Not too long ago, I found a pile of digital camera pictures from some time back. Today, I’d like to juxtapose two that I took at the National Aquarium in Baltimore on or around the beginning of November, 2006.
When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. 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
…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
— Ben Stein, 2008 In an interview with TBN’s Paul Crouch Jr. (video here)
I don’t even need to summarize. “Science leads to killing people.”
Someone disagrees (emphasis mine):
I hereby offer a few suggestions on how we can ruin American competitiveness and innovation in the course of this century:
Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism–and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women–to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that, in order to pay proper (and politically correct) respect to all different ethnic groups in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable.
…
— (wait for it) Ben Stein, 2002, in Forbes
Ben Stein wants to kill American competitiveness.
I think it’s our turn to use everyone’s favorite right-wing mudsling:
Ben Stein, why do you hate America?
This may be one for the “Blog” of “Unnecessary” Quotation Marks
My Alma Mater, Loyola College, considered changing their name to “Loyola University” ten years ago. I suspect this had something to do with a desire to make themselves sound more prestigious to executives shopping around for an MBA. They’ve decided to revisit this now, probably because they didn’t get the answer they wanted last time.
This is my response.
To: Rev. Brian F. Linnane, S.J, President, and the Board of Trustees of Loyola College
Dear Sirs,
I was most alarmed to learn recently that the Board of Trustees had authorized its Executive Committee to move forward with the proposal to change the name of Loyola College to “Loyola University”.
While I can certainly understand some of the reasoning which might lead to the proposition of a name change, I think in this case, such a move is unwise in the extreme, and I am a bit perplexed as to how it could have moved this far without wiser voices prevailing.
I was myself a student at Loyola College when such a name-change was last proposed ten years ago, and I find it difficult to imagine that so much has changed in the intervening decade that the reasons raised against the change of name are no longer applicable or compelling. While it is certainly true that the graduate and professional programs at Loyola have evolved and strengthened in recent years, there can be no question that Loyola remains firmly committed to its excellence at undergraduate education in the liberal arts. Indeed, during the years I attended, this emphasis on excellence as an undergraduate institution was one of the most important traits setting Loyola apart among its peers, that, in strengthening its graduate and professional programs, the institution had not, as many schools choosing the title of “University” have, shifted its emphasis away from the traditions of a strong liberal arts undergraduate education. To my mind, the very term “College” imparts something that “University” does not: a firm understanding that Loyola is and remains, first and foremost, committed to undergraduate education in the Jesuit tradition of liberal arts, rather than, as is far too-often the case amongst “Universities”, treating its undergraduate population mostly as a revenue stream to support its professional and graduate programs.
Under these circumstances, one might interpret a name change as a shift in direction away from Loyola’s strong tradition of excellence as an undergraduate institution. But there can be no question of this; Father Linnane himself has said that, “The extraordinary qualities that shaped the Loyola you love have not, will not and could not be altered by a change in designation,” and likewise that the proposed change, “Will not signify a change in direction, mission or values.”
Furthermore, I find it surprising that an institution so founded on Jesuit values and informed as it is by Catholic tradition would be so quick to discard the weight of its own tradition. Since its founding in 1852, Loyola College has changed its focus, its size, the demographic of its student population, and even its address, but never its name. It is a name well known in the region and with a well-established history, and surely, in a school so well-reputed for its school of business, the value of name-recognition could not have been overlooked. It is decidedly strange to me that a name that both school and alumni have born with honor for a century and a half could be so easily discarded. As I was leaving Loyola College, the celebration of its sesquicentennial was beginning. “Loyola College” has one hundred and fifty-six years of history behind it. “Loyola University” does not.
Moreover, of the four colleges in the United States named for St. Ignatius Loyola, Loyola College stands alone in name. To intentionally take on a name that would reduce it to the stature of “One of the several Loyola Universities,” seems counterproductive. And while I do not propose that many would be especially confused by the name change, I should hate to think that the achievements of my beloved institution might be misattributed to some other school, neither would I find any credit in being mistaken for a graduate of one of those institutions.
In summary, while I accept that much may have changed at Loyola in the past decade, it does not seem to me that those areas overlap with the sound reasons that have already been put forward against a change of name. While the graduate and professional schools have strengthened, Loyola’s commitment to excellence as an undergraduate institution providing education in the liberal arts according to the Jesuit tradition remains firm; the weight of history and distinctiveness of the traditional name has, if anything, grown with the passage of time. And, of course, the emotional attachment of students and alumni can not have diminished for the addition of several classes of new students.
In light of all these factors, it is my most earnest hope that the Executive Committee will not be misled into an unwarranted and unwelcome renaming of the college that I and so many others hold dear in our memories.
Thank you,
Lewis Ross Raszewski Jr. ’01
It is worth mentioning again, in case you somehow missed it and care.
