have NO reason to buy the NYT
with your column excised. Another circulation plunge for the 'paper of note' will ensue I suspect. Keep up the good work and ignore all the anti-Semetic nitwits who posted here. They're losing.

AlmostChosen| 8.11.09 @ 8:47AM

G-d bless you sir. Keep writing!

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 8:57AM

» I’m not convinced, Ben Stein Terra Incognita links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…at the NY Times until he was fired a few weeks ago for appearing in misleading ads for freescore.com. He’s now gone to the American Spectator and said that the real reason is because he criticized Obama. He said that the explanation from the Times that his appearance was a “conflict of interest” was not a conflict of interest. Maybe not, but Stein’s appearance in deceptive…

Wolfgang Pauli| 8.11.09 @ 9:06AM

Ben, I used to think you were a moderately intelligent republican. Now we see that you are just another whiner. Get over it, and get over yourself.

Efren| 8.11.09 @ 9:07AM

Ben--
You've conquered evolution. Can we now move on to something that actually matters? The faked moon landings-- you've got to expose the truth! We're behind you, Ben! Lead the way and let's be done with this sham that man has ever walked on the moon!

red rabbit | 8.11.09 @ 9:08AM

Mr. Stein: Nobody hates you. You are a paid mouthpiece, an actor, so honestly, who cares? Doing an economic column and then hawking a "free credit report" you have to pay for was absurdly bad judgement. Surely you see that.

Quite a quality of supporter you have there, hey?

One final thought: as Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I think that is where we are today.

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 9:26AM

Ben Stein loses NYT gig, grip on reality « American Freethought links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…called FreeScore.com and the associated (perceived?) conflict of interest. Now, normally I wouldn’t cover something so non-freethoughtish here, but now Stein has written a lengthy self-defense for The American Spectator , in which he blames everyone but the Illuminati for his ouster. Honestly, I couldn’t care less why the NYT fired Stein, but I do care that Stein blames those pesky…

Thrasher | 8.11.09 @ 9:31AM

Ben Who?????????

Matthew| 8.11.09 @ 9:31AM

The FreeScore scam commercials are just the tip of the iceberg that sank your career. Expelled was the worse piece of trash films ever made. Read Roger Ebert's review for the details. Suffice to say, tying a great scientist like Charles Darwin to Hitler and the Nazis is about as low as you can get. Your writing sucks and quite frankly I think you're an idiot.

Jason| 8.11.09 @ 9:39AM

Oh, please, Ben. Quit the sob story. I've been in the media for more than 20 years, and you're a media whore if I ever saw one. You can't have it all. You can't do commercials for EVERYTHING to make another buck, then turn around and pretend you never saw the "conflict of interest" argument coming. And I read your column in the NYT, or at least tried to. It wasn't good, Ben. It just wasn't. Why don't you try concentrating on doing one thing well instead of many things crappily?

Victor | 8.11.09 @ 9:40AM

This persecution complex that Stein has developed sure isn't doing him any good. It seems odd to have to tell someone of his age to grow up, but the constant ranting about how "they" are out to get you sounds a bit paranoid. I think he's ready for his tin foil hat now.

No Spam| 8.11.09 @ 9:41AM

This entire article is a set of excuses that largely avoid the topic at hand: that Mr. Stein appeared in ads for a scam credit report service while he was writing for the Times as an economist. Whether you like or hate Ben Stein, the Times reacted properly in firing him.

An incident like this *could* cause a person to rethink his judgment, but this article suggests Stein is going to be have ... well, like a conservative. After all, as a conservative, he can't have done something wrong, can he?

Bill from Fallbrook| 8.11.09 @ 9:45AM

I was a fan until Expelled. Not a discussion movie in my opinion. I came away with the feeling that all creationists are persecuted in the name of truth and evolution results in genocide and Nazis.

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 9:46AM

Glenn Beck Tells It Like It Is About ObamaCare & AARP – CitizenWells – Lack of Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Times, I refuse to use Times New Roman font because I want nothing to do with the Times. Cancel My Times Subscription 8.11.09 @ 6:01AM EXPELLING THE LIBERAL MEDIA Re: Ben Stein’s Expelled From the New York Time s: Ben Stein’s column about his “demise” at the NYT was a delight to read as it was well-crafted, thoughtful, and in his person as in I could hear him saying the words to…

Mumon | 8.11.09 @ 9:47AM

Ben Stein was fired over this.

That he cannot admit this is sad; at his age what does he have to lose by being honest?

Calybos| 8.11.09 @ 9:48AM

Aww, poor baby. Your ignorance and hypocrisy get you into trouble, but at least you get to whine about it on the Spectator! You're such a hero.

I'd weep for you, Mr. Stein, but you seem to be doing a fine job of that for yourself already. The loser is sent back down to the minors where he belongs.

Wray Herbert| 8.11.09 @ 9:50AM

Mr. Stein can't even figure out if he worked five or six years for the Times. Perhaps it's that lack of precision that bothered the paper's editors.

James M| 8.11.09 @ 9:50AM

Ben Stein blames Atheists and "Neo Darwinists" for his firing? Compares himself to Bob Dylan and sees nothing wrong with shilling himself out to an obvious scam like Freecredit? And get a few digs in at President Obama? And the New York Times hired this guy why?

Matt B| 8.11.09 @ 10:00AM

Poor Ben, always the victim. "They" are out to get him, those shadowy forces that are the "real" reason behind his NYT exit. Paranoid much?

Joe K.| 8.11.09 @ 10:08AM

Ben, you are as still as funny as you were in your movies. Fired because you were criticizing Obama? That's rich. It doesn't explain why they maintain a stable of conservative columnists (David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, etc.). Your pathetic attempt to make the NYT look like the left's Fox News may play well with your wingnut zombie followers, but it has nothing to do with any objective reality.

PJ| 8.11.09 @ 10:17AM

Something seems unsaid here. The Times asked you not to write for other publications, and you complied. Didn't it also ask you not to accept endorsements without its approval, or was that not explicitly requested?

Jefe| 8.11.09 @ 10:20AM

You were advertising "FREE" credit checks from a company that charged a monthly fee. This was clearly a misrepresentation of the service provided and unethical at best.

M. Jay.M.| 8.11.09 @ 10:22AM

You deserved to be shown the door. A shill for those destructive credit reporting cos. , a man who sold his soul to an industry that preys on the less fortunate, a man who needed to make a fast buck off the backs of those he claims to help with those oh -so-important credit reports.
Disgusting. Good riddance. Hypocrite..

Mark| 8.11.09 @ 10:29AM

Mr. Stein,
If you really want to make the NYT's mad (after Expelled–No Intelligence Allowed), then make a movie about the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure you'll rocket to stardom with them.

Haeckel et al.| 8.11.09 @ 10:32AM

RightyWrong| 8.11.09 @ 12:59AM, I notice that you didn't answer the points I made at 9:46 and 9:51 last evening. I'm not surprised.

I'm wondering: As a "practicing Baptist," do you believe John 1:3 -- "All things were made by him [Jesus]; and without him was not any thing made that was made"? Verse 10 adds that "the world was made by Him." That makes Jesus the designer of the universe, right? And to design a universe takes intelligence, n'nest-ce pas? As one who believes in Jesus, I'd say that it sounds as if an intelligent designer was involved after all.

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 10:34AM

ShortsandPants - Your Daily WTF?!? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Daily WTF?!?”, brought to you by the spectacularly infrequent contributer Jake. Shorts, somehow too occupied ( definitely not passed out- Ed. ) to write something up for the site, sent me a link to this American Spectator “Special Report” whiny blog post by none other than famous film and television personality Ben Stein. It’s a particularly unhappy account of leaving his…

Andy| 8.11.09 @ 10:38AM

Mr. Stein, great writing. I don't agree with you on much, but I do enjoy reading good writing and hearing other points of view presented in an articulate and logical manner. You possess those talents. It's the Times' loss. I'll keep reading you where I can.

Indy Republican| 8.11.09 @ 10:43AM

It's a shame this happened to Mr. Stein, but it's further proof of the left's hypocrisy and their absolute hatred of anyone who disagrees with them. It also illustrates a favorite quote of mine by Rush Limbaugh; "take it from me, you know you've hit your target when liberals start squawking." Good aim, Ben!

Cece| 8.11.09 @ 10:49AM

Your apparent naivete surprises me, Ben. Writing a financial column in the business section of a newspaper and doing a commercial for a financial company of any sort, large or small, written about or unwritten about, is a conflict of interest and a disservice to consumers. It's pretty cut-and-dried. You should know better, and I believe deep down you do, whatever your feelings about the Times' questionable motives and biases. I always try to look at things in the mirror, so to speak. What if a left-wing business writer had done the same thing, with the same consequences. What side would you be arguing then?

Richard | 8.11.09 @ 10:50AM

Reason rules at the Times, not hypocracy and outmoded mediavalist thought. The Times is better off without you.

Nick| 8.11.09 @ 10:54AM

Does anyone know which moronic atheist linked to this article so that all these other stupid atheists could come here and flame and defame Mr. Stein?

How stupid are these people?

They can't even figure out that God exists, and that He created the universe.

Nick| 8.11.09 @ 10:54AM

Aside from your unethical representation of a company touting free credit reports that you eventually have to pay for, you're incessant whining about neo-Darwinists and atheists is really rather pathetic. You say there is avid scientific disagreement over the origins of life, which there is not. You whine about the reviews of "Expelled", which was by all accounts a laughable attempt to trick evolutionists in making statements supporting intelligent design. I can't say I'm surprised or disappointed that you were fired. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

William| 8.11.09 @ 11:02AM

Lot of primate rage going on here.
Lot of howling.
Lot of poo flying around.
Can't we all just get back to grooming?

Dave CanAmerican| 8.11.09 @ 11:03AM

Ben, you are better off without them anyway! Their paper is going to go into the economic toilet anyways... that's where crap belongs.

Gene Lewis| 8.11.09 @ 11:04AM

Ben,

"I have made as many mistakes as a person not in custody can make"

I've searched all my life for a way to define myself, without particulars, to others and now I have it, thanks.

John Kwok| 8.11.09 @ 11:11AM

Ben,

Be thankful you still have your gig on "CBS Sunday Morning", though if they have any sense, they'd terminate it immediately, especially in light of your ridiculous involvement with - and subsequent defense of - "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which I regard as a pathetic example of cinematic mendacious intellectual pornography.

There are many fellow conservatives and Republicans who recognize that Intelligent Design creationism is uttter nonsense, while evolution is a sound scientific theory that receives support from the many thousands of scientists who work daily around the globe in fields ranging from conservation biology to molecular biology, paleobiology, and even, epidemiology. Maybe now you will have time to read the insightful comments of your peers George Will (Washington Post) , Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post) and John Derbyshire (National Review) who have written superb essays praising evolution as science and condemning Intelligent Design as religiously-derived pseudoscience. Maybe now you will read "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design", co-authored by conservative biologist Paul Gross and philosopher Barbara Forrest (a star witness on behalf of the plaintiffs at the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, which was a resounding legal defeat for Intelligent Design creationism and its many acolytes such as yourself). Maybe now you will read carefully Federal Judge John Jones's eloquent, quite persuasive, reasoning in his decision at the close of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial (Incidentally he was a Republican nominated to the federal bench by then President George W. Bush.).

The bottom line, Ben, is that Intelligent Design creationism has had more than twenty years to demonstrate that it is a valid scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory (which I will concede is flawed, but is in the midst of being "improved" by scientists daily) in explaining the origin, history and current composition of Planet Earth's biodiversity. Instead, all that you and your fellow Intelligent Design advocates have offered are ample complaints, harsh attacks upon your critics, disreputable legal conduct (e. g. leading Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski's theft of the XVIVO-produced Harvard University cell animation video, which, somehow, found its way into the hands of Premise Media and whose footage was used - without permission by Premise Media - in a rough cut of "Expelled" - until some of my fellow "Neo - Darwinists" complained), and utter rubbish like "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Not once in two decades have Intelligent Design "scientists" like Dembski published anything that could confirm the central tenets of Intelligent Design "theory (even Philip Johnson has seen the light, and the "godfather of the Intelligent Design movement" recognizes that there is not yet a valid scientific theory on Intelligent Design) in well-established, mainstream scientific journals like Science and Nature.

Ben, I hate to state what is all too obvious to any discerning reader: your side has lost in the so-called "Creation vs. Evolution" debate, and I think it's time that you finally come to your senses. You can certainly start by realizing that the term "Neo - Darwinists" is both philosophically and scientifically inaccurate, since modern evolutionary theory includes substantially more biology than even Darwin himself could conceive of when he wrote "On the Origin of Species" more than a century and a half ago.

In 1973, the eminent eolutionary geneticist - and devout Christian - Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the "architects" of modern evolutionary theory, observed that, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". The time is long overdue for you, Ben Stein, to accept that same truth with regards to evolution and its importance as the unifying theory of all of biology.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

RightyWrong| 8.11.09 @ 11:13AM

Haeckel et al...why would I waste my time trying to have some sort of an intelligent discussion with someone who ignores 150 years of scientific research, testing, experiments, etc.

