Creationists Silence Critics with DMCA

Gothmog of A writes "As Richard Dawkins' offcial site reports, an organization called Creation Science Evangelism Ministries has been submitting DMCA copyright requests to YouTube. This has resulted in the Rational Response Squad (RRS) being banned after they protested against videos being taken down and accounts being closed. The RRS videoes attack creationism (AKA intelligent design) and promote the atheist viewpoint. According to the RRS, the copyright requests are without merit since the material in question is covered by fair use or has been declared to be in the public domain. Behind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is the infamous Kent Hovind (AKA Dr. Dino) who is currently serving jail time for tax evasion."

Comments

religion

[Lobster Quadrille]

I have no beef with any major religion, but when large groups of people continue to insist that something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution does not exist, they lose an awful lot of credibility.

If your entire system of beliefs relies on blindly sticking to what a book of scripture says, you have serious issues. It is not hard to fathom that there was human error somewhere in that book, be it in the writing, the translation (or the translation's translation), or your own interpretation. It should not be so hard to admit that you could be wrong, without your life falling apart.

The issue in TFA is really either all about Ego or Money. I tend to think it's a little of both.

Re:religion

[catbutt]

1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation). Well true, but then again, no one has ever proven that fingernails can grow significant amounts either. I mean, we can look at them under a microscope and see tiny amount of growth happening while we watch. But that is just micro-growth. Macro-growth -- as in growing an actual amount that requires them being clipped -- has never been observed. No one has actually observed a fingernail changing from not needing to be clipped, to needing to be clipped.

Re:religion

[Vicissidude]

GP: ...something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution...

you: Unfortunately what is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone.

Interesting that you decide to pick on the phrase "obvious" and not "proven".

Further, there's a reason why he wrote relatively obvious. And yes, evolution is relatively obvious compared with the common alternatives including creationism. If you spend the time to look around nature, you can see the mechanics involved with evolution. That is certainly not true with creationism. The mechanics of evolution have been deduced by thousands of scientific studies and experiments from nature by scientists of many different fields, without looking up in some dubious guidebook labeled "The Scripture". You could look at a group of animals all day and not come to the conclusion that a single God, as described in the Bible, who himself had no creator, made all these creatures in a single day some 6000 years ago. That religious conclusion would not happen unless someone told you about it first.

So yes, evolution is relatively obvious.

Re:religion

[rossifer]

What I find particularly interesting is that in Darwin's day, they weren't arguing about whether or not Evolution happened, they were arguing about what made it happen. Darwin and his religious debaters were only discussing whether or not it was "God's hand" or "Natural Selection" that had caused evolution.

Here we are almost 150 years later, and not only are we still discussing the theory of Natural Selection, but the argument has moved backwards to whether or not the observed fact of Evolution actually occurred!

Evolution is intuitive and obvious. The problem with Evolution is it means "humans aren't special" and that's a mental hurdle that Christians in this country just can't manage to get over. The hubris of modern Christians is that human beings are different from other animals, not just in amount of some attribute, but in category. Humans and animals must be in different categories from each other or else most of the Biblical statements on humans is flat out wrong.

I understand why the discussion is moving backwards, I just find it extraordinary.

Regards,
Ross

Re:religion

[Alsee]

I am not aware of...

Thank you.

Most evolution critics are not familiar with any evolution science and simply ASSERT that evidence supporting evolution does not exist. They know nothing therefore they assume and positively assert that nothing exists.

There's nothing wrong with not being familiar with some particular field of science. Most people are not aware of the specific experiments and observations supporting quantum mechanics. Most people are not aware of the specific experiments and observations supporting relativity. Nothing wrong with that.

If someone with no degree and no special study in quantum mechanics or relativity were to assert that the experts in the field were all wrong and claim that there didn't exist any evidence to back up that field, that person would be ridiculed and insulted. For some reason it is only in the field of biology that some people violate that common sense rule, and are shocked and play the persecuted victim when they get insulted and ridiculed for it.

I am not lumping you in that group, at least not yet (grin). You directly mention that you are not familiar enough with the subject, and I take your wording and your post as an honest request "heay, does this stuff exist?". I am merely saying that there is a huge problem with people uninformed attacks on evolution and making (incorrect) positive assertions that evolution supporting information and facts *don't exist*, and that they are the reason evolution critics so often get treated so harshly.

I'm not going to spend much time on your point (1), it will pretty well be resolved as I address point your (2). I'll just say two quick things and move on. There is no such thing as "macroevolution" within the science of evolution... it's like referring to "macrogravity" or "macroelectricity"... the science of evolution only involves and only requires so-called "micro" variation accumulating over time and simply species splitting. There are countless documented cases of speciation if you look up "speciation" on Wikipedia or Google.

I'd like to go into much more depth on "2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established... It would also seem a step of faith that the missing transitional forms also exists". Not only can I answer this, I can do so with a single block of evidence that all by itself constitutes an iron clad case for evolution as a whole.

