Oh, PZ is having himself a time over Bill Dembski. Y’see, Dembski is a creationist, and a bigwig with the Disco ‘tute, that hotbed of Intelligent Design creationist research which has yet to publish a peer-reviewed paper.
A while back, Dembski stole a slide from a copyrighted work and used it in a talk. Now sometimes, this is totally protected under the Fair Use Act (which I sometimes cower behind myself when giving talks; since critiques, satires, and educational uses are specifically exempted) but it appears that Dembski isn’t covered. When called on it, he said he didn’t know it was copyrighted, but then it was later discovered he full well knew he was breaking the law. I guess, as usual, the Ninth Commandment is optional for creationists.
Anyway, a lawyer (who once defended PZ) has been enjoying this immensely, and PZ has the goods. As you read it, remember, this is one of the leading lights of the ID creationist movement. Enjoy.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Creationist research. What research?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Don’t you mean the ID(iot) movement?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Slide? Wasn’t it a video, an animation about the workings of a cell?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
This all seems very childish. Is it really necessary to send mean notes across the classroom at each other? Shouldn’t we be a bit more logical and less mean spirited about this? I understand that creationists like to define their own rules, stealing and lying and all that and claiming it’s justified. But do we really need to sink to thier level? If they use copywrited material, pull out a lawsuit and be done with it. If they lie in court, prosecute them for purjury. But do we really need to poke at them and go “teehehehe they’re stupid” while snickering to each other?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Yes.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Quote: Creationist research. What research?
They go together in church, read stuff from bible, and discuss on how to best beat evolution, and write up a new made-up story of creatism. That’s research for them.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Perjury.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Excuse me. I’m in IE at work and don’t have Firefox auto spellchecking for me
. Did know that it looked funny though.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
For the sake of clarity: the Fair Use doctrine is not a separate act, it is a part of the 1976 Copyright Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
There is a FAIR USE bill being considered in committee, (H.R. 1201: Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1201
Ars Technica has a report on the proposed legislation. Short version: the bill would make small reforms to the DMCA to provide some minor protections for consumers, and to provide protection for consumer electronics makers in the case where their products are used in an infringing manner.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070228-8942.html
December 27th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Hey, even creationists know that copyright law’s an ass and that fair use is no protection against being sued by people who’re just out to hurt your wallet whenever you disagree with them in public.
Surely him being wrong would be enough, no need for the legalistic asshattery.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Gosh, it seems like his plan wasn’t very intelligently designed.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Yes, it was a video. Dembski removed the credits, and dubbed over it. He’d also sought permission from Harvard, but been denied permission.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Oh, I can feel the Schadenfreude flowing over me. Mmm… That’s nice. :}
BTW, for some reason, I can never remember that the 9th Commandment forbids false witness. In this context, you could also point out the breaking of the (looks it up) 3rd and 8th as well (wrongful use of the name of their God and theft, respectively).
December 27th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Depends which version of the 9th Commandment you use. In Exodus, Gods asks Moses to write down “the ten commandments” (34:28 KJV) on two stone tablets. The 9th according to KJV Exodus 34:26 is:
“The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.”
Oddly, after forty days Moses descends from Mount Sinai with the “two table of testimony” and reads them off where, voila, they have changed phrasing and meaning. Nonetheless, there is no one agreed set of “Ten Commandments”, so it depends who you ask.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Phil said: “I guess, as usual, the Ninth Commandment is optional for creationists.”
That’s not enlightening or mature. Seriously, even in a tongue-in-cheek way it’s still poor form. I guess as long as you think you’re being funny…
On the other hand, “Gosh, it seems like his plan wasn’t very intelligently designed.” (Lugosi)–Very funny!
See the difference? If you don’t that’s okay. [Sadistic humor only really works when it's against your own group.]
I’ve noticed a definite spiteful trend in your postings over the last month. I’ve been enjoying your blog for over two years now, but lately your nasty, vitriolic ravings leave me wondering what, exactly, you’re trying to do. If you just want something to rile people into commenting, then you’ve certainly accomplished that. If you’re trying to polarize people, then you’re accomplishing that. If you’re trying to get people to question their own beliefs and attitudes, to search for deeper truths, to feel moved by imagination coupled with knowledge, then you’re losing the crowd. I just can’t see a spokesman for science reaching anyone with infantile rhetoric.
