Why Do People Laugh At Creationists? (pt. 24)

[1zacster]

Wait, science advances technology and I'm sure his clothing was made on an electronic loom....

[1zacster]

1:10 actually god says to stone adulterers and kill unruly children

[battlebobdesify]

Boo... Thant's all I got. This Dude is self included.

[luciferangelica]

because they are willfully stupid

[x60mmx]

no more cheap tSHITs? haha

[strokesfan1107]

t-shits? ....... nice...

[trixxxy100]

Science has killed people. Love it! Christians don't kill, do they?

[advers1078]

@trixxxy100 can you even imagine it Christians killing people haha the thought alone makes me laugh, as if.

[psych4242]

Ha....no more cheap Tshits... 5:00

I love the editing to take everything out of context, and put your own spin in it.

Good job, you should be a journalist.

[maggels143919]

vulnerable super power not is that an oxymora but its completely false. when mr. stine says we have only a few thousand troops at the ready he fails to mention that the number of troops that we could deploy is actually more around two million. how ever we probably wouldn't since the only country worth protecting would be sawd and we already did that remember back in 1990 and it took about week. 

[YouMustBeBornAgain1]

Witnessing book: John 3:7 You Must Be Born Again originalwriting. ie Find out what it really means to be Born Again. Is there really a purgatory? What about spirit mediums, where are they getting their information from? What about the End Times. Find out the answers you have been looking for in this easy to read book. With informative further reading section. (see whos laughing)

[ohgrx]

How is it that all these ridiculous people went to law school? is it because lawyers are good at distorting truth?

[russianpoundcake]

Huh? Science leads to killing people???

The Inquisition (in the name of God), need I say more?

[8DX]

Hey this video is ok, but please DON'T REPEAT the video clips all the TIME!

[lordwindowlicker]

That was absolutely frightening. I used to think Ben Stein was a cool guy.. what a fuckhead!

[pnktout]

WTF??? I thought Ben Stein was smarter than this,, what a dolt! Religion has waged the most hate, death, and the longest wars among man-kind for 1000's of years and still to this day..

There is NO hate in Science.

[auryc7]

Rofl. There is plenty of hate in science. Scientists have committed just as many, if not more heinous and morally disgusting acts as any religious person has. They even now attempt to paint anyone who is religious as irrational (at best) and a zealot (at worst)

[Stardrinkerx]

Science and scientists are different things. Just as faith and the faithful, or religion and the religious are separate.

There is no hate in science.

Religious people are seen as irrational because they refuse the possibility that their supernatural beings do not exist, and zealots that when confronted with overwhelming evidence of the fallacy of certain core canonical points of their belief system will continue to refute, and will become aggressive and even violent.

[auryc7]

Yet there are zealots just as bad in the science community. One of the major problems that science has is that pure science has no morals....hence 16th century physicians stealing bodies and the scientists that transplanted a puppy's head onto a dog's body. Extremists are everywhere and pinning down religion or any other thing as the cause of extremism is shortsighted and dangerous because you turn people into a faceless mass....that's called propaganda, and I think we should be better than that

[stretchyrubberbands]

@auryc7 You seem not to get the point. Science has never promised us morals or peace; it has only promised us the truth. If experiments have been conducted in an unethical manner, then it is due to the immorality of the scientists, not science itself. Science has no hate, nor does it have love. It is simply pursuit of the truth.

[auryc7]

And religious people say the exact same thing about religion.....yet both science and religion have zealots who will not be contradicted. To laugh or otherwise poke fun at one set because of their beliefs when the other set is just as bad in their 'search for truth', that's kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

[stretchyrubberbands]

@auryc7 On the contrary, morality is not only within the purview of religion (as opposed to science), it is /imposed/ by religion. Science is, by its very virtue, free from any interference from human biases due to its objective nature, unlike morality in which subjectivity is paramount.

[auryc7]

Morality is a necessity for civilizations to survive. Science, on the other hand, is not. Any good scientist can tell you there are actions and happenings that cannot be rationally explained by science. Poking fun at people who bring vital bedrock standards to our civilization, which science most assuredly cannot, seems a tad shortsighted.