Most of the fossil record is indeed quite spotty. However there is one substantial chuck of the fossil record that is a scientist's wet-dream of evidence. A chuck of the fossil record that proves evolution true, beyond any reasonable doubt. That chuck is phylum foraminifera. (Note: A phylum is the biggest broadest division of life before you start lumping all animals into one group and all plants into another group, a phylum is a higher level grouping than "all mammals".)

Foraminifera are (usually tiny) animals that live in the sea. They grow intricate mineral skeletons. As they die, millions of these fossil skeletons rain down onto the sea floor every day. The sea floor builds up a continuous rain of sediment, including foraminifera fossils, day by day year by year over hundreds of millions of years.

All you have to do is go out on a boat and drop a pipe into the seabed and you can pull up a limitless supply of sediment cores and a limitless supply of foraminifera fossils. The supply of foraminifera fossils is *so* overabundant that scientists have been developing automated computer image analysis systems to sort and analyze foraminifera fossils thousands and tens of thousands per batch. A limitless supply of fossils. A perfectly continuous day by day year by year fossil record from bottom to top in the sea floor sediment.

This fossil record is perfect and continuous. It covers virtually an entire phylum of life. It documents in exqisit detail how one species can and does evolve over time into an entire family tree of diverse descendant species. Not only does it document each and every

Response to DMCA take down

[Raul654]

Isn't the correct response to a false DMCA take-down notice to file a DMCA counterclaim? Was that done in this case?

Panda's Thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

The Panda's Thumb also has a story about this, along with a video of "Dr." Hovind. Up until a few days ago CSE's website had this disclaimer: "None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely.", now that disclaimer is gone. Is Hovind trying to retroactively copyright stuff that has been in the public domain for years?

Hovind is currently serving 10 years in prison for tax evasion. One would think that his time would be better spent raising money to appeal his conviction, or getting his sentence reduced; rather than filing fraudulent DMCA takedown notices. Unless Hovind's son is running the ministry now while mum and dad sit in the pen. If that's the case then Hovind's son doesn't appear to be anymore aware of the law than his father was.

Well, that's easily remedied

[Tau Neutrino]

I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation). Just read these examples of observed speciation. See? Now you are aware!

Re:Oh Shit

[fyngyrz]

It's odd that they are even smart enough to do something so nasty when they are so stupid (or brainwashed as children and never learn critical thinking as happens to most poor "religious" folks) as to believe in this creationist crapola.

It isn't as simple as all that. There are plenty of very intelligent religionists. You can find solid evidence of this if you do a little directed reading of some of the deeper works on religion; textual criticism is one area I've found to be well populated with intelligent and insightful people, for instance.

Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has more to do with gullibility than it does intelligence, and unfortunately, the two aren't strongly related.

One example I like to cite is a PhD in psychology who fell for one of the Nigerian "prince" scam letters; managed to get himself published in the newspapers, because he lost six figures to the scam and he was smart enough to collect a PhD. Not stupid; but quite gullible.

Just as artistic or musical abilities are not tied to intelligence (see Ted Neugent and/or Ozzy Osbourne for prime examples of strong musical talents without significant indicators of intelligence), there's no indication that the other major religious susceptibility factors — fear of the unknown, gullibility, deep need for a father-figure post-puberty — are tied to intelligence (one way or the other) either. This is bolstered by adherents to religion falling all over the intelligence curve.

Personally, I like to think of the mind as having a 3d version of a set of pie slices. Slices overlap a bit, but generally exist as discrete elements which may reinforce one another, or not. Athleticism, intelligence, artistic vision, spatial adeptness, empathy, intuition, leadership, various types of fear, various types of stubbornness, the ability to make sideways connections (look for people who pun a lot, and well), the affinity for mathematics, the affinity for geometrics, fairness, honor, the ability to hold a "big picture" (certain classes of gamers, chess players, jet pilots, Hawking, Einstein) and so on. As a personal model of mine, it does a better job of accounting for the myriad types of people I've encountered in the last fifty years than a more basic "that person must be stupid" approach.

Re:FIST SPORT

[FauxPasIII]

> It goes against base thermodynamic principles, but we don't hear the Darwinites ... whining about that.

"Creationists always try to use the second law
  to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
  The second law is quite precise about where it applies.
  Only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
  The Earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the Sun
  so fuck the damn creationists! Doomsday, get my gun!"

-- MC Stephen Hawking

Re:FIST SPORT

[ZombieWomble]

I feel that I should post to this post from Fundies say the Darndest Things in this debate. It's amazing how people can parrot the same things over and over, without ever realising what it is they're saying:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

No! susceptibility = parenting and is unavoidable!

[IdahoEv]

Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has more to do with gullibility than it does intelligence,

Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has the MOST to do with upbringing and indoctrination. "Gullibility" is an unkind word, because all children are credulous. Credulity is a biological necessity, as it turns out.