But think back to the Great Science Educator who first ignited *your* imagination and curiosity and even your skepticism. I want you to try to imagine Carl Sagan acting this way. WWCD?
I hope things improve…
–Terry
December 27th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
In the Lutheran church, the 9th commandment is “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house”. So, here I was trying to figure out why some creationist gave a talk about wanting someone else’s house.
B)
December 27th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
In the news! PZ bravely shoots fish in a barrel. Threats of legal action are flung about like feces in the monkey cage. Hilarity ensues!
Meanwhile, Benazir Bhutto bravely attends rallies in support of democracy (or at least whatever that word means in that part of the world). Threats of suicide bombing and assassination are flung about and, well, actually happen as Bhutto is murdered, others are blown up, and the nuclear armed Islamic nation erupts into chaos. Something utterly unlike hilarity ensues.
Sorry. Sometimes the whole ID thing seems really, REALLY trivial.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:39 am
>>Tenacious>>”If you just want something to rile people into commenting, then you’ve certainly accomplished that.”
Last night’s commentary about Ron Paul
gave me some good LOL’s with some people bitchin’ and name-calling. Sometimes it’s good just to lurk. Seems like skeptics are just as normal as the rest of the species.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:31 am
The “stolen” slide changed what about his argument?
December 28th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Tenacious, you appear awfully thin skinned, or suffering from a case of projection, as I can see little raving or anything hurtful or spiteful in the post except a certain schadenfreude.
To those who appear confused over whether it was slide or the previously mentioned video used in a talks by the IDiots. In this case it was a slide or still from the Mystery of Life that was going to be used in a book but they were denied permission. While they apparently removed the slide/still from the proposed book they didn’t remove the footnote pertaining to the slide/still.
See;
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
for more information about both issues, Abbie on top form as usual.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Tenacious, when the creationists lie (blatantly and demonstrably), why should we not call them on it?
After all, they are the ones claiming that “Materialism” (whatever that means) is destroying the “moral fabric” (whatever that means) of our society.
And yet they feel free to ignore their own moral guidebook whenever it suits them. Surely that is hypocrisy of the highest order?
I did not see anything in Phil’s post that was malicious. If you follow Phil’s link to PZ’s blog, and read some of the comments, you will notice that, whereas Bill Dembski gets upset with a private individual politely (if gleefully) challenging Dembski’s illegal use of copyrighted material, PZ regularly receives threats of harm from creationists. Now, that is malice. Can you see the difference?
December 28th, 2007 at 7:05 am
QD, if I may….
The debate between creationism and the ToE in schools is more closely related to the tragedy in Pakistan yesterday than is immediatley apparent. In both cases the fundamental dichotomy is between religious extremism and a more secular worldview. Bhutto was targeted primarily because she was attempting to bring Pakistan into at least the 20th century, if not the 21st (the fact that she has a uterus was, for AlQueda, more of a bonus), and AlQ is dedicated to the proposition of remaining firmly in the 16th century.
While the actions of AlQ and the Taliban are more violent, are they *really* that far removed from those of the DI?
(One man’s opinion)
December 28th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Thanks for the links to PZ’s article. When I updated my bookmarks on a new Yahoo account, his blog did not make it.
Last night I had my son read PZ’s article and the links. You see, my son loves WWE “wrestling” and cannot understand why I get as much enjoyment out of watching Kreationists getting a good flogging.
Now he knows.
Unfortunately, he still loves WWE “wrestling”.
Still hoping for a cure….
December 28th, 2007 at 7:42 am
TheProbe: As long as he knows it’s all a setup, let him enjoy some drama. It’s the male version of a soap opera, complete with long standing rivalries, sudden betrayals, and plenty of action to follow offscreen as well. Actually, if you really want to dissuade him, you could try pointing that it is, in fact, a soap opera.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Zim posts:
[[While the actions of AlQ and the Taliban are more violent, are they *really* that far removed from those of the DI?]]
Yes, to any sane observer.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:07 am
The main difference I see between some of the more violent Islamic states and a potential theocracy in the United States is that even if the Christian extremists were to take over the political landscape, we still wouldn’t be blowing ourselves and each other up over an election.