As another fellow on here mentioned in his rant about the far-right's misunderstanding of just what scientific theory is. Hundreds upon hundreds of scientists have had a go at evolution. Darwin has not yet been proven wrong. However, do you work, present your facts, and prove him wrong. it's all there for the taking.

However, I'm quite sure you'll come back with something that has to do with faith, and not actual science.

Such as, we all know that what makes a plane fly is not the engineered shape of the wing and the flow of air around it, it is, instead, our benevolent creator who allows this to happen. The Wright Brothers were liberal faggots!

And I can't really have discussions with that kind off logic. Do you see what I mean? No, I'm sure you don't.

tablloyd| 8.11.09 @ 11:45AM

I'm conflicted. I know you did not write about the company you were endorsing, but there is something unsettling about seeing reporters/columnists anywhere becoming pitchmen for anything. You'd like to think someone could refuse the Almighty Dollar at least once in a while.
On the other hand, the same Big Media companies that act so righteously about their employees are the first ones to toss them out the door, cut their 401Ks, sever their health insurance and increase--without compensation--the workloads of those left behind. All while the guys at the top make a fortune. (See Sulzberger, Arthur.)
Bottom line: I wish you well and look forward to reading your opinions.

traciek| 8.11.09 @ 11:52AM

I am sorry that Mr. Stein is the latest recipient of the NY Times bias against all things opposing the Obama Administration. There will come a time when the NY Times will understand that they should have kept more of those writers like Mr. Stein, rather than the ones that currently wear the blinders. Thank you Mr. Stein for your thoughts and words. I look forward to reading more in another venue.

AN| 8.11.09 @ 12:02PM

"Does anyone know which moronic atheist linked to this article so that all these other stupid atheists could come here and flame and defame Mr. Stein?"

That would be PZ Myers, an established new atheism cult member. And I see it's business as usual for his fellow adolescent cult members: post as many incoherent soundbites as possible without a shred of logical argumentation.

rob| 8.11.09 @ 12:07PM

Wait who was right about the banks in early 2008? You or Peter Schiff, I can't remember.

Nick| 8.11.09 @ 12:10PM

AN,

Thanks for turning the light on these cockroaches !!

whatev| 8.11.09 @ 12:18PM

"you got fired because your a crackpot!"

-One of the new atheist "scientists" sent here by PZ

Haeckel et al.| 8.11.09 @ 12:25PM

R. Wrong, as a "practicing Baptist," why do you find discussing faith so abhorrent? I asked you whether you believe or deny John 1:3 and 1:10 -- why is that such a difficult question for a "practicing Baptist"?

And you didn't answer my earlier question: Did any of your teachers who taught Darwinism ever point out that its founders had an anti-Christian bias (I can supply plenty of other quotations that confirm it)? Mine never taught me that. I was told that they were scientists interested only in the objective pursuit of scientific truth -- and that I was not to question that assertion. Clearly, that's still the party line today.

Karen| 8.11.09 @ 12:33PM

Ben, there are greener pastures ahead of you. The New York Times will be the poorer without you. Their days are numbered anyway. I thoroughly enjoy reading your columns and seeing you on Fox News Channel. God Bless You!

wordlover| 8.11.09 @ 12:40PM

The NY Times has always published the views of conservative writers. William Safire's writings regularly appear in the paper. What the Times is consistent on is its rule that its regular staff not endorse products or services, since it would be possible for there to be an appearance of impropriety. It is not Ben Stein's viewpoints (wacky as they may be) that got him fired but his violation of a New York Times policy that all of its regular contributors are expected to adhere to. You conservatives are always preaching "personal responsibility." Guess what, Ben? Your decision to do a commercial got you fired, and you, and you alone, are responsible for that choice.

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 12:41PM

| KSU Student Coalition for Inquiry links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…called FreeScore.com and the associated (perceived?) conflict of interest. Now, normally I wouldn’t cover something so non-freethoughtish here, but now Stein has written a lengthy self-defense for The American Spectator , in which he blames everyone but the Illuminati for his ouster. Honestly, I couldn’t care less why the NYT fired Stein, but I do care that Stein blames those pesky “atheists and…

the grumpy skeptic | 8.11.09 @ 12:43PM

I'm glad this ignorant fool lost his job. Aside fromt tht horrible film he made. It makes no damn sense. Anyways, you where fired because that credit report company is a fraud. PZ Myeres even blasted you about it before you where fired.

douglas geoffreys| 8.11.09 @ 12:47PM

Ben, you were fired for crossing an ethical line (eg driving people who trust you into an scammer's snare). Quit the posture of martyrdom and take some responsibility. Pleading flawed humanity is fine, provided you then don't make a craven attempt to divert blame to atheists, scientists or anyone else for your greedy decision to make a fast, dirty buck. Cheerio - and may your retirement be pleasant and quiet.

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 12:56PM

NYT fires Ben Stein « Clinging to G & G links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

G & G Clinging to G & G Home About Why so silent Obama? Isn’t this another “teachable moment”? August 11, 2009...9:53 am NYT fires Ben Stein Jump to Comments Read his column here. Lesson learned: Do not criticize TheOne, if you’re on the right. The Times, like MSNBC, is self destructing. Hammering one more self inflicted nail in their own coffin. They know the are…

RoxannaDanna| 8.11.09 @ 12:58PM

Well, Ben, you are well loved by many who never read the Times (like me) and you have a brighter future ahead of you without that rag!
Good luck to you and I'll be watching you on Fox!

Tom Metz| 8.11.09 @ 1:00PM

Ben, maybe you could light a fire in America to have a million person march on Washington, DC when congress comes back in session to show them how displeased Americans are with their and Obama's direction in taking America into socialism.

Caroline Abbott| 8.11.09 @ 1:01PM

"They can't even figure out that God exists, and that He created the universe."

If by "figure out" you actually mean "mindlessly assume" you're absolutely right - they just can't "figure it out." However, if you were actually suggesting that accepting God's existence was simply a matter of looking at all the evidence - well you probably ought to consider taking off those blinders and actually look at the world around you for once.

You also might want to take a good hard look in the mirror before calling other people stupid.

"And I see it's business as usual for his fellow adolescent cult members: post as many incoherent soundbites as possible without a shred of logical argumentation."

Funny. It's pretty clear from reading the posts here that the defenders of Stein and attackers of the New York Times, liberalism, etc. aren't exactly acquainted with logic or reason. I guess it's only bad when the "other side" does it, huh? The atheists, at least, are actually looking at the evidence. The, uh, "defenders" are simply closing their eyes and mindlessly assuming that everything they've ever thought is true.

RightyWrong| 8.11.09 @ 1:04PM

Haeckel et al - did you go to a Catholic school?

I was taught a lot of things in school and I don't recall "you are not to question this" being part of the curriculum. I loved history, still do today, but George Washington "slave owner" didn't make it into my school either. It is not my opinion that it was part of some grand conspiracy.

Another misconception of the far-right - scientists present their findings and that is that, everyone jumps on board 'cos they're all a bunch of atheist liberals. Rubbish. In science, you can make a rather large name and reputation for yourself by proving someone's 'discovery' as false. There is a great deal of competition and even ill-will between scientists. They love to prove each other wrong.

pinky| 8.11.09 @ 1:14PM

Ben -

Your whiny, poor-me reaction to this is hilarious. People with brains will not feel sorry for you since you seem hell bent on destroying facts and the credibility of scientific evidence. Hope life doesn't get too rough out there in Beverly Hills.

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 1:25PM

Ben Stein Blames Atheists & Darwinists for His Firing From the New York Times | Daily links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…his firing. Writing on the American Spectator, Ben Stein blames everything from his horrendous movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed to Barack Obama, Goldman Sachs, Atheists and Neo-Darwinists. From Spectator: Expelled was a plea for open discussion of the possibility that life might have started with an Intelligent Designer. This idea, that freedom of academic discussion on an issue as to which there…

johngonole| 8.11.09 @ 1:31PM

The last three posters are dogmatic and obviously are incapable of rationale thought or discussion as evidenced by their stereotypical postulations. Basically thier logic amounts to......"If they are wrong I must be right". Whenever people resort to broad accusations, distortions, and petty insults it shows they are all out of arguments and facts.

Skip| 8.11.09 @ 1:36PM

Just more evidence of the nut-case media's biases.

Mingus| 8.11.09 @ 1:52PM

Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's a religious zealot that believes some guy actually lived inside of a whale, his economics reporting is completely irrelevant and stuck in the 70's and he is a flat out liar.

Mingus| 8.11.09 @ 1:52PM

Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's a religious zealot that believes some guy actually lived inside of a whale, his economics reporting is completely irrelevant and stuck in the 70's and he is a flat out liar.

Mingus| 8.11.09 @ 1:52PM

Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's a religious zealot that believes some guy actually lived inside of a whale, his economics reporting is completely irrelevant and stuck in the 70's and he is a flat out liar.

Mingus| 8.11.09 @ 1:52PM

Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's a religious zealot that believes some guy actually lived inside of a whale, his economics reporting is completely irrelevant and stuck in the 70's and he is a flat out liar.

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 1:53PM

Ben Stein Fired from New York Times over Obama : Western Journalism.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…and just where the Obama administration thought their limits were, if anywhere. This column was flat out nixed by my editors at the Times because in their opinion Mr. Obama inherently had such powers. Read More: By Ben Stein, American Spectator Filed under Censored News, News, Print · Tagged with American Spectator, Ben Stein, New York Times, Pro Obama Bias This website uses IntenseDebate comments,…

tuque| 8.11.09 @ 1:53PM

Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's a religious zealot that believes some guy actually lived inside of a whale, his economics reporting is completely irrelevant and stuck in the 70's and he is a flat out liar.

RightyWrong| 8.11.09 @ 1:53PM

johngonole - my comment is part of an ongoing exchange I'm having with another poster.

Indeed - with your limited knowledge of what my discussion has involved, your post is, in fact, rather broad, no?

My logic is this - Darwin presented his ideas over 150 years ago and hundreds of scientists have tested, questioned, basically "had a go" at his ideas. He has yet to be proven wrong.

If you have the science to show he's wrong, let's see it, i'd be fascinated by it. If you instead have faith, well good on ya, enjoy your church. That's a fundamental right of every American, you may believe in any faith you wish. But faith is not science. Not much to argue about there.

Eff 'em all| 8.11.09 @ 1:54PM

Corporate mainstream media outlets like NYT are just as phony as the FreeScore ad that Stein endorsed. The fact that he worked for either of them -- as well as the fact that wrote speeches for Reagan -- should be enough to raise flags about his character.

The question of whether there's a God was an otherwise legitimate and interesting question until Stein and the rest of his religious right buddies politicized it to death with their "ID movement". Even if (per impossibile) ID were true, the voices defending it would make it nearly impossible to accept for the average thinking person who doesn't want to be associated with right-wing politics.

I have no sympathy for Stein or Myers or FreeScore or the NYT -- left or right, they're all a bunch of dishonest assholes at the end of the day.

cary annas| 8.11.09 @ 1:57PM

Ben,
Thanks for being true to yourself!
God Bless you in all you do on the road to being a truth loving human.
agape
cary

Henry Miller| 8.11.09 @ 1:57PM

Death and destruction everywhere...

Can't say as I agree with Mr Stein about "Intelligent Design"--there's certainly nothing intelligent about the design or execution of the human race--but I think the less of the NYT for caving to the rabble.

Chuk| 8.11.09 @ 2:13PM

RightyWrong - hmmm... why is it still referred to as the 'theory of evolution'? To become a "Law" it must be proven and all other possible explenations disproven. The origins of life may be one of those big items that may never have a "Law" associated with it as it can not be 'proven' one way or the other. Those who believe in evolution do so with just as much faith as any other religion or belief system. Just because you claim to be from mud instead of God does not make you any better or others any less.

Chuk

Don| 8.11.09 @ 2:23PM

When was the last time the NYT based its stories or columns on facts instead of its ideology? The NYT has no credibility and that is why it is on life-support hoping a socialist/communist sympathizer will rescue it from the ashes.

Steve M| 8.11.09 @ 2:26PM

Ben, getting expelled by a gang of bankrupt left wing thugs is nothing to complain about. The Gray Lady became a Wicked Witch ages ago. Just knock the dust off your feet.

As for you "enlightened" liberals who insist evolution is a "fact," it certainly does take a bigger leap of faith to believe a universe could force itself to produce almost infinite stars from a blast of superheated gas rushing away from itself at nearly light speed. You know, magically putting on the brakes rather than filling the void of the universe the way hot air does when left to it's own devices. Then magically collapsing to form stars when there's nothing to attract it. Or let's discuss the origin of life, in which supposedly primordial oozes began to organize with noting to promote the organizing. As if it was alive but not, when the very processes of nature work to tear complex substances down into simpler ones. Nor should we leave out the fossil record which consists of nothing but missing links, where T Rex has no parents, and drove Darwin mad when those missing links never did appear. The very evidence which spawned the Punctuated Equilibrium movement, or "hopeful monster" theory, which has much more evidence to support it than Darwinian gradualism.