[auryc7]

I would not say subjectivity is paramount in morality at all. I would say it is fairly objective. When told 'Thou shalt not kill (humans)' what part of that is subjective?

Murder is rarely subjective, so too theft, adultery, fraud, lying....all of them are pretty straight forward objectively, hence why they are punished by law. Science is not free of interference from human biases since it is performed by humans. The whole 'Climategate' issue being a very good example.

[Stardrinkerx]

Absolutely, it is human nature in many regards to be conservative, and the challenging of what is sought for conservation will elicit in many cases the worst responses.

Of course science has no morals, neither does religion, religion is as a base concept not bound by any code of what is acceptable. Religions have abounded with human sacrifice, christianity included. To apply a standard to science that is not found in religion is fraudulent. The morals or ethics are held by the devotees.

[auryc7]

Not really. Religions have (and do) continue to have their own problems, however they cause the formation of morals and acceptable behaviour. You can trace the rise of civilization to the adoption of specific moral codes. Science....pure science....has no morals or restraints and that tends to lead to very immoral and otherwise disgusting behavior. The example I would use is that under pure science, it is perfectly acceptable to experiment on humans

[Stardrinkerx]

Rubbish, utter tripe you have been brainwashed to believe to assert the self importance and dependence upon religion. Religion is no more the source of morality than Thor is the source of thunder. There are plenty of people raised without religion and who have no exposure to religion and worship the environment who have a perfectly functioning moral system. Morality is a function of group social development, and intelligence.

[auryc7]

Not at all. Look at the development of Greece or Rome and you will see secular societies and how they rose and then declined as they changed their morality to suit their whims. I'm not saying religion is always better....look at the Aztecs and Incans and Mayans. Or look at the depravities of the Chinese...their civilization is secular. The thing is, most of the enduring religions have the sorts of enduring rules that are REQUIRED for civilization to rise and not rapidly decline.

[transtlantic]

you see greece and rome and you see a republic. with slavery, multiple gods, etc. their decline has nothing to do with their morality, but military superiority and govt corruption.

"depravaties" of the chinese? i see more depravaty in the biggest producer of porn country than in china (it's US the producer, btw).

enduring? lol... christianity is one of the youngest religion, and more than half of it was stolen to other religions.

[Stardrinkerx]

Greece and Rome were not secular, the civilisations did not fall as a result of secularity, but by war, much of which was fuelled by religion.

Science and difference of scientific belief has never started a war.

[auryc7]

True. Science has never started a war at all. It does make it a lot easier to kill people though, doesn't it? I think it's also fair to point out that science is responsible for at least as many atrocities as religion

[stretchyrubberbands]

No atrocity has ever been committed by science, only by scientists.

The difference between science and religion, auryc7, is that while religion imposes a set of values upon its followers, the reverse is true of science, ie, humans are the ones who impose their own values on science.

[auryc7]

Not so fast, there, stretchy. Yes, morals DO come from religion. Even as repugnant as some religions are, they did form a basis for what was allowable and what was not in the society. Rome and Greece only fell as they cast aside the restrictions placed on them by religion and turned to a secular society. Science has no morals and therefore no morality....which is why there are plenty of scientists today which justify their atrocities as being 'in the interest of science'

[ohgrx]

morals have been around since the stone age.. long before religion was around.. it was a common practice to NOT kill someone that was in your tribe because you depended on the other person to survive.. hence the no killing people.. it was also common practice to not steal from people in your tribe because if you got caught they might break the first rule of no killing people... so therefor no stealing became common practice..

[auryc7]

And the basis for your statement is......? Antrhopologically, morals are relatively new. Archeologists and anthropologists can, I am sure tell you all about the Aztec human sacrifices, or the regular infanticides, fratricides, patricides, matricides and all the other 'cides' that cropped up in various primitive cultures. Heck, even barbarism is full of it. The rules that 'you don't kill' and 'you don't steal' and 'you can't take other men's women' are all relatively recent, historically

[Stardrinkerx]

Go read the bible and make note of how often it says murdering others in acceptable. It is very frequent.