Other than that, the ID and Creationist movements scare the bajeebus out of me. I fear that like in some cities, and even some states *cough* *Georgia* *cough* the political yayhoos would be forcing us to believe THEIR interpretation of religion by rule of law.
Not to mention the dumming down of American school children.
B-)
December 28th, 2007 at 10:04 am
all points of contention are welcome. I so enjoy a verbal ping pong match.
Thank you all.
Now, as for myself my deepest beliefs are too complex and adaptable to put here for your enjoyment.
I do have an altar with Deiety representations from many cultures & subcultures along with Gumby (the patron saint of flexability)
Peace
December 28th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I don’t see fundamentalist Christians resorting to acts of terrorism anytime soon, at least on the level of what happened in Pakistan. Remember, many Christians consider suicide a ticket to hell, especially those in the fundamentalist wing. However, as I have been researching for a book I am working on, I do see signs of a sinister extremist movement starting. There are extremists within fundamentalism that would dearly love to see a restoration of OT Biblical laws, as outlined in Leviticus. This does not bode well for disobedient children, homosexuals, unbelievers and a host of others. People like John Hagee really scare me, far more than Jerry Falwell ever did, as he and his kind are calling for the invasion of Iran, in order to bring about the prophesied Second Coming. If you think these types are on the fringe, think again. They have tens of thousands of followers, and that means VOTERS.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
@ Michael Lonergan
I’d sure consider bombing an abortion clinic an act of terrorism, along with the various other murders of the staff at abortion clinics.
@Bob Mulligan “The “stolen” slide changed what about his argument?”
The scientific credibility of the point he was trying to make, for one. Not that it didn’t already lack credibility entirely, this is just another data point. Using a source without crediting it, and in such a way that its message comes out entirely different is considered somewhat of a faux pas, if not deceiving and outright malicious.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Know your enemy. It’s the only way to win.
I saved that Wedge article, just so I can refer to it and remind myself how penurious the opposition can be.
While in Saudi Arabia(1990) I had a discussion with Saib Al Ghamdi, a rather intelligent man, who said,”Einstein couldn’t have been very intelligent, because he was a Jew,,,”
That’s just another way of denigrating the opposition, but it has the effect of deminishing our awareness of their competency. Make no mistake, they are dedicated and intelligent in the pursuit of their goals. Truth is not always obvious. It can be shouted down by big lies told loud enough and often enough to convince the gullible.
The conflict between evidence based rationality and blind faith irrationality is no game. This is the real thing. If we truly desire humans to live to their full potential, to sing, dance and be joyful in their opportunity to exist, we must be as dedicated as our opponents.
GAry 7
December 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
What a shock to learn that even when mentioned tangentally by a third party, PZ Myers comes off a total prick.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Ok phil, let met get this right..
here we have a case of you, and PZ jumping on a trivial thing — that you most certainly have done on your blog and at live presentations – somehow giving the implication that Dembski was doing something “illegal”..
This is what is commonly known as “inserting a red herring” during a debate.. also could be considered an “ad hominem” attack— both are fallacies.
If this is what gets you skeptical atheists through the day, man thats sad..
December 28th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Matterof opinion papertiger, PZ didn’t sound that bad to me …
# pcarinion on 28 Dec 2007 12:20 pm wrote :
“@ Michael Lonergan – I’d sure consider bombing an abortion clinic an act of terrorism, along with the various other murders of the staff at abortion clinics. ”
Indeed.
Add to that Tim McVeigh and the Militia-Xtians.
& add Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of the democratically elected President Chavez.
Oh yeah, & also add the Fundamentalist Xtian “President” told by God to illegally invade and occupy a sovereign nation that we know now actually posed no harm to America & didn’t have all the nasty WMD’s that Israel and the USA among others already have …
Yep The self-proclaimed “Christian”, unforgiving Pharises of the US Xtian fundentalist “Right” are every bit as bad and have arguably even killed and harmed more than their Muslim mirror images …
December 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
After all add up the death toll in the invasion and occupation of Iraq plus Afghanistan plus Vietnam plus all tehotherinvasions and “Indian wars” the “peace-loving” “Christian” Americans have been aggressively involved in.