But if you're right, all you have to do to sharpen your cutlery is leave it out in the woods for a while. Let me know how that works out for you. ;-)

RightyWrong| 8.11.09 @ 2:29PM

Chuk - I don't believe in evolution with faith. I look at it objectively, and when one does so, you see the years of study which support it.

The guy presented his ideas, and his proof behind it over 150 years ago. The deeper science gets, micro-biology, chemical biology, the discoveries they make reiterate his findings. And he had no clue there was a micro-biology, or a chemical-biology. This to me, isn't an attack on my religion, this is just plain fascinating and amazing.

Like I said, go to your church, pray to your God, enjoy every bit of it. It's your right.

Good luck, God bless.

tom| 8.11.09 @ 2:45PM

the idea that darwin has been proven right again and again is just laughable. you do know that the tree of life has just been falsified, right? you do know that adaptive radiation has been thrown out, right?

http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

darwinism is nothing more than atheism posing as science....its faith not science.

tom| 8.11.09 @ 2:50PM

the whole concept of 'junk dna' has been falsified, as well as 'vestigial organs'. Evolution is not shown in the fossil record, nor can it be duplicated in the lab. the tuatara, which has the fastest rate of molecular 'evolution' ever seen, is a living dinosaur. micro does not add up to macro.

of course you also have problems like Haldane's dilemma, or Nachmann's U paradox which are 'solved' by ignoring them.

Haeckel et al.| 8.11.09 @ 2:54PM

R. Wrong, I see that you're still ignoring my question about John 1:3, 10. Earlier you said, "I believe the big man upstairs and his son have my back," which I take to mean that you believe in God the Father and His Son, Jesus. Well, then, do you, as a "practicing Baptist," believe that Jesus created everything there is? That's what those verses claim. I believe them, and I'm happy to say so. If you don't believe them, why not admit it?

If you were to say that you believe those verses are incorrect, I would ask on what your belief in Jesus is based, because biblical Christianity has always proclaimed Him as the Creator.

If you were to say that you believe those verses are correct, I'd be curious to know how your Darwinist friends have reacted when you've told them. (And if you haven't told them, why not share the whole Gospel with them? Perhaps they've never heard it, and would be glad to. My life changed forever [literally] when a college classmate shared her 'testimony' with me.)

I did not go to a Catholic school. When I was in school, perhaps longer ago than you, we were shown Haeckel's doctored drawings of human development. We were told that abortion doesn't kill human beings, because in the early stages of development, we're all basically goldfish or tadpoles (by the way, Mary Tyler Moore has been a celebrity proponent of that viewpoint, with "goldfish" her critter of choice, if memory serves).

I was taught such things in high school, along about the time Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton made killing unborn babies legal for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy. Since then, we've had more than 50 million American babies deliberately killed during their gestation.

But, hey, if human beings are nothing more than masses of molecules, why should that carnage disturb us?

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 3:00PM

NY Times Reporter: I Was Fired For Criticizing Obama, Goldman Sachs « Truth11 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…persons.” he writes Stein was previously criticized in 2008 interview after comparing one of Obama’s major campaign rallies to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi rallies at Nuremberg. Read Stein’s full account here. Read more… About this entry You’re currently reading “NY Times Reporter: I Was Fired For Criticizing Obama, Goldman Sachs,” an entry on Truth11 Published: August 11, 2009 / 6:58…

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 3:03PM

TheTradingReport » Blog Archive » Ben Stein’s ‘Unblemished’ Employer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…‘Unblemished’ Employer Gary Weiss 11 August 2009 No Comment The Times calls this a conflict of interest for a finance columnist. The nerve! I have no idea if Ben Stein is correct when he claims that the New York Times wasn’t really upset with his acting as principal spokesman for something called FreeScore.com. He says a column on Obama is what really teed ‘em off. That’s…

talis| 8.11.09 @ 3:05PM

CHuk and the other cult members dont even know what the definition of a "scientific theory is".
Your crude and ignorant attempts to define it just show your lack of information.
What was the name of the pet dinosaur that Jesus had?

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 3:14PM

threedonia.com » “Voo something, Journalism…” “Vood-doo, Journalism?” links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…has been fired by the New York Times. Why? Ben says it’s because he criticised the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. You can read his account here; http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/10/expelled-from-the-new-york-tim Hang in there, Ben! If you ever need a place to write you’ve always got a spot here, in Threedonia. Share on Facebook Category: Absolute Power, Actions Speak…

boots| 8.11.09 @ 3:16PM

Mr. Stein,
I'll read your column regardless of location. So, no more NYT.

You're one of the only reasons I used to watch CBS Sunday Morning before and after the election. Then I got sick of CBS inserting Pro-Bama stories almost as regularly and on cue as they created cute little suns to punctuate each story. Well, screw the cute little suns, the NYT, CBS, and definitely screw obama.

You've got class and principles, Mr. Stein. Don't ever change.

Dan Scarborough| 8.11.09 @ 3:21PM

>I happily tell my friends that I was reading your columns long ago. I tell my college students that you have answered my emails twice. <<br />
You answer e-mails???
How 'Bout This One?

"Obamacare and Death Taxes Combine to Fund Massive Spending Programs"

Obama (contrary to his followers opinions) can’t raise the dead… but he can raise massive amounts of money “donated” by dead Baby Boomers and their parents!

I fear that Obama's push for this Healthcare program is even more insidious than gaining "control" over the economic sector of healthcare. Obama’s administration sees it as a method to fund his trillions of dollars of "forced debt" on the American Tax-payers and their grandchildren. It is a way to "capture" the asset-wealth (not just the income) of the last two generations of Americans... to "fund" his massive programs.

Please Tell me what is wrong with my observations below:

1+1+2 = 4! -- Obama Knows Death (Estate) Taxes Will Bring in Trillions to Pay for His Deficit ... If the Baby Boomer's Deaths (and their parents') Can be Accelerated!

After the 2010 elections, the Estate Tax (the Death Tax) reverts to more than 50%.

History’s largest transfer of wealth will occur in four stages…

1. The Parents of the Baby Boomers Die….. Multi Billions of Tax Revenues will be collected by the government. Boom!

2. We (the Baby Boomers) die… Our Children get no more than 25% of the wealth formerly owned by our parents (their grandparents.) Multi-Trillions will confiscated as death taxes. Double Boom!!

3. The Trillions in IRA’s, 401-K’s, SEPs and other “Qualified Plans” will be forcefully liquidated at “regular income tax rates” (which will be increased) as “beneficiaries” start “taking” their Required Minimum Distributions when they turn age 70 ½! Triple Boom!!!

4. The final financial healthcare crisis is the cost of care for the Boomers’ and their parents’ chronic, Long Term Care. Medicaid will be unable to pay the costs unless massive taxes are mandated. Medicare does not pay for extended, chronic Long Term Care… and even if it did, massive tax increases would be necessary! This will add hundreds of billons to the above costs.
Boom!+Boom! Double Boom!! 1+1+2 = 4!

This can all be accelerated if the Estate (Death) Tax can be reinstituted and increased. Simultaneously, Americans will be deprived of the opportunity to extend their lifetimes by choosing their doctors and medical procedures… Heck, it won’t even matter if Gramps and Mom and Dad had enough assets to pay for their “end of life care” out of their own estates….. Those assets won’t be there. … But, everything will work to “finalize” the government’s “plan” if medical care is rationed and enough people can be persuaded to invoke “palliative care.” (Remember Dr. Kerkovian?)

Where will all that money accumulated over 6-8 decades be? In the coffers of the government – Is anyone going to tell the American people that the trillions that were borrowed, redistributed, and owed by their grandchildren will now be “paid” with the windfall death taxes “contributed” by the Baby Boomers and their parents as a result of collecting “death taxes”?

The “untaxed distributions” from Roth IRA’s are but a blip on the screen of this financial meltdown… But these, like the other “Tax-Qualified Plans”- IRA’s 401-k-s, SEPs, etc., have one thing in common - The Government knows you have these asset accounts and how much money you have put into them. Heck… all of this is “public record”! What the Government knows about, they can take away! (Think the census is just about counting people? Think again! They are gathering information on assets and activities.)

End Result… Redistribution of 95%+ of all of our citizens’ wealth and with the Government now firmly in charge of the means to create wealth… And also the “power” to parcel it out to the “pigs” in our society. This push to control the outcome of end of life decisions is not about healthcare!

Somebody needs to look at the juxtaposition of these “arcane details.” This combination of factors (“death tax” and “death outcomes”) is a far greater issue than just the “conveniently-included component” of the Single Payer Health System!

These usurpers (Obama is only the “face” of the “movement”) have the media, some of the banks, 2/3rds of the auto manufacturers, 50% of the Supreme Court, and control of the congress and the presidency! Someone needs to be reading the stuff taught to the college student radicals of the 60’s. They need to dig out their copies of the “Great Speckled Bird” and the Communist Manifesto(s) I and II. These guys are working on the playbook developed by successive “versions” of communism that began before WWI and developed “on steroids” on during the 60’s and 70’s. Communists are patient, and dedicated to the cause. They practice deception. There is no and was no Sino/Soviet communist “split”. International discussion of this “development” was and is all slick PR! Eastern European communists did not “fold their tents and retreat” when the USSR “folded.” That too, was deception. Someone needs to take these folks seriously and take a hard look at their “big picture”! Study what happened after the “march on the universities of Germany” in the late 60’s! Don’t think that all those politicians who cloak themselves with the “progressive ” title of European Socialism are not the communists from the “collapsed USSR.”* This is “Reagan Payback Time.” He bankrupted the USSR with the weapons build up. These folks are just “giving the US some of the same medicine” that was earlier forced down their throats.

*Der Spiegel posted this article about a month ago:

www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,635486,00.html

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/560934.stm

SteveRamsey | 8.11.09 @ 3:27PM

Right on Ben -- honored to have you on our side!

www.WeArePatriots.us

Deke Slater| 8.11.09 @ 3:29PM

Have always enjoyed your insights and verbal dancing... I still have a brilliant article and often re-read that you did for Esquire maybe 15 or 20 years ago. Think of it all as I did when I gave my 2 week notice to a boss for whom I'd worked for 23 years. "A ship deserting a sinking rat!"
D.

Ben| 8.11.09 @ 4:00PM

Frankly, it sounds to me like Ben Stein made a lot of errors during his tenure at the Times and the commercial was just the straw that broke the camels back. Expelled was a horrible movie full of deliberate misrepresentations and lies of both the fact and omission types. In a publication that is meant to educate its readers and serve as a platform for honest public debate, there is no room for journalists who have to little regard for truth.

Roberta| 8.11.09 @ 4:08PM

There are not a lot of sick people on the internet, there are simply the digital criminally insane who can take our technology and behave as though Biblical "gods" who can do whatever it is that pleases their sick egos.

The super computer/s found in China and Sweden, are in control and you have noticed how easy it is to be the disposable commodity digit | number, which we are, tragically.

This is sick - being a digital 666 for the super computer/s run by the most criminally insane of the species "human."

How to stop this behavior when the www happens to be the thermometer for how close we are to extinction -- and the digits just keep on being ground into our new zone of dead walking.

The skies are our litmus test of how soon we get to be poisoned nimiously by the facinorous of the human species who own the digital god of the new Biblical times.

talkingsnakebites| 8.11.09 @ 4:11PM

Tom - I truly love it when god-botherers and jebus followers try to "insult" non-believers by calling the fact of evolution an exercise in faith. Cracks me up every time I see it - irony on so many levels. Please keep up the hilarity.

Steve| 8.11.09 @ 4:21PM

Dear Ben, I don't always agree with you although I often do, but even when I don't you are nonetheless well worth reading.

As Jesse Helms said (roughly paraphrasing), "...nobody I care about cares about what the NYT writes..."

And as Ann Coulter wrote, "...there are lies, damn lies and the NYT..."

All the best, Steve.

RightyWrong| 8.11.09 @ 4:25PM

Tom, your 'science' is not just laughable, it's actually wrong. On every count.

Like I said, you may worship at which ever church you wish. That is the beauty of this country. You have my blessings...worship a noodle if it fancies you. I've no problem with that.

I would imagine that you 'heard' these 'facts' you claim at either, your church, or, perhaps, a college, perhaps Pat Robertson University.

That's fine as well. Just as long as the doctor about to operate on me does not attend Pat Robertson University. I rather like science in my medicine, if you don't mind.

If you are going to visit websites such as darwinspredictions.com, why not grab the Weekly World News as well. They both have about as much fact supporting their claims.

God Bless you my friend. And God help us with people like walking around unchecked in this country. That's a terrifying thought.

james| 8.11.09 @ 4:47PM

Don't forget, the pitchfork commies in their audience also ran off Bill Kristol. It says more about Times management than it does about their readers. They try to staunch the bleeding by adding on writers people might actually want to read, and then cut and run at the first sign of trouble. Liberal weasels. What a concept.

Jim E| 8.11.09 @ 5:05PM

Ben, It's a shame that you got caught up in the Obama Bullshit, he's a crook and it's just a matter of time before something is done about it!! The people know that now and now it's time for his TYRANNY to go elsewhere and leave the land of the free alone once and for all. Our citizens (including the black vote) screwed up voting for this king size liar, the worst part is our chicken-shit news media is afraid of him and them(his tyrannical gov't), something has got to be done soon. If only the media would tell it like it is, and not hide all of his lies and crap!! YOU GOTTA GO!!