Religion is not a source of morality.

[auryc7]

Anthropological study of the various societies in which the Bible was written will show you that for its time, the laws in question were not as barbaric as you might think.

Morality in a low technology society, a barbaric society, a nomadic society or as a low caste is far different from current morality.

Your point is flawed and incomplete

[Stardrinkerx]

Also many of the earlier human social structures involved communal focus, that nothing has an "owner" only "users".

[ohgrx]

dude.. guns dont kill people.. people kill people... a gun without the free-will of the person pulling the trigger, is completely useless... science without the free-will or (ill will) of the person implementing it is worthless..

[ohgrx]

atheist countries are the most peaceful countries in the world thats not a controversy it is a fact... the most violent countries in the world are those that allow religion to influence policy...

[auryc7]

I would not say that, ohgrx. Nazi Germany wasn't a religious country. China hasn't been religious for a long time either. Japan wasn't particularly religious when they started a war with us. Wars happen for many reasons...only ONE of which is religion. People are the ultimate cause, and they'll do evil under the guise of science as easily as they sometimes do under the guise of religion

[ohgrx]

actually the Japanese leader Hirohito believed himself to be a supreme being, a incarnate divinity. He believed he was the descendant of Amaterasu.

Many scholars believe that Nazism was a religion itself. Take into consideration that Hitler was very much like a preacher, spewing his hatred and ideals across the German youth. The whole idea of the Nazi's was to form a cult like following.

[auryc7]

So anyone who is a persuasive speaker is starting a religion? Since when does hatred and loathesome ideals come from religion? I've seen just as much hatred and loathesome ideals from professed athiests and I have seen the results of some people's 'pure science'. Science in and of itself is not bad, but it is limited to the material plane. Science cannot define and prove love, or truth, or beauty, or justice. More exists than can be proven with science.

[ohgrx]

Religion... lol Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49. Algeria, 1992-. Baha'is, 1848-54. Bosnia, 1992-95 Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901 Christian Romans, 30-313 CE Croatia, 1991-92. English Civil War, 1642-46. Holocaust, 1938-45 Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598 India, 1992-2002. India: Suttee & Thugs Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947 Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979- Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92. Jews, 1348 Jonestown, 1978. Lebanon 1860 1975-92 Molucca Is., 1999-. Mongolia, 1937-39 Northern Ireland, 1974-98

[ohgrx]

St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572 Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38 Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91 Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834 Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64 Thirty Years War, 1618-48 Tudor England Vietnam, 1800s Witch Hunts, 1400-1800 Xhosa, 1857

[ohgrx]

All of these are due to religion.

[auryc7]

Of course there haven't been any wars due to science...but science is ever so good at making them more lethal. Science is responsible for the jet plane, the atomic bomb, the machine gun, the tank, cannons, poison gas, biological weapons, explosives........want to guess how many are dead from those inventions?

[ohgrx]

Science is also responsible for the small pox vaccination that has probably saved over a billion lives since it was created.

I see religion as a very nice way to control peoples way of thinking. I dont see science trying to influence anyones free will.

This is the whole argument of guns dont kill people... people kill people. Without free will a gun is worthless.

guns tanks bombs are all created by the military industrial complex.. engineers.. not scientists

[auryc7]

Half right. Engineers ARE scientists. The problem with your argument is that science is what it is. Science has no morals, no ethics. Scientists have committed atrocities in the name of progress and future discoveries. We know of these acts as atrocities because religion has indirectly given all of society (even athiests) basics of right and wrong. The whole purpose of religion (which it sometimes fails at) is to cause people to control themselves and live balanced lives. Moderation is the key.

[GeneralCalculus]

@auryc7 Fire is evil. It destroys crops and property and kills people and animals every year. Also water is evil as it does same things.

[auryc7]

@GeneralCalculus Your Point?

[GeneralCalculus]

@auryc7 Because science is amoral not immoral.

[auryc7]

@GeneralCalculus Correct. However, this series of videos is plain propaganda. It is intended to show religious people as uneducated, irrational simpletons while portraying science as the be all and end all. I disagree with this and one of my objections is that science IS amoral, yet these people are attempting to place it in moral superiority to religion. Not all religions or religious views are right, but religion actually IS the basis for morality.