Add to that all the Palestineans killed by Israel’s American-backed & funded wars of conquest&occupation (1948, 1967, 1973, first Intifadah, Al-Aqsa intifadeh, targeted extrajudical political murders and collateral damage, ad nauseam ..)
Not that its a contest though.
Intolerance, bigotry and wilful stupidity is wrong whetehrits doen by Osama or his brother George Dubya” Bush …
——
All In My Humble Opinion Naturally – but I know a lot of others also think and feel as I do.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
# Barton Paul Levenson on 28 Dec 2007 at 8:35 am wrote :
“Zim posts:
[[While the actions of AlQ and the Taliban are more violent, are they *really* that far removed from those of the DI?]]
Yes, to any sane observer.”
Not to this sane observer.
Religious fundamnetalism and bigotry is religious fundamentalism and bigotry.
Whether its the Muslim fundamentalists and bigots doing the killing or the Christian fundamentalists and bigots the innocent people end up dead and suffering.
Never mind the “War on Terror” – lets have a war on stupidity & Religion being used as an excuse to committ murder.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Starting with nuking the US White House & Bible Belt!
—————————-
PS. For any who are really wondering : _* NO * I am NOT Serious!
Yes its a bit of black humour joking. Know most people can tell humour when they see it but there is, alas, a few that can’t hence .. this.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Mike J, as I stated very clearly in my post: the Fair Use Act covers the use of some copyrighted material, but not all, and not under all circumstances. I said I was not familiar with the case’s particulars, but it appears that what Dembski did does not fall under the Fair Use Act.
Is this whole thing important? Not in itself, but we must remember that people like Dembski promote creationism because they are fundamentalist Christians, and so by his own moral code, Dembski is a hypocrite.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:18 am
— While the actions of AlQ and the Taliban are more violent, are they *really* that far removed from those of the DI?
Is this a joke?
I mean… are you joking?
And I ask as someone who is so sick of the fumblementalist Evangelicals that I regularly float the idea of throwing Christians to lions as the next big thing in reality TV. I ask this as the uberskeptic who is sometimes skeptical of other skeptics.
So… are you [bleeping] JOKING?
Answer to question: Yes, they are *really* THAT [bleeping] removed!
ObSheesh: Sheesh!
— Religious fundamnetalism and bigotry is religious fundamentalism and bigotry. Whether its the Muslim fundamentalists and bigots doing the killing or the Christian fundamentalists and bigots the innocent people end up dead and suffering.
No one is arguing against that, but there are orders of magnitude to be considered. Seeing the world as pure black and white is bad. Seeing it as a single shade of the same color is just as stupid. If you can’t see the tortured “logic” of your statement, well, there’s little hope here.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:10 am
StevoR, you’ve got to get a grip. Maybe even help. Are you sure you’re naming individuals *you* would call ‘Christian’? Those people don’t seem very Christian to me. Just because someone claims something doesn’t make it so. (BTW, if you and pcarini were referencing Eric Rudolph for his abortion clinic bombings, you should know he responded to his Christian detractors with “I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible.”) Plus, nothing you said was funny. If you have to point out humor to people then it wasn’t really carried off very well. And lastly, defending your beliefs with the logic that you’ve found others who agree with you is exactly the thing you’re attacking.
Is this whole thing important, Phil? Not in the least. Not even a little bit. But “his own moral code”? Don’t we all have a moral code? Why is his so much more important than any of ours?
Sometimes it is hard for us to understand what drives a man to defend his beliefs in the face of overwhelming opposition. Perhaps it is because of the blind devotion of his peers. Perhaps it is deep-seeded indoctrination. Perhaps it is from a chemical imbalance. Remember that Percival Lowell was both a brilliant astronomer and a true nutjob. Even as his discoveries became more significant, it seems his nuttiness just got worse as he got older.
I’m writing a book of my own, which will surely never be published, on the strength of myths. Not society’s myths (that’s a topic well covered!) but the myths held strongly by students in my classroom. It’s amazing how a person with no direct experience can have such a strong opinion about a particular concept, like parachutes pull you up or blood is blue or microwaves turn water into poison. These misconceptions can root themselves so deeply that it can prevent me from being a good teacher.