Autonomy_Now| 8.11.09 @ 5:31PM

Note that in all of the comments made here by the self-assured militant neoatheists, not one of them contains a logical argument. Not even an *attempt* at an argument has been made. Atheists have had thousands of years to argue logically that there is no God. They've failed. They've been reduced to posting ridicule and empty soundbites, as if doing so constitutes a reasoned position. They think that clogging up comment sections with their sockpuppets constitutes a "rational response" to views they don't agree with, as if truth now supervenes on the sheer amount of comments. Yet they still expect us to believe that *we're* all under a delusion? That they alone are the "bright" "enlightened" ones.? Hahahaaa!!!

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Ben Stein. I think he's made some bad moves (e.g., writing for the NYT in the first place). But nothing could be worse than the inane drivel burped out by PZ Myers and his herd of knuckle-dragging neoatheists. Have any of you actually seen what these people look like in RL? Go to youtube sometime and type in "creozerg" to get a glimpse. Mostly dull, overweight 40 somethings who have a lot of time on their hands. A pale computer geek here or there. A tiny, frivolous crowd. Yet on the internet they can pretend to be "rational scientists" and get tons of fake sockpuppet usernames to create the illusion that they're outnumbering saner folk. Pathetic.

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 5:49PM

From the Pork Barrel: The Existential Nausea of Anarchy Bear | Indecision Forever | C links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…'s dilemma might be moot. I mean, have you been paying attention what's been going on with Dittohead Bear? * The New York Times fires columnist Ben Stein for questioning evolution, believing in God and being critical of Barack Obama … Oh, and also maybe a little bit for engaging in consumer fraud. But just a little. * Who will Barack Obama's Death Panel vote off of this island we call…

Mark Johansen | 8.11.09 @ 6:15PM

Let's boycott the New York Times! Oh, wait, too late, everybody's doing that already.

Steve M| 8.11.09 @ 6:29PM

talkingsnakebites| 8.11.09 @ 4:11PM
Tom - I truly love it when god-botherers and jebus followers try to "insult" non-believers by calling the fact of evolution an exercise in faith. Cracks me up every time I see it - irony on so many levels. Please keep up the hilarity.
* * * * * *

And thank you for such a scholarly and well researched rebuttal. It certainly says a lot about you and your fellow evolutionists.

RightyWrong| 8.11.09 @ 6:34PM

Not arguing against God, Autonomy Now, it would be easier for you to fire up your followers if I we were.

Try to keep up with us.

Intelligent Design is not science. The fact that you argue that those who discount Intelligent Design are atheists, well, that does nothing but prove our point. Darwin is science, Intelligent Design is faith.

Actually, thanks, there's no other argument to be made. You made it crystal clear.

And by the way, there are far more of you lunatic right-wingers than not on these posts. If you feel outnumbered, well maybe you're a bit schizo as well.

Steve M| 8.11.09 @ 6:34PM

Woops, finishing the thought...

And your "proven" theory. ;-D

Steve M| 8.11.09 @ 6:37PM

And RightyWrong, you be sure and leave your cutlery in the yard for a few weeks to sharpen it. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, I have a post which addresses the subject up above.

Now, if we can just survive four years of BO's tender loving care...

Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 6:42PM

H4CBlog » Blog Archive » Ben Stein claims he was fired for criticizing Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…reason for his dismissal was not, as the Times indicated, due to a conflict of interest arising from his role as a spokesperson for credit rating service FreeScore.com, nor for budgetary issues. Read Article Posted in Babylon, Fascism, Politics, Propaganda Trackback URI | Comments RSS Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (hidden) (required) Website Archives August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April…

nader paul kucinich gravel| 8.11.09 @ 6:55PM

Anderson Baldwin Carter Choate Clemente Gonzalez Gravel Kaptur Kucinich McKinney Nader Paul Perot Sheehan Ventura

Future of a Nation that can not trust the Government & Propaganda Media?
DNC & RNC have sold out the country in order to enrich themselves
Chronic lying as career path, intellectual prostitution for paycheck
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
Does the Government & Propaganda Media lie to you?
Wall Street Bailout Bill: Bush McCain Obama et al.
AIPAC 9/11 Bankers Extortion Blackmail Bribery
Independents agree on more than we disagree
Elite Ruling Class Greed or public servants?
Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil
Honesty compassion conscience guts
Both parties are corrupt to the core
Beware the divide and conquer
Whistle-Blower leaks multiply
A very RawStory on PressTV
InfoWars on a PrisonPlanet
Israel-first dual-nationals
Gung-ho Chickenhawks
JFK RFK MLK Malcolm
Anthrax Intimidation
GGreenwald

Left and rights of passage
Black and whites of youth
Who can face the knowledge
That the truth is not the truth?
Obsolete
Absolute

Single payer?
Medicare for all?
Off the table?
Just like Impeachment was...

Autonomy_Now| 8.11.09 @ 6:55PM

The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., cannot compete with free alternative media. "Big Media" is actually a misnomer, as these corporate outlets have been shriveling up for quite some time. Corporate media cannot stay afloat so long as they continue serving the public a diet of propaganda and fluff. People are fed up with the manufactured "right/left" division and fake "reporting" perpetuated by Fox and MSNBC pundits.

Both Bush and Obama distributed trillions to big banks while the rest of us are standing in unemployment lines and struggling to keep a roof over our head. Socialism for the rich is apparently OK, but the rest of us just have to deal with it.

Obama, this fraudster, is continuing Bush-era warantless wiretapping and spying on citizens, he's continuing the illegal occupation of Iraq, indefinite detention, Orwellian thought control (e.g., criticizing Bush was "anti-American," criticizing Obama is "racism"). Obama is covering up the torture of former Gitmo prisoners, he's using rhetoric ("let's look to the future") to replace his moral obligation to prosecute Bush for warcrimes.

It's business as usual, there never was any "change" coming, and most everybody has started to realize that by now, save for the dumbasses at NYT, Fox News, and MSNBC. Corporate media cannot be trusted. Go to independent news outlets like Democracy Now, Corp Watch, Global Research, Uprising, AlterNet, Common Dreams.org, Infowars.com, Antiwar.com, and learn to critically sift through the information they provide to get a more accurate perspective on contemporary issues -- stop letting corporate media do all your thinking for you. Stop letting them fill your mind with trivialities. NYT can fire whoever it wants, because NYT will itself be looked upon as a primitive tabloid in another generation or so.

Lilytalking| 8.11.09 @ 6:56PM

The best design is intelligent design...we know to well how some people feel about that. Keep it going Ben! NYT was only one stepping stone to use for the truth. Give it all you got and it will come back 10 fold...I know my intelligent designer. GOD, give him strength...I'm praying for you Ben.

Autonomy_Now| 8.11.09 @ 7:09PM

RightyWrong, you've completely missed the point. You start off by writing: "Not arguing against God, Autonomy Now, it would be easier for you to fire up your followers if I we were." This is not even a grammatical, coherent sentence, so there is no sense in responding to it.

The rest of your comment was hopelessly confused. I am an opponent of the intelligent design movement, even though I lean toward a theistic worldview, mostly due to the fact that people like Stein have politicized ID with right-wing baggage. I equally oppose militant neoatheists like yourself, who try to fight dogma and faith with, well, more dogma and faith. Like all the other militant neoatheists in these comments, you again failed to provide a logical argument in support of your atheism. All you can do is post soundbites. To the extent that you're unwilling and unable to argue with reason and logic for your point of view, then you are promoting a faith-based epistemology. There's no reason for anybody to pay the slightest attention to you and other atheists until you guys come up with some concrete logic to back your position. Let us know when you're ready to provide it... otherwise stop wasting our time with soundbites.

RightyWrong| 8.11.09 @ 7:39PM

Autonomy Now - I completely agree, and was completely shocked, by your previous post about socialism for the rich. Indeed - as long as they keep us arguing about Intelligent Design, they continue to empty our wallets.

You write very well, however, your accusations toward me of "atheism" are not only misguided, they are incorrect. I've posted many comments under this article, and not once have I argued that there is no God.

Indeed, all I've tried to express is that a) there is a shit-ton of scientific research which backs up Darwin which the neo-righties want to disregard and b) that the name 'Theory' does not imply that he one day thought "this is what I think" and no one put it to examination and c) lingering questions in science do not invite one's religion into the mix.

That's the beauty of science - there are many folks, of many many different religious beliefs, who engage in scientific research and thought. Me thinks the creepy christian conservatives wouldn't take too kindly to a scientist, residing in India, practicing the Muslim faith, interjecting his or her religious beliefs into a cunundrum they encounter in the lab. Would we have to sit through his or her theory on this or that with an intro which says "you will study this, but Allah might have had a hand in it as well".

By the way, I don't think my writing is good enough to be called a "soundbite". But I'll take it.

Autonomy_Now| 8.11.09 @ 8:33PM

Rightywrong, no worries -- looks like we were miscommunicating.

lewbrown| 8.11.09 @ 8:41PM

Congratulation Ben on your new found freedom. Some people are just bigger than the company's they work for.

sox555| 8.11.09 @ 9:28PM

Dear Ben,
Not even my admiration for you could entice me to open an edition (much less pay for) of The New York Times.
Best wishes
a fan.

Jeremiah| 8.11.09 @ 10:35PM

What a laugher!! The New York Times, the biggest liberal whore in the world fires Ben Stein for an ethics breech. What does the NYT know about ethics or morals?

Another liberal joke.

Leo Olson| 8.11.09 @ 11:54PM

The record is increasingly false, e.g. unemployment statistics, carbon tax supporting, the private for-plunder nature of The Fed.
So "the paper of record" is increasingly false. And the people at that paper are increasingly false. To themselves besides to others. So you do well to be disassociated from them. Validating them darkens and shackles the spirit.

Notagod| 8.12.09 @ 12:08AM

Ben, its good that you got booted, you should think about trying to be a better person. I hope you at lest try.

DK | 8.12.09 @ 12:14AM

Talk about a whiner, poor Ben Stein has to find a scapegoat for all his personal failures. Geez. What a loser. Oh, and as for Freescore, the company he was pitching for, the BBB gave it an F rating. In addition, poor Ben is not an economist by any means, his advice, if followed will lead anyone quickly into bankruptcy, just check the record.

g33kch1ck| 8.12.09 @ 12:50AM

Perhaps Mr. Stein was fired, because "Expelled" not only postulated that creationism should be considered with the same merit as science, but the film itself contained numerous errors and inconsistencies. Errors and inconsistencies do not generally reflect favorably on an economist. FreeScore, which does indeed have an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau (http://www.bbb.org/nebraska/business-reviews/advertising-direct-mail/vertrue-in-omaha-ne-107000028) was simply the final straw.

wordlover| 8.12.09 @ 12:54AM

Please don't assume that just because I reject intelligent design and accept the principles of Darwinian theory that I am an atheist. AND --who in their right mind would proudly quote Jesse Helms or Ann Coulter as a source for any intelligent idea? Most of you who don't read the New York Times probably couldn't - it uses big words and well-constructed sentences. Judging by your grammatical and spelling errors, you are probably better off avoiding newspapers and sticking to the "unbiased news" on Fox or the "deep and well-reasoned ideas" of Rush Limbaugh.

Dean2009| 8.12.09 @ 1:15AM

Sorry, Ben, I missed reading anything you wrote for NYT. It has been so long since I read NYT, I didn't know you worked for them. In fact I am surprised anyone still reads it. Congratulations on your freedom!

M.| 8.12.09 @ 1:25AM

Is this the same Ben Stein who laughed at people who saw the current financial crisis coming up, and who claimed that the economy will continue to expand....

...and this while being a supposed economics expert?

...and he just lost the job NOW?

...and he was given another job here?

Why? Who can take that guy seriously anymore?

NOBAMA| 8.12.09 @ 1:53AM

Of course you reject "intelligent design." The word 'intelligent' frightens you, moron.

Sonny| 8.12.09 @ 1:55AM

The "scientists" who believe Evolution is fact are the same morons who claim "Global Warming" is true. I don't believe any of them--they're just government money hos.

Pingback| 8.12.09 @ 2:07AM

Ben Stein cranky over being fired by NY Times « Skepacabra links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…as a shill for scam “free” credit report operation, which caused a conflict of interest and violated the NY Times’ code of conduct. Well now Stein’s bitching about how he did nothing wrong and flinging feces at anything he can think of (and he says he’s not related to monkeys?). Of course first he tries to blame the persecution he’s endured since his mockumentary,…

Talis| 8.12.09 @ 2:51AM

Sonny said:

Well Sonny I just talked to my God and she said your God is a fake.

ermine| 8.12.09 @ 2:54AM

Gee I wonder why, Autonomy_now? RightyWrong said nothing about atheism, he's been talking about science all along, you're the one who keeps insisting that the posters defending the Theory of Evolution (Thoroughly tested and so far unrefuted) are atheists, when none of them are talking about anything but a specific scientific theory.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the question of when life began. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Big Bang, which happened nearly 10 Billion years before the earth ever formed. It says nothing about whether or not a God or gods exist.