[GeneralCalculus]

@auryc7 Umm.. Have we been watching same series? To me it does not show that ALL religious people are uneducated, irrational simpletons. It shows how creationists are uneducated, irrational simpletons.

[auryc7]

@GeneralCalculus I don't know about you, but I've been watching a series that mocks all creationists by the words of a few. If I wanted to to do the same thing, I'd mention the Piltdown Man, or perhaps I'd give ANY science textbook from the 1950s to a modern science student and watch them point out errors. Claims of being educated and rational are less than compelling when scientists regularly prove that much of what they said to date was wrong....and that happens often.

[ohgrx]

estimated total death count for all of these is over 800,000,000.

[auryc7]

You consider Vietnam as due to religion? Further, you have simply listed wars in which religion played a part. How about you total up all the dead from the wars in which religon DIDN'T play a part? England was primarily formed as a culture by the island repeatedly being invaded and conquered. The middle east has been at war with itself for all of human history. Let's not forget China...china's wars alone could fill textbooks

[dietermauer]

@auryc7 Nazi Germany was a Christian country, the germany of nowadys, is mostly a non religous country, only the old nazi people, are religious.

If you walk around here in Germany and ask younger people if they believe in Gods, maybe 1 out of 10 will answer that question with yes, and this person will most likely be a Muslim.

[Stardrinkerx]

The Chinese were not secular in the past, Yongle and other emperors ruled with the firm belief in gods and that they were doing "heaven's" work. It is only since the early 1900's that China has been ruled by a secular leader not a religious one.

[transtlantic]

under pure religion killing people that does not accept X or Y is perfectly acceptable.

examples:

Suicide terrorists - they bomb themesels in the name of allah and are praised like religious heros

inquisition.

crusades.

religious zealots killing innocent doctors.

religious zealots pursuing ethical "cleanings" - in africa, very common.

etc etc etc

while science as that thing called: Ethics.

[auryc7]

Science has no ethics. Example: Partial birth abortion. Grave robbing. The grafting of a dog's head to another dog. Testing poisons out on animals to watch their method of death and their symptoms prior to death.

[transtlantic]

Science has ethics. There is no degree in science that does not include Ethics has a teaching subject. ALL science students will learn about ethics.

example of no ethics in religion: Rape in the name of god, killing entire cities in the name of god, burning people in the name of god.

science? part of your examples allowed a friend of yours, or you yourself one day to survive an accident.

religion? made up crap. its rules are made by the master of the sheep.

[auryc7]

Actually, anthropologists have proven that the moral rules christianity and judaism set down are pretty good analogs for the required behavior for a civilization to endure. More to the point, your insane belief that science has ethics is laughable. Science has committed at least as many atrocities as religion has ever done, and if you think different, you are a moron. You should leave other people's conversations alone and go back to sticking your head in the sand

[transtlantic]

fact is christianity is younger than judaism. and there are countless others religions older than judaism that still exist today. so both are a fail and yet to prove its use. But i'll dare you to present me the anthropologists that made such amazing claims that you post here. best chances are: you are fucking lying again. as usual.

science has ethics. it is taught and debated in every SCIENCE education system of the world. so bad luck for you: you are exposed as an uneducated retard again.

[transtlantic]

science can't commite attrocities, its a tool used by men. Men commite attrocities. like the ones done in the name of god, or gods. you like the mayans right? tell me: what did they loved to do to young people hearts on top of those pyramids of them? hint: it involved a knife and sheer brutallity.

All in the name of a god.

i do think different. i have evidence to back me up. you have jackshit. magic thinking is what you love to do.

i know a lot more than you. so shut the hell up, loser.