Children are adapted (evolutionarily programmed, you might say) to believe their parents and elders. This is an important survival trait in a species that passes information socially. Because they implicitly believe their parents, children don't need trial and error to learn important survival information like "avoid that toxic plant!". Other species use instinct, and we do too, but we deal with too much information and flexibility for instinct to be sufficient - language and vertical information transfer between generations adds greatly to our ability to survive.

Think back on how many things you believe because a parent or teacher, or even an authoritative book, told you as a child. I'm constantly realizing things I "know" are not at all scientific, they're merely something I was told when I was still credulous and impressionable. Now that I am a critically thinking adult, I have to reevaluate those beliefs one by one as I discover them.

The side effect of childhood credulity is that people tend to believe what their parents do, or failing that, their elders and peers. Unnecessary/untrue/extra beliefs about the supernatural don't generally cause a fitness decrease: whereas not believing your parents about the poisonous plant will kill you, believing that Zeus is responsible for lightning bolts doesn't kill you. So we err on the side of being too credulous, and the more-or-less harmless beliefs accumulate over centuries. In fact, within societies that persecute or kill heretics and apostates (as many have), being credulous about the supernatural can be an important survival mechanism!

This is a pretty strong reinforcement mechanism. Some people break away, but in truth the universal best predictor of belief is parental belief. And often with those who do break away you'll find that their parents were lip-service religious more than deep believers.

When the rubber hits the road, religion ultimately has to retreat from explanations where science has achieved better/more supportable ones. It's painful, because our credulity for doctrine runs deep. But given time, it happens. It has long since happened for the weather (Zeus does not throw lightning bolts, electrostatic buildup in the clouds produces them) and for the structure of the universe (the Earth is not the center of things). For most of us, the age of the universe and the origin of species has left the religious purview as well, while a few holdouts entrench and struggle to cling to their sinking ship of explanation.

Mostly, religion has now retreated to "matters of the spirit", but this will also eventually fall as understanding of the human brain, body, psychology, and mind become more complete. The evidence is growing progressively compelling that the entirety of human consciousness and behavior can be explained as functions of our brain and body. No mysterious, undetectable "spirit" is necessary for us to be us.

Re:Oh Shit

[fyngyrz]

I tolerate your atheism; why won't you tolerate my beliefs as well?

I can't speak for the fellow you replied to, but I can tell you why I have a problem with religionists in the USA. It is because they have employed the legal and political systems to impose their beliefs, and behaviors based upon their beliefs, and symbols based upon their beliefs, and declarations based upon their beliefs, upon those who do not share them — one of whom, of course, is me.

For instance, I can't purchase liquor on Sunday; heck, in some places, I can't even shop. My money declares my (completely non-existent) trust in your deity. The country's very oath invokes the Christian god. The pledge of allegiance, something I don't otherwise have a problem with, is now layered with Christian sentiments that literally poison my otherwise highly patriotic willingness to give of myself. The expectation in the courtroom is that I swear to god; if I don't, I am literally putting my future at risk. My own taxes are being directly funneled into "faith-based initiatives." I have to bear the tax burden for religions I find abhorrent, intolerable or simply ridiculous, while they get a (nearly) free ride for property taxes (believe me, I'm in a position to know the facts on this one all too well, I bought an ex-church to live in, the first year we paid the (delayed) assessment for the church, which was $500; the second year, we paid almost five times that as "regular" folks.) There is more, but by now you should be getting the flavor of why I think the legal and political system has been co-opted by Christians.

Now, speaking generally, the problem goes much further. I am offended by all of this because I am not religious, and I am constantly compelled to deal with these religious things. But it isn't just me. Muslims aren't likely to be delighted with finding Christianity in their face all the time, either. Nor are Jews. Nor a whole list of other folks.

What I advocate is a religious and political system that is absolutely free of religious rules, religious oaths, religious slogans, religious tax breaks, religious marriage rationales (for government-sanctioned marriages... churches and religions and their adherents can do anything they like, of course) and so on. Under these conditions, no one would ever be asked in court to make a religious statement and be put in the position of having to state a religious denial or difference from the jury; marriage would be a state of co-ownership and co-obligation instead of one of a puritan sexual measure and an arbitrary enumeration of two; property taxes would be based on property ownership, not religious claims and the lack of them; non-government stores and service providers could stay open any hours they decided made sense for them, for any reason(s) the owner(s) found sufficient; money would simply be money; a pledge of national allegiance would be just that, not a declaration that the country exists under someone's favorite diety; no religious statue or platitude would look upon me from the halls (or lawns) of justice... and so on.

And frankly, I'm all for your religious scientists pursuing ID and any other idea they might have as to how all this stuff got here. I think they're almost certainly wrong, but the only way to know that is to pursue every question to its ultimate limit of supporting evidence and/or contrary indications. However, I think it is very important that such questions be asked without requiring the rest of us to agree either that the question itself is sensible or that the proposed answers are sensible.

So if I seem not very tolerant of your beliefs from time to time, keep in mind I may have just tried to buy a quart of scotch to lubricate an evening of movie-watching at home and found the liquor store closed for the day. Or something along those lines. I run into these things much more often than you might imagine. And they piss me off mightily.