Why is it that the posters trying to throw crap at the theory obviously have no idea what the Theory of Evolution even IS? Why is it that even the CREATORS of the Intelligent Design movement can't come up with any scientific theory at all? The very best they have is 'We can't understand how this happened, therefore there must be an all-powerful supernatural force that did it - Somehow. Sometime. While leaving absolutely no evidence of it.'

Completely off the subject of the ToE, why do you think the atheists have to provide any evidence for their position? Until you can actually provide some piece of verifiable evidence FOR the existence of any gods whatsoever, the atheist/agnostic choice would seem to be the sane and informed choice to make. Do you have any such proof to offer?

If you asked, I suspect that every single atheist in this thread would be completely willing to change their mind in an instant and start believing in any God that could be verified with real objective evidence. Have you got any? If not, shouldn't you worry about that before trying to take the atheists to task for simply not believing such a totally outrageous, impossible story?

PapaHans| 8.12.09 @ 3:12AM

God, what a pathetic whiner. Expelled was gibberish that looked as if it had been written and produced by a snake-handling preacher with a closed head injury. People hated it, and it totally bombed except with the mouth breathers, because it was crap, full of lies, and had nothing new in it that hadn't been written at the Scopes trial. Stein is beyond contempt. I'm sure the Lord had a hand in his dismissal as he even knows when a sparrow croaks, or some such literalist nonsense. Go away, you're boring.

Haeckel et al.| 8.12.09 @ 8:16AM

R. Wrong, have I missed your "practicing Baptist" answer to my question about John 1:3, 10? If so, please tell me when you submitted it, so I can read it. We have a lot of comments here, and I may have skipped over it.

Darwin's disciples, including R. Wrong, always seem reluctant to admit that the theory's earlier proponents (as well as today's Dawkins and others) were eager to eradicate what Haeckel called (in "The Evolution of Man") the "irrational dogmas" and "baneful ordinances" of Christianity. Haeckel wrote that "it can be forseen with certainty that a more general acquaintance with genetic facts will gradually destroy those prejudices and bring about the victory of the natural idea of 'Man's Place in Nature'."

People who think that the evolution debate is all about the first part of Genesis often are unaware that early Darwinian "scientists" tackled subjects that are outside the realm of science, intending to destroy all aspects of Christian faith. Oscar Schmidt ("The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism," my copy is from 1896) wrote that religion which includes belief in miracles is a "domain where the scepter is wielded not by the lucid intellect, but by the imagination looking through coloured glasses; not by Logic, but by arbitrary ideas; a domain where, indeed, many unquestionably honourable men still feel themselves at home, but which at best fosters only pious self-deception and indolence of mind..." Concerning belief in the creation of life by God, he wrote that it "is incompatible with knowledge, and that hence belief in a creation of life is incompatible with the investigation of it."

Without scientific evidence, Haeckel wrote that "...there is no such thing as 'free will' [because] the expression of the human will appears as subject to fixed laws as any other natural phenomenon...[Free will] is never really free, but is always determined by previous causal conditions, which are eventually referable either to Heredity or to Adaptation."

He added that "the 'spirit' and 'mind' of man are but forces which are inseparably connected with the material substance of our bodies."

Thomas Huxley's book "Science and Hebrew Tradition" (my copy is from 1896) also claims that Christian faith is incompatible with science; Judaism comes under attack as well, but as always, the primary target is the entirety of Christian faith: "It is becoming, if it has not become, impossible for men of clear intellect and adequate instruction to believe...that the universe came into being in the fashion described in the first chapter of Genesis...'Whosoever will be saved' [i.e. Christians] must believe, not only all those things, but a great many others of equal repugnancy to common sense and everyday knowledge."

Huxley added, "If the writers of the gospels have taken fiction for truth, the survivals of pagan superstition for religion, in one department of spiritual knowledge [i.e. the creation of life], what guarantee have we for their infallibility in other departments [i.e. morality and ethics]?"

Aldous Huxley, on the other hand, was quite frank about the ultimate purpose of Darwinism: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom...The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the [Christian] meaning of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever..."

That "erotic revolt" was taken up in the early years of the 20th century by atheist and evolution advocate Margaret Sanger, founder of the facilities that became today's Planned Parenthood abortuaries. Her motto was, "No gods, no masters."

Why not just admit that Darwin's disciples wanted to wipe out Christian faith? Perhaps because that admission would make people wonder if Darwinism is less than purely scientific.

The zionist threat is real| 8.12.09 @ 8:22AM

Zionists Threaten To Kill
California College Paper Editor
Independent Media Center
www.stlimc.org
7-10-3

David Schor| 8.12.09 @ 8:41AM

I completely understand your perspective, Ben, but when I saw you selling yourself for a credit report scam artist, I have to admit I was not impressed. I can't blame the NYT for kicking you to the curb.

The poor judgement demonstrated in some of your criticism of the president was confirmed by the choice to market a deceptive service company.

Best of luck, but next time think about the consequences - and accept responsibility for your own choices.

Peace.

DS

Calybos| 8.12.09 @ 8:51AM

For all the sour-grapes sneering about how "He's better off without the New York Times," the fact remains: Ben broke the rules, Ben was an embarrassment, and Ben GOT FIRED.

He thoroughly deserved it. His proven weakmindedness, through bad economics and the ludicrous "Expelled" propaganda flick, were bad enough... but when he endorsed an online credit scam operation, that was going too far.

Ben blew it, big time. And now he whines about being "persecuted," just like he did all through "Expelled," even though the REAL problem was his own poor performance and mental limitations. As always.

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 9:02AM

The Theory of Evolution isn't even a theory. It is nothing more than a concept, because the evidence for it is virtually non-existence. There are no fossils of species becoming other species. There is no reasonable theory even as to why fossils exist. There are ONLY discrete species in the fossil record, which is why a good number of the people who let the fossil record define the theory believe in Punctuated Equilibrium, or the hopeful monster theory, rather than coming up with a theory and trying to make the fossil record fit it, which is what the Darwinian gradualists do. But all they have is declaring themselves to be "right," "uncontested" and "proven," which is frankly what we used to call, before political correctness took over, a lie.

As a former believer in evolution, one day I looked at the evidence and let the chips fall. But they just kept on falling, and that's what is wrong with the human race these days. Some of you believe a theory, and belittle others who don't have the same faith you do. You are no better than the people you look down your noses at, but you're too dazzled by your own brilliance to acknowledge it.

Nick| 8.12.09 @ 9:13AM

Steve M,

Excellent post, sir!

tom| 8.12.09 @ 9:17AM

talkingsnakebite: typical darwiniac wacko, thanks for the laughs moron.

RightyWrong: you say I'm wrong, but you cannot argue any of the points I raised...all you can do is dismiss them....because you cannot argue the evidence, the science, or anything else...all you can do is babble darwiniac talking points...all you have is faith in your hairygod of evolution.

oh as far as evolution having anything to do with medicine, thats just more darwiniac talking points...evolution contributes nothing to medicine...you cannot use evolution to predict the next mutation in a virus or bacteria..what good is it??

It is curious that Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine's most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution-antibiotic resistance-is rarely described as "evolution" in relevant papers published in medical journals [1].

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050112&ct=1

this article laments the lack of evolution in medical schools...because they know its useless, just an atheist fairy tale.

evolution is a racist, eugenicist theory...no wonder liberals love it.

Donna Nunley Allen| 8.12.09 @ 9:25AM

Ben,
As the woman said to Sen. Specter, there is a "sleeping giant" that has been awakened. I suspect this silent-no-more majority love and respect you, Ben. I know I do!

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 10:03AM

Steve M. -

As I noted yesterday in my extensive missive addressed to Ben Stein, there are quite a few prominent conservatives and Republicans who recognize that evolution is a valid scientific theory (Incidentally I'm not one of those "atheistic liberals" in favor of evolution, but instead, one of those consevatives - one with very strong libertarian leanings - in favor of evolution.). Indeed, I know of no other scientific theory that is confirmed daily by thousands of scientists across the globe, from conservation biology to evolutionary genetics, from molecular biology to paleobiology and from virology to epidemiology. What the late, great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed back in 1973, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", is even more apparent now than it was back then (Incidentally Dobzhansky was a devout Christian as well as one of the leading architects of modern evolutionary theory; the Modern Synthesis, which combines Darwin's ideas with data and concepts from population genetics, and other, related biological sciences.).

To understand why Ben Stein is so wrong with regards to Intelligent Design creationism, one can look here at this relatively short website created by the National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncseweb.org):

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

And for a much longer examination, may I suggest reading my friend Ken Miller's "Only A Theoy: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" which can be purchased here:

http://astore.amazon.com/theamericansp-20/detail/0143115669

(BTW Ken does a most elegant job in examining - and then refuting - each and every one of Intelligent Design's "scientific claims".)

I would also recommend reading the ruling rendered by Conservative Federal Judge John Jones (appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush) at the close of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District
trial:

http://www.sigmaxi.org/resources/evolution/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

In closing, I am sure you probably accept Chemistry's Periodic Table of the Elements and Physics's Quantum Mechanics and Relativity as notable examples of valid scientific theories. If you do, then you should accept the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution for what it is; the key unifying theory which unites all of biology. Acceptance of evolution as valid science is - and ought to be - true whether you're an "atheistic liberal" or a conservative Deist (yours truly) with very pronounced libertarian leanings.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 10:31AM

John Kwok,

I appreciate the gentle tone, but I have to take issue with your presumption that by default, the predominant dogmatic view of science is the only valid one. The evolutionary theory is full of holes the scientific community refuses to admit even exists. If they did, the tatters left might cause people to doubt the institution which has hung their whole raison d'etre on it.

The scientific community tries to validate their beliefs by pointing to the mutation rate of such organisms as viruses and fruit flies. But then, why aren't there virtually infinite species of viruses and fruit flies? You should find that the species of flies varies by the mile, when it's often the continent, let alone the subject of viruses. The same should apply to rapidly reproducing species such as vermin, but we don't see this in nature. And I've already addressed the subject of origin of life above in some posts which addmittedly were done in the spirit of the environment I found myself in. And you can't divorce the Origin of Life from the subject, especially when evolutionary teaching involves it in every subject itself.

This wouldn't be a problem if the evolutionists, most notably, the Darwinian Gradualists which is the predominant theory, would be understanding and accomodating, and admit that their concept involves a number of leaps of faith due to lack of evidence. It is this very lack which has given rise to alternative theories like Punctuated Equilibrium and Intelligent Design. And this all lies at the feet of Darwin himself, since he basically sought a purely naturalistic answer to the Origin Question, and rather than base it on science, derived it from noting a few similarities in certain species. Not the fossil record or anything related to actual science, but his opinions on what must have happened. He hated the fossil record because it stubbornly refused to yield up the evidence he desperately needed, and still hasn't to this day. And it hasn't helped that a number of misidentifications and outright fraud has been perpetrated in the name of supporting a theory which has become a scientific theology you dare not question.

I used to be an evolutionist, but I jumped ship as I say when I let the evidence speak for itself. And thank you for the recommendations, but in today's venacular, I've been there, done that. It wasn't a snap decision either, but a ten year search for Truth.

Take care.

Steve M.

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 10:53AM

Steve M. -

Science is an "ever changing", "self-correcting" intellectual endeavor. That's why there are quite a few physicists who are embarked upon a search for a "Theory That Explains Everything" and believe that the solution lies somewhere within string theories. My endorsement of current evolutionary theory doesn't mean that it is the last, best word, and, incidentally, I agree with notable evolutionary biologists like Massimo Pigliucci and Niles Eldredge who think we are in need of an "Expanded Modern Synthesis" to take better account of paleobiology and evolutionary developmental biology (popularly known as "evo devo").

When there are prominent conservatives like P. J. O'Rourke (The Weekly Standard and Rolling Stone), John Derbyshire (National Review), George Will (The Washington Post), and Charles Krauthammer (The Washington Post) who recognize that evolution is a sound scientific theory amply supported by scientific data, then yours, Ben Stein's, and others who are evolution denialists, hold views that are really, quite fundamentally, untenable. Moreover, as I pointed out yesterday, a leading conservative biologist, Paul Gross (who was director of the Marine Biology Laboratory at Woods Hole, and most recently, Provost, University of Virginia), has been a most resolute and accurate critic of Intelligent Design creationism for years; of course his most noteworthy achievement is co-writing with philosopher Barbara Forrest (the star witness for the plaintiffs at the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial), "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design".

If you insist on denying the reality of evolution, are you prepared to reject all the latest advances in medicine and public health awareness that have been influenced extensively by the medical and public health applications of modern evolutionary theory? Because if you still deny evolution after reading my remarks and those of others, most notably Federal Judge Jones's Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, at the links I have provided, then why should you allow yourself to be treated by doctors who are using evolution to advance their understanding and treatment of disease and infection?