[auryc7]

Yeah? All your fucking rationalizations fall apart when scientists decided it was acceptable to partially deliver a full term fetus and then suck his/her brains out with a vacuum. Ethics my ass. If you want to bury your head in the sand, be my guest, but shut the fuck up and stop spreading your shit

[stretchyrubberbands]

Once again, auryc7, it seems that the point of the message has been completely lost on you. To paraphrase what transtlantic said in the first line of his comment, "Science does not commit atrocities, humans do." If you can't even understand the concept of science being a neutral tool—neither benevolent nor malevolent—whose ethics are shaped by those of the people who use it, then I am afraid no further discourse is possible here.

[auryc7]

that would seem to work for religion too, though. Religions don't commit atrocities either. Fanatical and intolerant people do. There are as many of those in science as in religion.

[transtlantic]

Now you wrote something intelligent. thing is not in its entirety.

YES: its fanatic and intolerant people, with no ethics that comit attrocities.

now to even try to make a comparison between science and religion? LOL

1) religion IS not science.

2) Science IS not a religion.

get the difference? i bet you don't. you are mentally dense. at least you learned something: its people that commit crimes. Nevertheless the method or the s priori intentions.

i enjoy that you for once admited to be wrong.

[newexperiment]

Actually an anarchy is a place where there is no state (aka a group of people with a monopoly on violence). Law and anarchy are not mutually exclusive.

[jackkoffin1]

This is an especially good episode in that it highlights a trend I've personally observed: In the U.S. there is a substantial group of Christians (and non-Christians like Ben Stein apparently) who while holding themselves as paragons of virtue and moral authority also fetishize military action and nationalism. It doesn't make sense until you realize that large groups of people actually want to bring about the so-called 'end time' themselves, as a short-cut to heaven.

[Itcus1]

If you want to talk holocaust the secular jews were in favor of the extermination of non secular Polish jews.

do the research now ask yourself who was the tool.

[Stardrinkerx]

If you research the expansion of Israel you will find the jews are as bad as any war criminals, the only difference is they have US backing. Although given Obama's position this is possibly going to change.

[kingkongpingpongdong]

The CORE of religion in four words.

Give Me Your Money.

[kingkongpingpongdong]

(It does??) "Science leads you to killing people." ...Gee, the Religious Christian Crusades comes to mind. As does slavery. As does child sacrifice...

[GiDaOne]

4:55 hottest girl I've seen!!! and lol "t-shits" where did that come from?

[ghenghischron]

agreed

[Bfdidc]

I like and agree with most of this film, though I would like to expand on one point. The idea of a highly interconnected world (where we're all trade partners, etc.) as being resistant to widespread war may be true, but we shouldn't be too sanguine. This view was widely accepted right before WWI. -- Very nice dissection of hypocrite-Stein though.

[Sietuutti]

PEOPLE carrying out science have extended the length of a human life with the expense of risk of starving to death according to the overpopulation. Nature will correct that mistake.

PEOPLE carrying out religions have succeeded similarily, based their exceeded reproduction to the order from God. Nature will correct that, too.

Both have done lots of good things, and bad things in history, and there's no doubt this trend will exist in the future. Meanwhile, I continue being ashamed to be a man.

[badpanda84]

"Nature will correct that mistake."

OR maybe science can also correct that mistake throught geneitic engieering. to make food grow faster

[Sietuutti]

It's not religions that will cause apocalypse.

It's not science that will cause the apocalypse.

It's not agnostics/atheists that will cause apocalypse.

It's the basic, stupid, arrogant people that are influenced by some ideologies justifying theirselves the right to lose common sense and objectivity, and replace it with narrow-minded black and white way of thinking about everything. That gives them a LOT of enemies to fight against, making them feel necessary and important. Humanity = FAIL.

[lightweightking]

And as for the war part? Wake up and watch the news. Didn't Bush threaten about WW3 just recently? And Stein was wrong about attacking Saudi nation. It'll be Isreal that will be attacked. He attacks the laws that make them ridiculous, and stupid. Isn't that what the US is trying to do? Go to Nuclear strike before the Irani nation does? All of this was obviously recorded before this year. I fear for you and your stupid ways of thinking. And hope GOD brings his wrath upon you for denying!!!

