A Quote by Ben Stein

I think Darwinism as a theory explaining evolution within species is incredibly brilliant - just unbelievably, incredibly brilliant. — © Ben Stein
I think Darwinism as a theory explaining evolution within species is incredibly brilliant - just unbelievably, incredibly brilliant.
I said Revolver is my favorite The Beatles album, but only because it came to my head and it's a brilliant one. But they're all pretty brilliant. There's variations, but they're all brilliant, and it just depends on if they're very brilliant, or just a bit brilliant. It changes.
My feeling is that Darwinism is only at best a partial solution, and an extremely dangerous partial solution. I would say, based on the little I know, Darwinism explains microevolution within species quite well. As to its broader consequence and implications, I don't think it explains individual species evolution at all well.
Godard is incredibly brilliant, the things he says. Apparently here in France, the most interesting thing when a new film of his is going to come out are his press conferences, because he's so brilliant
Godard is incredibly brilliant, the things he says. Apparently here in France, the most interesting thing when a new film of his is going to come out are his press conferences, because he's so brilliant.
But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that's why it's called the theory of evolution.
I think Google's a brilliant company, filled with brilliant people who have done brilliant things.
The brain was designed by evolution, so each part of it is optimized for what it does, and it's incredibly, incredibly complex.
Darwinian evolution is slow and gradual, step by step. Such an evolution can explain micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. For example, how did the eye evolve? The idea behind Darwinism is that organisms adapt, and that nature selects only those genetic changes which are the mutations that serve a good purpose for adaptation. So taken this way, the eye cannot develop gradually because one-thousandth or one-millionth of an eye would be of no value for survival. So generally this question rules out Darwinism as an adequate theory for macro-evolution.
It's incredibly easy as a director to be egotistical. Of course, it is because you have 200 people on set every day listening to your every word and whatever you say goes, and that can be slightly corrupting. And actually, to be a good director, you have to take ego out of it, because hopefully what you've done is surrounded yourself with brilliant people. Let them be brilliant and you just shepherd that and marshal that and hopefully guide it however you can, but definitely not to the extent that you're overbearing.
When your thinking is brilliant, you will be brilliant, but if your thinking is not brilliant you will not be brilliant, no matter how brilliant you may think you are.
Hitchcock had a charm about him. He was very funny at times. He was incredibly brilliant in his field of suspense.
I used to go badger-watching as a boy, and it's brilliant fun - they're incredibly active animals, and the cubs are very funny to watch.
I thought Willy Wonka was brilliant. He had all kinds of candy. Who doesn't like chocolate and candies? Everybody wanted a Gobstopper. I just think he's brilliant.
When I was sixteen, I began to think outside the box of my small town. Not that the people in my small town are in a box - they're not! There's a brilliant college there, and I had brilliant teachers from that college. But in terms of a conservative upbringing, which I did have within my own family, I just began to question things and to think for myself.
Adam Sandler in 'Punch-Drunk Love' is brilliant. Brilliant, brilliant.
The fact of the matter is, I'm f**king brilliant. Not 'was' brilliant. 'Am' brilliant.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!