Expelled is a film narrated by Ben “Bueller, Bueller” Stein for the Discovery Institute to help convince people that there’s no such thing as evolution and that evil atheists are going to force your children to have gay sex or something.
Well, anyway, it’s a creationist propaganda film which claims things like Darwin -> Atheism -> Nazis. In fact, it’s the central thrust of the film so far as I can see.
PZ Myers is a well-known blogger in the fields of evolution and biology. He runs a little thing called Pharyngula, which I gather is pretty good. He’s also a self-professed “godless liberal” (So, the other kind of liberal from me, and the other kind of godless from Ayn Rand), and not a big fan of that thing that is both bad science and bad theology and is pretending to be both under the name of “Intelligent Design”.
So, the target audience if you’re legitimately trying to have a dialogue about ID and whether it’s a legitimate thing to teach our childen.
Also, not the target audience if you know your claim is bogus and are trying to trick people into supporting you anyway.
So, suppose that you’re putting on a propaganda film about Intelligent Design. Your “science” relies on misquoting people, taking things out of context, and being academically dishonest. PZ Myers has filled out the form to be given an invitation to come see your movie. How should you handle this in a way that won’t make you look bad?
Well, one thing you could do is let him see it, and show photos of him going to see it. Hopefully, he’ll do something childish like throw eggs or something, then you can call him a big baby and make everyone laugh at him.
If he doesn’t oblige you, you could instead just treat the fact that he saw it as a tacit approval of your message: “Hey, even this well-known darwinist saw our movie!”
Of course, if he writes a bad review, that won’t work. Though maybe it won’t hurt so much, since the opinion of PZ Myers doesn’t exactly carry a lot of weight with anyone who is going to support your message to begin with. You could probably just laugh it off: of course the godless liberal hated it. It might even spin for you, you could quote him, citing him as a godless darwinist liberal. It would work the same way that it would work to use “I hated it — Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Osama Bin Laden” as a review of your movie to trick people into not wanting to hate it to avoid being lumped in with that lot.
Or, if all else fails, just stick a whoopie cushion in his chair. Who will take him seriously when it gets out that he let a big one fly the moment he sat down?
Hey, you know what wouldn’t work though? Kicking him out. You know what would work less? Kicking him out and threatening to have him arrested.
Want to guess which one they chose?
It gets better.
So, having handed their enemies a press coup on a silver platter, the makers of Expelled tried a few different tacks to save the situation.
Attempt 1: Lie: So they said that PZ had tried to sneak in to a by-invitation-only event to which he
had not been invited. I will quote someone on the subject. Who I am quoting is going to be the punch line to this article, so I will not attribute this quote yet. “The way to get into this showing of the film was simply to go on the Internet and apply. This was exactly what PZ did. He went on the Web and put his name down for a place at the showing.” PZ Myers had been invited.
Attempt 2: Spin (at windmills) (And also lie): From a press release: “I hope PZ’s experience has helped him see the light. He is distraught because he could not see a movie. What if he wasn’t allowed to teach on a college campus or was denied tenure? Maybe he will think twice before he starts demanding more professors be blacklisted and expelled simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin’s theory.”
Yes, because (patriotic music plays) Here in America, you should never be denied the right to see a movie, no matter how sane you are, and you should never be denied a job teaching biology no matter how totally incompetent you are in the field of biology. Because in America, if you show up and pay for your ticket, you have a right to be a college professor.
Oh, and it’s a lie because PZ has, so far as I can tell, never demanded that anyone be blacklisted for anything other than incompetence (Heck, maybe not even that).
Attempt 3: Be Holier than Thou (and also lie): Again, from them: “Recognizing the opportunity to make a point of the inconvenience and pain that they, and others like them, have caused to numerous scientists and educators, the decision was made beforehand to deny Myers access to the film if he actually showed up.”
So, “we banned him to annoy him,” is being used as an excuse? Besides, according to line producer Mark Mathis, “I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more.” (source)
So, they seem to have dug themselves in pretty deep.
It gets better.
Now, PZ Myers brought a guest with him to the screening. The Discovery Institute claims that his guest registered under a false name. This is a lie; the form PZ filled out did not allow him to enter his guests’ names, only the number of them. This guest was not actually asked to show any, ahem, ID. The Discovery Institute has claimed that this guest was a “gate-crasher” who tried to get in uninvited. But, as I mentioned, PZ had filled out the paperwork and registered his guest.
At any rate, this guest was allowed to go see the movie unaccosted. He’s the person who wrote the unattributed quote up there. Who was this guest?
Well, here’s a hint. He’s married to a former Doctor Who companion.
Give up?
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
Richard Dawkins.
Pretty much the most famous atheist in the entire world.