Mine is a fair point. Think substantially about it, and I hope once you do, you'll recognize that evolution is valid science while Intelligent Design creationism is merely mendacious intellectual pornography promoted extensively by its "Creator" the Seattle, WA-based Discovery Institute (whose name ought to be the Dishonesty Institute in light of its ongoing behavior, which include harsh attacks upon Intelligent Design critics like my friend, Brown University professor of biology, Kenneth R. Miller).

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

AnonymousCoward| 8.12.09 @ 10:55AM

Steve M: I'll provide you with some reading. Hopefully the articles will clarify all the misconceptions you have of the different scientific theories and hypothesis. I tried to first refute your arguments normally, but didn't know where to start. I'll let you read up on the subjects yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
I'll try answering if there's anything else you want to know...

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 11:24AM

John,

Well, it didn't take long to come around to doing a little gentle arm twisting and brow beating, and even insisting that medicine wouldn't be where it is today without evolutionary science, which frankly I can't believe anyone would say with a straight font. ;-)

Declaring that you have a monopoly on the truth and all else be heresy is what you guys accuse the religious right of doing. It always amazes me how liberals can call conservatives "thought police" in the age of the left wing practice of political correctness. Such double-speak is right out of Huxley and Orwell.

Look, evolution is a very elegant theory, and it's pretty plain in your response that it's also quite a vigorously defended theology to many, or they wouldn't become so vehement when it's rejected. But you Darwinians can't even explain how fossils come to be, or explain their distribution in the earth's crust, where species can be wildly misplaced from where their presupposed. You won't even acknowledge that Darwin and his adherents continuously try to fit the evidence to the theory, rather than the scientific way of looking at the evidence with the goal of letting it suggest the truth.

I also have to question whatever happened to vigorous debate in scientific inquiry? Or does that only apply to non-politically correct subjects? I think the real nail in your coffin is to insist that "the good, smart people agree with me." Very Animal Farm, and sounds a lot like the current administration. I think we're just going to have to wave to each other from different trains of thought.

To Mr Coward,

Yes, I do enjoy Wikipedia a lot for a ready stream of scientific errata of all kinds, and consult it on a number of subjects from biology to history to astrophysics as a writer of science and science-fantasy both in my spare time. However, you should also know that it is dominated by a crowd of politically correct elites, and two subjects, Barack Obama and evolution, are two of the most hotly contested subjects that any and all dissent are swept aside cavalierly. BO in fact is some kind of divine incarnate, if you use the Wiki as a source for "his holiness," so on both subjects, I defer to net-wide information.

CB| 8.12.09 @ 11:30AM

"first, it's sad that the Internet has become a backyard gossip freeway for the whole world's sick people to pour out their neuroses."

Indeed, this is a sad situation we have slid into. The Internet has given the rabble who will not keep an open mind to tolerance and debate of major issues a voice that reaches every inch of the globe. The fact that we must share the Internet with the unthinking population should bring pain to ever free-thinkers heart (and brain). An equally sad situation has arisen from the state of media(tainment). The nescient look to the TV news networks and newspapers as if they hold the absolute, honest-to-goodness truth within them through the inherent fact that they are the news. That this ignorant population has lost the will or ability to think rationally for themselves and have instead opted to rely on subjective media outlets for their opinions and facts would depress any enlightened human.

Good riddance to the NYT, and good luck to you Ben Stein.

dug_down_deep | 8.12.09 @ 11:30AM

Ben, you have no place on the staff of a legitimate news organization. You believe that some guy named God built the human body out of mud. You are fringe. This is a simple fact, not an insult.

anoncow| 8.12.09 @ 11:39AM

Steve M:
Well, luckily non of the wiki-articles I linked to had anything to do with evolution, but just science in general.

[btw just to make it clear: I couldn't give less of a damn about American politics. :) ]

dug_down_deep| 8.12.09 @ 11:39AM

Are you allowed to comment on this article if you don't agree with Ben?

anoncow| 8.12.09 @ 11:47AM

SteveM:

When was evolution hotly contested by anyone, but the creationist crowd?

I also have hard time believing that you're a science-writer when all you've written thus far has so clearly shown that you barely have a grasp of the subjects you're skeptical about.

Anyways, that's what I forgot to add to my last post...

Read the posts| 8.12.09 @ 11:51AM

Dug, shouldn't you have read the comments before asking that question? There are plenty of comments against Mr. Stein as well as for him.

tom| 8.12.09 @ 11:54AM

John Kwok: well well the professional darwiniac enters the thread...posting the usual lies and BS.

"Indeed, I know of no other scientific theory that is confirmed daily by thousands of scientists across the globe, from conservation biology to evolutionary genetics, from molecular biology to paleobiology and from virology to epidemiology"

talking points...its being discredited day by day...the darwinian concepts of 'junk dna' is discredited, along with the tree of life, adaptive radiation, the fossil record does not show evolution, nor can it be demonstrated in the lab...

tell us mr. scientist, the exact mutations, IN ORDER, that led to the eye...you cannot, but you have FAITH it evolved...and thats all evolution is...atheistic faith.

expelledexposed.com...is so full of lies...try NCSEExposed.org

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/expelled_exposed_exposed_your.html

you darwiniacs are a bunch of brown-shirted fascists...truth hurts.

your 'cosnervative' judge jones did nothing but quote the wacko ACLU in his talking points...which is all posts are...talking points.

tom| 8.12.09 @ 11:59AM

Kwak: If you insist on denying the reality of evolution, are you prepared to reject all the latest advances in medicine and public health awareness that have been influenced extensively by the medical and public health applications of modern evolutionary theory?

what BS...evolution is useless in medicine, as I proved in my previous post...which shows how useless evolution is in medicine...even coyne admits the truth...

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell's fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

why can't you? oh because you're a darwiniac.

tom| 8.12.09 @ 12:04PM

oh and kwak, here's your friend miller letting the cat out of the bag when it comes to athiesm and evolution...

"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us." (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 12:05PM

anoncow,

Well, I'm beginning to think you might actually be a cow, considering your last post. ;-)

Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. The net is so full of win, isn't it?

dug_down_deep| 8.12.09 @ 12:13PM

Yes, sorry. I thought my first comment was deleted, but it was just that a new comments page had been spawned. Thanks for the correction.

lulzcow| 8.12.09 @ 12:19PM

Steve M: I don't know what made you think I'm a cow, but whatever. I just hope you at least read up on what you're criticizing.

DK | 8.12.09 @ 12:38PM

Well, Ben has been somewhat successful at diverting the discussion away from his inept behavior to a discussion of religion (creationism/ID) versus science (evolution), i.e., one of the techniques used by creationists to focus elsewhere other than on the issue at hand.
And the issue is, well, Ben and his qualifications and judgement, or lack thereof, which the latter seems to be plentiful.

But what strikes me is the demeaner and appearance of this supposed adult. Looking at his picture in this column and the "acting" roles he's played, I perceive he's still a child who's never grown up, a spoiled brat. The cutsy appearance, the dimwitted drawl he uses, the excuses he uses, the finger pointing, the inability to accept responsibility, all indications that this man (boy?) needs some professional help.

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 12:50PM

lulz,

I'm not sure what it is that makes you think I haven't boned up on whatever it is you think I haven't. Quantum physics? That's a pretty deep well, and considering scientists devote their lives to tiny fractions of the whole subject, I'm not sure how far any pursuit by me would satisfy you.

Astrophysics? Well, the universe is a pretty darn big place, I think you'd agree, and Hubble is just one tool that's giving scientists a lifetime of information to ponder.

Abiogenesis? Well, that's hardly a new subject, but you still have to suspend basic laws of physics and chemistry to justify the processes these theoreticians propose, but I have acquainted myself with it when I was doing that chip falling thing I mentioned above a few times.

In fact, I was one of those inquiring minds that asked tough questions in school, not knowing they were tough questions because I always assumed those smart teachers knew it all, like why the Grand Canyion was millions of years old when geophysics showed that rivers eventually became floodplains, and deeply cut features in the earth's crust were caused by rapid erosion events? Or when matter started realizing it was alive and not dead, or why that process wasn't still going on, or was it? Or heck, what the difference was in carbon that made coal opaque but diamond transparent? Why glass was transparent when it's as dense as metal? Why there aren't any transparent metals? What Time and gravity were? I quickly learned that science didn't always know the answers, but sometimes played make believe that it did, with certain subjects anyway.

I only have so many hours in the day to fuel my desires and entertainments, as well as my thirst for knowledge. On top of that, I do have to spend some time worrying about what BO and his cronies are doing to our Constitution and our country. Having Czars and advisors who advocate sterilization programs - voluntary or not, legal rights for animals, infanticide, euthenasia as a solution to the burden on the planet, and widespread nationalization programs is much more worrisome to me than whether some guy out there in the vastness of the earth believes in magic, evolution or Santa Claus.

And listen, if finding people who don't share your views causes you such heartburn, I think the last place you should be spending a lot of time is the internet, unless it's a board or chatroom where everyone agrees with you and thinks you're an undiscovered genius. Just a thought.

To Dug Down Deep| 8.12.09 @ 1:05PM

Dug, my apologies. I thought you were being snarky.

lulzcow| 8.12.09 @ 1:50PM

Abiogenesis: I'd be glad to know which basic laws it violates since there's no such law that I can come up with right now. cdk007 has made a pretty nice video explaining abiogenesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Quantum physics: Sure, it can be hard to comprehend sometimes, but the basics ain't that hard for even a layman to understand.

Astrophysics: One of my favorite fields of science. Incidentally AndromedasWake has a series on YT debunking creationist cosmology.
First part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8O46wUCw5A

Grand Canyon: This creationist claim has been debunked to death. One example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wa_ey3jGPs

...And some on life & intelligence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEXK3A57Hk

I understand that people have lives to take care of and I guess I should have just posted links to videos in the first place. :D It's so much less time-consuming.

BTW I'm not trying to claim that we know everything. Saying "I don't know" is imo just being honest and way better than making up the answers without a shred of evidence.

I usually don't take part in these discussions, but chose to participate this time. Normally I just mentally facepalm and leave it at that.

lulzcow| 8.12.09 @ 2:05PM

And some answers to some of your other questions:
Glass: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm
Diamonds: http://www.diamondse.info/diamonds.asp
Time (the most speculative of the answers, can be a real bitch to understand well): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

Gravity (I did already give a link, but to give a more in-depth link): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Oh and: http://www.physorg.com/news156104532.html

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 2:12PM

lulz,

You need some reading comprehension. There's a rather subtantial difference between saying that a subject is "vast" and a subject is "hard." I know both are four letter words, but come on now.

By the way, it doesn't matter how boiled down the concepts of evolution and Origin of Life are, you still have to suspend certain established scientific laws in order to allow for them. Evolution is the only subject I'm aware of in which the scientific community offers waivers. Abiogenesis, you have to abolish the laws of thermodynamics. Things like the erosion of the earth's surface, you deny the principles of geodynamics. Let's not forget all the caverns in the earth's crust which somehow survive countless severe earthquakes over tens of millions of years as well as movement of the crust, which like kneading bread dough, tends to squash the "bubbles."

I'm surprised that evolutionists don't ask why death of any living body doesn't result in a zombie. After all, an entire library of genetic code still exists in the cells. Why don't they keep ticking, when they insist that dead matter began functioning in increasingly life-similar processes when life began, when there was no information infrastructure in organic and near-organic matter? After all, genetic material supposedly survives for millions of years in fossils.

How are fossils formed again?

This condescending attitude from the left and intellectual leets is what turns most Americans off. It's rampant in every aspect of Obamatopia. I just left the lunchroom where the news was on, and a democrat advisor to the Clintons flat out said that the dissenters to Obamacare are all liars.

Sounds remotely like this discussion. If you don't go along with the crowd, you're a dumb liar spreader. Well, I do know that someone is spreading something pretty thick, and unlike the evolutionists, I'm not declaring that my side is factual. Every time you guys belittle simple questions and honest questioners, you create yet another wall around yourselves, because those of us on the outside aren't liars or stupid people. Some of us simply listen to all you insist to be factual, look them over honestly, and draw conclusions. Which is something the Darwinian simply won't do.

Ken| 8.12.09 @ 2:14PM

I sometimes agree with your financial/political analysis but what is it with not being able to separate science and religion? Is it called neo-Surgery when you need an operation or are you a Christian Scientist?

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 2:27PM

By the way,

"The materials used for glass-making cool to form an amorphous mix of molecules (like a liquid) and have electrons that do not absorb the energy of photons in the visible spectrum."

This is way too boiled down to provide any significant insight, because there many amorphous solids are opaque. What is it that makes an electron of silica in a non-crystalline form different than an electron in metal or opaque plastic?

This is why most people point me to the net, because the explanations are simply unsatisfying. Even when we can all observe glass, but not evolution. ;-D

I really should get back to work though, because I'm a bureaucrat in the fedarul guvmint, and being a conservative with certain views is as endangered a species as you can find. So much for liberal openmindedness...

Ben| 8.12.09 @ 2:46PM

"[. . .] avid scientific disagreement?" Where?

lulzcow| 8.12.09 @ 2:51PM

Sorry for my use of words. English isn't one of my native languages.