[lightweightking]

Science hasn't made this planet more inhabitable. It's made it worse. How do you concieve that Nuclear weaponds have made it better to live? They eradicated small pox but made Agent Orange, and other types of deadly viruses that came from weak diseases. It didn't expand any life times. Before we started to become aware of any kind of science. Humans were living lives out to about 400 to 500 hundred years. How many star fish do you know that live to be 67? They live to be thousands of years old!!

[asdfgoogle]

Come on man... before technology, there were cavemen. Do you really think they lived to be hundreds of years old without the technological and medical understanding to heal a bite or cut that would otherwise cause infection and kill the individual?

Even if you don't believe in cavemen, how is your take on the human lifestyle 20,000 years ago? 6,000 years ago? Fire is a technological advancement. Monkeys don't know how to make fire... hmm... I wonder if one is taught, if he would teach others???

[rithem412]

I think you should turn off the computer and go live in a Unabomber style shack.

[SexyMelon]

"Science hasn't made this planet more inhabitable. It's made it worse."

Okay. Abandon your home, your food supply, your medical supply, take off your clothes, get out of the radius of nearest cities and settlements, and try to survive by yourself for, say, a week.

Then come back and try to make a statement like this again.

[prisspross32]

well said

[420gma]

@SexyMelon Science has most certainly not made this planet worse greed and the lust for power have !!

[badpanda84]

Why do people laught at creationist??

I tihnk this answer by lightweighking answers the question.

[Prodigyexam12]

Yes indeed science has made shit too, but same goes to religion(The crusades anyone?). But at the same time, science has given you everything you have right now. Your TV, your computer absolutely everything you own has been made by science. Bombs and nuclear weapons, some diseases made accidentally or not accidentally by science are a small price to pay in order for you to live comfortably in a house whit heat, gas, water etc.

[Prodigyexam12]

Look at the human life span. From 16-20-30 science has made it possible for humans to live up to 100 years. That is a big difference don't you think? Everything we do has a price, but sometimes for what we get in exchange, that price seems small.

[Taitrnator]

Well I respect Ben Stein through religious indifference. His words were very manipulated in this video, although I still dont like his argument on creationism altogether.

[handiman74]

Christianity: Stop thinking rationally. Science is t3h suckz0rz.

Logic: lol nub.

It's not atheism vs. christianity, it's:

Logic vs. Christianity.

[Stuhl]

Creatonists far more than any Terrosrist scare the crap out of me 0o

*shivers*

[lightweightking]

Cause you're stupid that's why you shiver in your gay shoes. Quit being gay and act like a human. And Creationism is right. You didn't come from nowhere and arrive here. It's not physicallly or scientifically possible. It's not!

[asdfgoogle]

All over 3:30-4:00 was bs. The US would own nearly every country if our military was directly to kill everything.

When you don't know who the enemy is, it sure does make fighting a whole lot harder.

FYI, I had no idea Ben Stein was so stupid for a smart guy....

[lightweightking]

We can't win against Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Africa, N. Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba you moron! How do you beat so many countries? You want to send 100,000 troops to each country to defeat their whole armies? You think war is won in a single day? Why haven't we won in Iraq if so you idiot?! Not even with Isreal and G Brittain can we beat all of these nations. You'll see, and I'll be in Mexico laughin my ass off at the USA. GOD bless America my ass! Even that's a ridiculous statement!

[asdfgoogle]

Get a life you scrub.

Read my post. The reason we haven't won in Iraq is because we don't know who the enemy is. Same reason we didn't win Vietnam.

In total war (for example WWI, WWII) the USA would obliterate nearly every other country. I did say NEARLY, another key point you missed in my last post.

You fool, I didn't say anything about what I wanted or what I would do if I had the power. Don't assume, you ass.

What I want, is peace. Unfortunately, that doesn't change reality.

[PhreakStep]

In ww2 why USA did not obliterate Italy, Japan And Germany alone then?

And why did Cold War (After WW2) exist for so long if you said USA obliterate nearly every country and in Vietnam the enemy were communist and you lost it :D

Its funny that USA is for peace yet they are funding the militry far greater then any other country.