What I’m saying is that I understand your feelings toward those who spread such misconceptions. It harms education and ultimately the children who might believe a convincing, if completely ridiculous, argument. I fight it every day. Sometimes the source of a myth is a forwarded email or even another teacher. What do I do then? Call her/him stupid in front of the class? That does far more damage than good. Logical dissemination of their arguments while treating them like they’re still intelligent is the best way I’ve found to make progress. Show them the process, and they’ll learn to think for themselves. Or, show off how much smarter and better I am than everyone else and make them bitter toward me and the lesson.
I’ve been watching Cosmos all the way through again. The Science Channel will show the entire series again starting in January. Before then I’m going to show the first episode to my physics class and introduce them to Carl’s way of teaching. I really wish I could present material like him.
) [I've been working on my bill-yons and bill-yons!] I teach in a country school where *all* my students are young-earth believers. It’s not an easy thing to teach something contrary to everything they’ve ever been exposed to. Good thing I’ve got Carl to show me the way!
In the end, the most important thing I ever teach my students is to not believe me, either. I don’t know what’s true. No one does. We take the evidence we have and make the best guess we can. It’s almost always wrong, but that’s what science actually is. The equations and models we use are…incomplete. And they always will be. But ultimately it is the search for the truth that matters. Don’t be complacent with your knowledge.
Hmmmph! I was about to complain about all the writing StevoR did, and I practically wrote a whole blog myself! Sorry about that. Let me go find a benign post to comment on…
–Terry
December 29th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Is this whole thing important? Not in itself, but we must remember that people like Dembski promote creationism because they are fundamentalist Christians, and so by his own moral code, Dembski is a hypocrite.
BA
—————————————————————
What moral code prevents someone from using a SLIDE during a presentation? I understand “thou shalt not steal” — which is what I think you are using as a basis for critique… but this doesn’t apply, as Dembski would have to literally sit down and scheme the use of the harvard side for nefarious purposes..
Also you overlook the fact that Dembski and almost every other human on the planet has broken the “thou shalt not steal” commandment — thus making ANYONE who critiques theft a hypocrite as well.
I suppose it should be asked on the record… Phil.. have YOU ever stolen anything… even something “small” or “by accident”?
That’s just one of the rules we christians have to TRY to follow…
Of course NO ONE can follow all 10 commandments.. as we all have lied, looked at someone with lust other than our spouse, stolen something, or coveted our neighbors things… should I keep going?
This is why God finds everyone on the planet “unacceptable” to him… and this is why Jesus took our punishment for us.
Dembski didn’t commit any crime, unless of course you are willing to say that anyone who uses any material without the CREATORS permission is guilty of “theft”… in which case I think the pictures you “took” from NASA’s websites, or APOD’s Websites, PZ’s website etc… are all fair game!
If this is the case then you and PZ are literally felons at large.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:04 am
MikeJ–
This isn’t about me, it’s about Dembski. He claims to be a Christian, and he claims to be on the side of right, and he claims and claims and claims. But when he’s caught stealing, he lies about it. That’s two commandments he broke.
And as I pointed out as clearly as I possibly could, there are Fair Use issues here too. Maybe you should read about them before saying anything else.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Mike J said:
“What moral code prevents someone from using a SLIDE during a presentation? I understand “thou shalt not steal” — which is what I think you are using as a basis for critique… but this doesn’t apply, as Dembski would have to literally sit down and scheme the use of the harvard side for nefarious purposes.”
Mike, you seem to have missed some of this story.
Dembski asked Harvard for permission to use a still from the video in a book. They turned him down, but we find out from lingering footnotes in the book that Dembski had already put the image in the book. It was subsequently replaced by a different image, but he didn’t do a terrific job of cleaning up after himself.
OK, that’s not such a big deal.
However, he has used the entire video in a public lecture, without permission or credit, and replacing the original soundtrack with his own voiceover. Now, that is not in any way, shape or form, fair use. He did not use the video as a “quotation”, he did not use it for the purpose of reviewing it, he presented it as the work of the DI. (To be fair, his words were “this is a state-of-the-art computer animation . . .” so he did not actually claim the credit. But by failing to acknowledge the actual creators of the video, he allows his audience to assume it is his work or the work of his DI colleagues).
AFAICT, that really is copyright theft.