"Abiogenesis, you have to abolish the laws of thermodynamics."

How so? Which one of the three is it? Pick one and explain why it's incompatible.

"Things like the erosion of the earth's surface, you deny the principles of geodynamics."

This is basic geology. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on the "principles of geodynamics".

"After all, genetic material supposedly survives for millions of years in fossils."

It rarely does and if it does it's because the fossil's been isolated in a place where microbes aren't able to break it down.

"How are fossils formed again?"

In a few different ways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Types_of_preservation

"This condescending attitude from the left and intellectual leets is what turns most Americans off."

Sorry if I sounded condescending. It wasn't my intention. I'm trying to answer your questions to the best of my abilities. I'm a layman just like most of us. My only intention here is to promote evidence based knowledge. I try staying away from politics. =)

It's already 10 PM where I live, so I'm probably gonna do something more entertaining now.

William 5| 8.12.09 @ 3:15PM

Creationists, science, like Darwin's theory, is an every evolving arena. And thankfully most scientists are rarely satisfied and keep trying to poke holes and/or further understanding in just about every scientific arena imagineable.

Where would be today, if, in the past, scientists studying cancer, it's effects on the human body, and how various drugs interact with both the body and the cancer itself, found themselves with something they couldn't explain, and, rather than subject themselves to further investigation, decided to insert their faith in the process, and called it good?

Further, since you wish Intelligent Design to be taught in science class, what happens with these behemoth developing economies (India and China), who actually teach their kids science, in science class, start to present new ideas and theories? Shall we have the Indian of Muslim faith, when faced with a cunundrum (I'm borrowing from a previous poster here), interject Allah into his science?

Would we then have our students sit through a theory on molecular biology, with an intro which suggests Allah may have a part in the results?

I'm not sure the creationists would dig that.

I'm also not sure where ya'll get off bringing your religion into my science class. As another gentleman said on here many times...believe what you will - faith is a very good thing. It's called church, and the beauty of this country is that freedom of religion is allowed by all.

Mike| 8.12.09 @ 3:21PM

Ben,

If I had a subscription to the NY Times, I would cancel it.

Matt| 8.12.09 @ 3:48PM

Hey Ben,
When people cant handle your arguments, they supress instead of answer!

Jean | 8.12.09 @ 4:19PM

Ben - isn't it interesting that people who call themselves "liberal" are the first ones to completely squelch freedom of speech. Whatever happened to the "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?" If there are similarities between today and the Weimar Republic, the progressive extinction of genuine investigative journalism within mainstream "news" organizations in favor of blatant propaganda is a big one. When the Obama adminstration hires its own version of Leni Riefenstahl, then this country will have moved much too close to fascism for my taste.

Steven | 8.12.09 @ 4:24PM

I love Ben for standing up for what he knows to be true . Even if most of the world don't believe in Intelligent Design I can't say that I can respect their views . God says that man's ideas of knowledge are foolish to him .
It drives me crazy that the Truth has been repressed from the world . The bible is a true account of how God led a nation through thick and thin just to be rejected by them in the end . That is the story of the Holy Bible . Betrayal by Israel . So when Christ came to tell us we were not on the right track we killed him for it .
So Ben you should not be surprised because everything that has come along to prove the existence of a higher Creator Man has killed and or rejected the message and the messagers so join the club Ben you have joined a long line of men who have been persecuted for their beliefs in the Almighty Creator . My hat is off to you sir

God bless

SAM ARISAN| 8.12.09 @ 4:50PM

Ben,

Keep up the good work.

Sam

Pingback| 8.12.09 @ 5:29PM

Ben Stein: You’re Expelled! « ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Ben Stein: You’re Expelled! « ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ Home Guidelines About Ben Stein: You’re Expelled! August 12, 2009 Ben Stein, long-time columnist for the NY Times has been fired! HT: Nota Bene. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) Ben Stein cranky over being fired by NY Times Stein’s whine Ben Stein violates ethics guidelines. Surprised? Ben Stein loses…

Rachel| 8.12.09 @ 5:38PM

Ben,

I have always loved listening to you, even way back on your game show "Win Ben Stein's Money", and the email that circulated a few years ago where you announced that wishing someone a "Merry Christmas" was not meant as a threat or to be intimidating to other beliefs even though it is considered by many to be other than politically correct.

If I had a subscription to the Times I would cancel it over this incident. I will keep looking for your articles online and will continue to use your honest common sense approaches in my every day life.

Although it is a bit early, as a Catholic, I would like to sincerely wish you and your family a very Happy Hanukkah for this coming season. I will always remember your comments as we decorate our Christmas Tree each year.

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 5:57PM

Steve M. -

Mine are valid questions, with regards to the application of evolutionary theory to medicine and public health, as the recent discovery that the "swine flu" virus found originally in Mexico, may have evolved from the virus strain responsible for the 1918 pandemic. So if you don't want to benefit from recent advances in medicine courtesy of evolution, then please tell your doctor not to give you the updated flu shots which will have the swine flu virus present.

As a former invertebrate paleobiologist, I try to be understanding to those who are skeptical for evolution, but someone like yourself who claims to have been an "evolutionist" doesn't quite have my utmost sympathy. Evolution is a fact. Deal with it.

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 6:02PM

tom -

My "buddy" David Klinghoffer of the Dishonesty Institute (who is like yours truly and Ken Miller, an alumnus of Brown University) has referred to me in third person as an "obsessed Darwin lover". It's a shame your absurd nickname for me ("Darwiniac") isn't as eloquent as David's.

Again, I have the same advice for you that I have given Steve M.: Evolution is a fact. Deal with it.

Moreover, as I have just noted in the case of swine flu, doctors and epidemiologists are applying the principles of evolutionary theory so they can understand the origins and spread of an infectious disease like swine flu.

Tom| 8.12.09 @ 6:35PM

whats the matter there kwak, can't list the mutations that led to an eye?? don't worry, you darwiniacs are known for a lack of real science and an abundance of storytelling. all you can do is mouth darwiniac talking points. you cannot deal with any point that requires independent thinking....no surprise, having read your idiotic drivel on amazon.

I have advise for you: your lies aren't working.

what 'principles' of evolution theory?? hmmm? things change?? duhhhhhh oh and I thought evolution wasn't concerned with 'origins'.....you're slipping there kwak.

Tom| 8.12.09 @ 6:39PM

well kwak, you graduated from brown, just shows how far they have fallen. darwiniac is rather fitting, given all you do is mouth darwiniac talking points. I see you could not tell me the mutations that led to an eye...no surprise. darwiniacs are unable to deal with anything that requires independent thinking...so you have to ignore everything that demolishes your atheistic faith. You couldn't even deal with what coyne said..too funny

I have some advise for you: your lies aren't working. and your inability to go beyond talking points is PAINFULLY obvious.

oh I thought evolution wasn't concerned with 'origins'...and yes the 'principles' of evolution...stuff happens...yeah thats real helpful there kwak.

Tom| 8.12.09 @ 6:40PM

well kwak, you graduated from brown, just shows how far they have fallen. darwiniac is rather fitting, given all you do is mouth darwiniac talking points. I see you could not tell me the mutations that led to an eye...no surprise. darwiniacs are unable to deal with anything that requires independent thinking...so you have to ignore everything that demolishes your atheistic faith.

I have some advise for you: your lies aren't working. and your inability to go beyond talking points is PAINFULLY obvious.

oh I thought evolution wasn't concerned with 'origins'...and yes the 'principles' of evolution...stuff happens...yeah thats real helpful there kwak.

T| 8.12.09 @ 6:41PM

well kwak, you graduated from brown, just shows how far they have fallen. darwiniac is rather fitting, given all you do is mouth darwiniac talking points. I see you could not tell me the mutations that led to an eye...no surprise. darwiniacs are unable to deal with anything that requires independent thinking...so you have to ignore everything that demolishes your atheistic faith.

I have some advise for you: your lies aren't working. and your inability to go beyond talking points is PAINFULLY obvious.

oh I thought evolution wasn't concerned with 'origins'...and yes the 'principles' of evolution...stuff happens...yeah thats real helpful there kwak.

t| 8.12.09 @ 6:41PM

test

William 5| 8.12.09 @ 7:04PM

Hilarious Tom!

You're fun to read.

Since you're quick to call out questions to other thoughtful folks on here - here's one for you. Explain how God did it...how did God create the eye? If Intelligent Design is a science, you'll have concrete, step-by-step examples of how it came to be.

Like I said to a previous illusionist such as yourself - you teach your kids intelligent design, i'll teach my kids actual science, and your kids can mop up the cafeteria at the hospital my kids perform surgery at.

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 7:43PM

Well, since we're all playing relatively nice now, for the most part...

Origin of Life theories are fraught with intellectual minefields when you want to explain it through purely naturalistic processes. This is where the second law of thermodynamics comes into play, which from our beloved Wikipedia states:

The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

In a simple manner, the second law states "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy rather than decrease it."

And we all know about entropy, which causes clocks to run down, streets to wear down, food to grow cold and rot, cars and our bodies to age and fail. And this is the primary phenomenon we see in nature. Even the strongest mountains are doomed to being worn away by the environment, and sometimes do visibly. I remember a NOVA episode on the Grand Canyon and marveling at real time footage of sandstone canyon walls being blown away just from wind erosion. I joked above that evolutionists should be consistent and leave their cutlery out in the woods to sharpen them, when of course they simply rust away.

Entropy dictates that complex systems run down unless work is put into any system to maintain or improve it. Scientists have made a big deal about being able to simulate a primordial atmosphere and zapping the compounds with electricity, producing gooey strings of hydrocarbons and other substances which could conceivably be the building blocks for more complex structures which would be key building blocks for life. The problem is though that these subtstances aren't even as robust as the cutlery I mentioned. And these substances would be at the mercy of the environment, which as you know, seems to find every way possible to break anything and everything down into more basic substances.

Any kind of carbon-hydrogen-oxygen-sulfur-metal matrix would have to be isolated from the environment. Work would have to be done on these substances to imbue them with information, a library of chemical behavior and specialized tasks in order to build, maintain and improve these globs of oily goo into systematic, organized chemical machines. These chemical machines would have to keep ticking, and with each tick of the chemical clock, work on building ever more complicated machine structures, and not just random structures, but chemical machines that start adding new, useful information to itself.

But that's a problem. Like our cutlery, these even more fragile substances would be broken down by the environment. They would dismantle themselves. Even if you ignored the second law, there's no way to explain how these chemical machines arrived at a library of information, or where it came from, or how these molecules decided what was useful information and what wasn't.

Take your body. You may not know it, but it's constantly dissolving away. It's corrosive to itself, never mind what the environment is doing to it. The only thing that keeps your body from rotting away is an unimaginably vast library of information encoded in the DNA and RNA structures of each cell. Okay, presuppose that life exists, and you can theorize that living things wouldn't just continue on, but by some sort of feedback system which may exists, improve itself. But this is the issue which the naturalistc origin folk have to insist happened.

1. The laws of entropy have to be suspended somehow.

2. Complex structures have to have information encoded into them with no source, enabling them to function like living systems when they aren't yet alive.

3. At some point, these chemical machines have to become organized enough to begin building ever more complicated versions of themselves, and creating new information in order to do it, without a source for the information, until finally you end up with cellular life.

And then there's a fourth issue, which is why these machines quit working, or why they die.

It's no wonder so many people can't handle this issue logically and turn to either fantasy: aliens did it to the newborn earth, or God did it. Of course, the alien solution doesn't do anything but add a step, leaving you with a black hole to fill in.

I could go on and on, but I think this is a good enough example of why some of us just aren't satisfied with the pat answers which we're told we can darn well accept from the dominant scientific community. Both the hopeful monster guys and intelligent designers may be grasping at straws, but at least they're trying to pierce a veil of mystery which the Darwinists refuse to even acknowledge is even there. And, you know, mocking people for looking for answers isn't the most enlightened behavior in the world, so you evolutionists could stand to quit acting like we stole your dentures, just because we follow a different path. ;-)

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 7:46PM

William 5 -

The problem with tom's inane reasoning is that he:
1) relies on the pronouncements of such false Messiahs as Ben Stein, and Dishonesty Institute colleagues like William Dembski and David Klinghoffer
2) has a problem reading valid criticism of Intelligent Design creationism when it has been stated by other conservatives, including not only myself, but more important, such eminent ones as John Derbyshire (National Review), Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post), George Will (Washington Post), and, of course, Federal Judge John Jones who presided over the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, which was a legal debacle for Intelligent Design creationism.

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 7:49PM

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 5:57PM
Steve M. -
...As a former invertebrate paleobiologist, I try to be understanding to those who are skeptical for evolution, but someone like yourself who claims to have been an "evolutionist" doesn't quite have my utmost sympathy. Evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
* * * * * *

If only insisting that something was so just because, because I have many things I would love to declare by fiat. But rather than being told by someone what and how to think, sort of like BO wants all of Amerika to obey his bidding, I think I'll just muddle along. And if that upsets you, oh well, sucks to be you I suppose. ;-D

Questions| 8.12.09 @ 7:58PM

William 5, I can believe that eyes have evolved and changed over time as species have adapted to their environments. I have no trouble believing in evolution in that sense, as adaptation within separate species. My questions concern the origin of inorganic matter -- how could anything, and everything, come from nothing by natural processes, if those natural processes didn't exist yet? -- and after that, the change from inorganic matter to organic. If some matter changed from inorganic to organic, why not most of it, or all of it? And how much evidence do we have that one species evolves into a different one?