[asdfgoogle]

The United States didn't enter WW2 until the bombing of Pearl harbor, which was Dec 1941. Germany was an enormous super power, which totally throws off my answer because I was referring to present time, not the past.

Japan DID get completely obliterated. I believe the percentage of remaining military power was 10% of what it was at the beginning of the way.

Referring to the Cold War, again it was in the past. The key word is NEARLY. For example, the US isn't likely capable of destroying China.

[criskity]

I used to like and respect Ben Stein, despite his being a conservative. I actually thought he was intelligent - a rarity among conservatives (Hitchens is one of these rare thinking conservatives). But Stein's support of creationism and his logical fallacies in defending this idiotic premise shows how boneheadedly stupid he is.

[max2right]

ben is a liar. Christianity is evil and dangerous. it seeks the political power to indoctrinate school children and force it's delusions on us all. stamp out all religion now

[beefking69er]

lol this is so stupid. yeah science can cure desease, what hes talkin about is evolution which kills people, beliveing that we only live while we are on earth so we might as well do what we want. You sound smart but your a dumbass lol, understand what hes talkin about.

[stretchyrubberbands]

And how does evolution in any way kill people?

[batmaneul]

The belief in Dawinistic evolution lead to the belief in Jewish inferiority by Nazi's as well as the collonization of Africa by Europeans who used Darwins theories as justification of racial supremacy of whites.

[glenm99]

The Nazi campaign had as much to do with evolution as fortune-telling has to do with astronomy, or creationism has to do with biology. Indeed, the Nazi Party was founded on religious ideals, not on any scientific basis, and their official stance on scientific matters was... well, they believed that a race of people lived inside a giant hole at the South Pole. There's a reason why most scientists left Germany before the war.

[todnyc]

i masturbated this

[michaeltheman8888]

how bout evolution leads to killing people. yeah... anyone.. i dont think you can deny that one yeah anyone anyone

[yoshitownsend]

Nice fake accent bro. Makes you almost sound intelligent.

Just kidding! Seriously though, you are putting your hands into a tarbaby just like Brer Rabbit. Don't waste your energy on Stein. Besides, you totally read WAY TOO deep into that "science kills people" stuff. That was obvious.

Next video? Why do people who don't give a crap laugh at both evolutionists and creationists who divert all their otherwise potentially productive energy into pointless debating that is going nowhere?

[Superputazo23]

hey girl I saw your picture and I would like t hang out with you. call me when u get to PR

[CapeandCowl]

well done!

[Katalyzt]

And I once thought that ben stein was intelligent or at least rational. It seems that I was wrong. :O/

P.S.

Cool video! ★★★★★

Katalyzt

[jhakana]

scary people who get air time, history is right nothing changes

[liverpudlian15]

Brilliant vid as usual... keep up the good work

i seriously need to stop allowing people like stein getting me worked up... luckily for me f*ckwits like this are extremely rare in Australia...

[Kailoa36]

Stein: "Love of God ... leads you to a glorious place." Like the Inquisition? Like the crusades? Like the Salem Witch Trials? Like the 911 terrorism attacks? If there is a Hell it would consist of being forced to listen to Ben Stein's inane drivel.

[ble86n]

Glorious place is antichrist, when jesus explains the passion,his death, peter says

'no master,we'll get the glory,our enterprise will not fail' jesus says, 'get thee behind me,satan'.

[retepvosnul]

That is one scary immoral son of a bitch.

[GalacticAtom]

So he puts across his message that science is bad by using technology produced by ... science.

[EndCredulity]

"So he puts across his message that science is bad by using technology produced by ... science."

Worse, he does commercials for "Clear Eyes" eye-drops, which was also produced by that nasty evil satanic "Big Science."

If I were the makers of Clear Eyes, I'd sue Ben Stein's ass off for making a complete mockery of the product's name.

[GalacticAtom]

Good lord! What a hypocrite! And chances are that some, probably the majority, of those who did the science to develop "Clear Eyes" were atheists - biologists are probably the most atheistic profession around.

[Cafeeine]

"By God, the man is mad!"

Or rather a shill to whoever pays his bills...

[themanwhoknew]

Stein is a fucking idiot.