But I suppose the biggest problem I have with Darwinian evolution is the fact that its believers don't talk much about the ultimate conclusion: that their lives are accidental, purposeless and pointless, in an eternal sense; and that if there is no God, none of us will be held accountable for what we do, think or say in this life. We are only accidental animals, and if we want to take what others have, including their lives, who's to say that we're evil? Why not do whatever we want, take whatever we want, and say to heck with other people? We're all just atoms that formed into soulless animals.

What moral right does anyone have to complain if, say someone rapes and murders his child? The murderer is just acting on his natural impulses; who's to say he shouldn't do whatever he wants with his finite existence?

Steve M| 8.12.09 @ 8:04PM

By the way John, as a former moderate, I try to be understanding to those who ask questions of those of conservative and religious persuasion, but someone like yourself who claims to be a "conservative" doesn't quite ring true.

Some of us like to ask questions, and being told to shut up when we disagree doesn't reflect a thing on us, but it does on you.

Take care.

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 8:18PM

Steve M. -

Science is not a "democracy", nor does it relies on public opinion. It is an "ever-changing", "self-correcting" intellectual endeavor based on the daily and past activities of generations of scientists working across the globe. There is no "liberal", "moderate" or "conservative" way to do science.

We do know the major outlines of evolution and have known this since the joint announcement at the Linnean Society of London back in 1858 of Darwin and Wallace's papers proposing their independently derived Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. Ever since then science has assembled a substantial amount of data which has only confirmed the reality of evolution as both a scientific fact and as an unusually well-corrobotated scientific theory. Does it mean we know everything that we ought to know about evolution? No, by no means do we, and that is among the reasons why I have noted that some prominent evolutionary biologists think it is time that we begin developing a new, improved, "Extended Modern Synthesis" theory of evolution.

If you're looking for dogma and those who really want people to "shut up", then you can find it immediately with the likes of Ben Stein and his disingenuous, deceitful, and often hypocritical, friends and colleagues at the Dishonesty Institute.
Even a long-time conservative like myself can recognize that the "scientific research" which the Dishonesty Institute claims to do is, essentially, just an ongoing stream of mendacious intellectual pornography being sent to gullible members of the public such as yourself.

If you want to know what really thoughtful conservatives say about evolution and why it is valid science, then read Derbyshire, Will and Krauthammer, not Stein, Dembski and Klinghoffer.

William 5| 8.12.09 @ 8:21PM

Questions...great post. You've made me pause and think - we should all learn from you (I'm quick to get heated and toss out anger - as are many on here).

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 8:26PM

William 5 -

While I understand Questions's concerns, but they have no place in a scientific discussion, but instead, one devoted to ethics and morality. When we discuss valid scientific theories in physics and chemistry like gravity, Quantum Mechanics and the Periodic Table of the Elements, such issues raised by Question are regarded correctly as those which are irrelevant. The same has to be true with evolution and its status as the key unifying theory of biology, or else we run the risk of transforming biology into an entity unrecognizable as science.

William 5| 8.12.09 @ 8:26PM

John's on it, and I'm not trying to pile on Steve M.

If John and I believe in science, as we've stated very emphatically that we are, then we're open to that which is currently understood and/or proven in science, being debunked by further scientific investigation.

Science itself, is evolving, and thankfully so, otherwise we'd still be fighting every infection with penicillin.

Inserting your faith where questions and/or dead ends arise in science, seems to me to be an awfully dangerous precedent to set. I'm not ready to do that. If you are, good on ya mate, but that's not me.

William 5| 8.12.09 @ 8:28PM

No no...you're right John, I was starting to head in a philosophical direction.

However, I'd say a lot of concern from those who believe in Intelligent Design comes from those issues which Questions brought up.

tom| 8.12.09 @ 8:34PM

william 5:

talk about funny, you want ID, which you claim isn't a science, to do something that evolution, which you claim IS science, cannot do.....have you ever had logic 101??

all you teach your kids is atheistic faith..ie the big lie. because evolution is nothing more than faith.

tom| 8.12.09 @ 8:41PM

oh and kwak, your 'tolerant' darwiniacs are bunch of brown-shirted fascists, like yourself, who cannot tolerate dissent. look what they did to Sternberg, Crocker, and Gonzales.

your lies are so transparent...but hey lying for darwin, its what you do

tom| 8.12.09 @ 8:43PM

lets see, the fossil record shows no evolution, 'junk' DNA is a discredited darwiniac concept, along with 'vestigial' organs, the tree of life, and adaptive radiation. evolution cannot be shown in the lab, or in the field...

explain the tuatara, which has the fastest rate of molecular evolution of any animal found, yet is a 'living dinosaur'

darwiniacs have no explanation...all they have is a 'DARWIN OF THE GAPS' uh it evolved because evolution is true....right.

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 8:55PM

Tom -

Your inane comments regarding "martyrs" like Crocker, Gonzalez and Sternberg can be found here, where there are specific entries regarding their cases:

http://www.expelledexposed.com

None of these ID proponents were martyrs for the cause as you so contend, and their problems were entirely self-inflicted, which is stated quite clearly in their respective entries at the website I have cited.

John Kwok| 8.12.09 @ 9:06PM

Tom -

If I'm lying for "Darwin", then you're definitely lying for ignorant, irrational thought. So are Stein, Dembski, Klinghoffer and the rest of their pathetic band of mendacious intellectual pornographers affiliated with the Dishonesty Institute.

I have told Dembski and Klinghoffer that there is indeed more proof in support of a "Klingon Cosmology" than there ever will be for Intelligent Design creationism. Ken Miller believes that Intelligent Design proponent - and Lehigh University biochemist - Michael Behe ought to write a textbook on Klingon Biochemistry.

So who is really the best "liar" here? I think it is obvious; you, Stein and the rest of your ilk.

John Heininger | 8.12.09 @ 9:09PM

Methodological Naturalism: The Severing of Science.

In recent decades there have been ideologically driven efforts by versed interests to sever science and remove it from its complete and proper context; on the mistaken notion that science must be solely about godless naturalistic material processes, to the exclusion of all else. This misrepresentation of science is neither scientific nor realistic – and is ultimately unsustainable.

Firstly, naturalistic science falls well short of ever answering ultimate questions of origins and existence. A reality acknowledged even by hard core atheists, who, none-the-less, operate on the blind faith notion that naturalism and raw materialism will increasingly explain all of reality, to the point where nothing beyond the material world is ever necessary, including God.

The noted atheistic philosopher Jean Paul Sarte however highlighted the absurdity of this aspiration, and finally conceded that this hope could never be achieved. Said Sarte, "A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd." He realized that because human knowledge would forever be finite and limited, humanity would never ever be in a position to have the ultimate big picture. And science has in reality discovered that the further we push back the frontiers of scientific knowledge the more unanswered questions we have.

This is not to say that we should not continue with increased effort to discover all we can about the natural world, and always seek "firstly" to explain the mysteries of nature and the universe in purely naturalistic terms, as the empirical and scientific science method does, and does well. Science is about the facts. It’s about discovering truths about the natural world, entirely by natural laws and processes alone (Dover). However, this is only the "initial" part of what constitutes science and the scientific method, and utterly ignores the foundational realities on which all of science ultimately rests, and operates. The foundational truth about science and the natural world is that it cannot be ultimately explained by naturalistic laws or material processes alone. Every scientist knows that all of science ultimately rests entirely on phenomena that have absolutely no naturalistic explanation.

The Dover ID trial severed science, and turned science on its head. It was decreed at Dover that natural law and material processes alone must define what is science. This turned out to be ultimately loopy logic, as the gatekeeper itself, natural law, has no naturalistic explanation, and there is nothing to suggest this will ever change (Sarte). This is rather like appointing an unidentified alien to guard planet earth from all other unidentified aliens, particularly God.

None-the-less, this loopy logic was made both the measure, and the means of defining science. It was both inadequate and defective. While matter, energy and other natural phenomena are the principle focus of science, the scientific community has absolutely no idea of what matter and energy ultimately is, or how it came into existence. This is particularly true in regard to the origin and nature of the dependent universe itself. A contingent dying universe that is running down towards head death and maximum entropy cannot explain itself. And there is absolutely no verifiable naturalistic explanation as to how our dependent cosmos came into being, or how a dead universe devoid of energy would ever wind itself up again to the initial state of minimum entropy, a state of maximum usable energy, information, and order.

Moreover, all of science is based on material and mathematical relationships. But no scientist has even the foggiest notion of how these material and mathematical relationships came into existence. Nor is there the foggiest notion of where the cosmological constants came from, naturalistically.

Secondly, central to science is the foundational acceptance that we live in a universe that clearly manifests regularity, predictability and mathematical order. A reality every scientist in every field automatically assumes in order to be able to do science. All scientists assume we live in a universe where reason and intelligence can be applied to science, and such a universe must of necessity clearly manifest intelligence, at every level.

Therefore, to argue that the ID concept – of the universe being intelligently designed by an intelligent cause – has no place in science or science education, is to deny the foundational reality on which every field of science and western technology ultimately operates, every day, and in every way.

Methodological naturalism severs science. It’s insistence that all of science and science education must be restricted exclusively to purely naturalistic explanations and falsly splits science in two, because it specifically excludes the principle phenomena, and foundational principles, on which all of science is founded. And this is exactly what happened at Dover – no intelligence allowed.

The methodological naturalism now being imposed on science and science education is founded on the religious beliefs of philosophical naturalism and atheism. This widespread indoctrinating of students on atheistic based perspectives hostile to theism must be challenged. Science needs to be seen in its full and proper context. Not only to ensure balanced and open enquiry, but also because the highest court in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, has rightly ruled atheism to be a religion, in the full sense of the word - atheism is new religion now being sutterly promoted in all science classes.

Hell on earth| 8.12.09 @ 9:16PM

messages - Collapse all - Translate all to Translated (View all originals)

The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Cancel

Send Discard

From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject

Subject:

Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.

Send Discard

Roy Roger View profile
More options Nov 28 2007, 8:03 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian, soc.culture.british, soc.culture.israel, soc.culture.jewish
From: "Roy Roger"
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:03:16 GMT
Local: Wed, Nov 28 2007 8:03 am
Subject: OVERVIEW OF THE JEWISH-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
OVERVIEW OF THE JEWISH-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

THERE IS NOTHING "Federal" about the Federal Reserve Bank. In other words,
the Federal Reserve is not "federal" and it does not have any "reserves."
The Jewish Bankers, who are masters of deception, own the Federal Reserve
Bank, print money with interest but without any backing, and would like to
keep their "federal" banking cartel a secret.

But the House of Rothschild which owns 57% of the stock of the
privately-held Federal Reserve Bank, is alive and well in North America.
Recently, Reuters News Agency published an article announcing two new
appointees of the Rothschilds' banking interests in North America @
Rothschild Bank Names New North America Heads. And be certain that the
Rothschilds have charged their appointees to act as liaisons with their
fellow Jewish bankers who own the Federal Reserve Bank.

It was Jacob Rothschild II who in a letter to his US agents in 1863 with
regard to establishing a Central Bank in America said: "The few who
understand the system will either be so interested from its profits or so
dependant on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class.
The other class will simply have no comprehension or concern about American
monetary policy."

Here is an historical overview of the makings of the Jewish-owned Federal
Reserve Bank:

* 1791-1811: Rothschilds' First Bank of the United States
* 1816-1836: Rothschilds' Second Bank of the United States
* 1837-1862: Free Banking Era -no formal Central Bank through the efforts of
President Andrew Jackson
* 1862-1913: System of National Banks through the efforts of President
Andrew Jackson
* 1914-Current: Federal Reserve Act effects a consortium of 7 privately held
Jewish banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The largest share holders of
the bank are the Rothschild's of London holding 57% of the stock which is
not available for public trading.

THE JEW Paul Warburg (1868-1932), came to the United States from Germany in
1902, buying into the partnership of the Jewish owned bank Kuhn, Loeb and
Co. with the financial backing of the Rothschilds.

Paul Warburg was a man with a mission, sent here by the Alfred Rothschild to
lobby for the passing of a Central Banking Law in Congress. On January 6,
1907, the New York Times published an article by Warburg, called "Defects
and Needs of Our Banking System."

In 1908, Sen. Nelson W. Aldrich, (father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller Jr),
and a Rothschild agent, proposed a bill recommending a Central Bank. A
member of Congress for 40 years, Aldrich was the most powerful man in
Congress and was the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Without going into the labyrinth of the contrivances of the Jewish Bankers
and the Jewish propaganda machine, on October 25, 1914, the formal
establishment of the Federal Reserve System was announced by Congress with
Paul Warburg and the Rothschild ally, J.P. Morgan, at its head

John Heininger | 8.12.09 @ 9:18PM