Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Science Your Rights Online

Creationists Violating Copyright 635

The_Rook writes "The Discovery Institute, more a lawyer mill than a scientific institution, copied Harvard University's BioVisions video 'The Inner Life of the Cell,' stripped out Harvard's copyright notice, credits, and narration, inserted their own creationist-friendly narration, and renamed the video 'The Cell As an Automated City.' The new title subtly suggests that a cell is designed rather than evolved."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creationists Violating Copyright

Comments Filter:
  • Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @03:12AM (#21469025) Homepage
    It's a good thing they're a lawyer mill. Because Harvard's going to sue the shit out of them.

    Now, I'm not going to say all Creationists are dumb. I've met a few who aren't. But what in the hell were these guys thinking? "Oooo... let's use their video. They'll never catch on, and even if they do, what are they going to do about it?"

  • Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25, 2007 @03:23AM (#21469077)
    They ignore common sense, who could have guessed they would ignore other peoples copyright?...
  • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @03:31AM (#21469143) Homepage
    It was intended to be sarcastic, if that helps.

    The Discovery Institute is almost certainly going to claim Fair Use or something similiar, but I don't see how they can justify that when they stripped out the credits and copyright notice. Not to mention the narration.

    Actually, I think it's the new narration that's going to get it disqualified under Fair Use. By taking the "opposite" tack of evolution (i.e. design), they're in effect, diluting the value of the original work.
  • by or-switch ( 1118153 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @03:35AM (#21469169)
    What's really strange is that the original version doesn't say anything that would negate a creationists argument, and the creationist version doesn't say anything that would negate evolution. What I find bizarre is that they dubbed over it with a new track and edited the sequencing. The result is that they look like idiots because they get some information wrong, and the guy doing the narration says, "Uh," a lot and stammers his way through it. It's like the edited the original video and gave him one pass to explain what was happening and it was moving too fast. There was NO reason to dub over it.

    What's worse than peddling religion in the name of science? Doing it badly! Come on, at least believe strongly enough in your own message to articulate it clearly.

  • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Volante3192 ( 953645 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @03:38AM (#21469193)
    I thought Fair Use required attribution of the source?... Stripping it out and claiming it as your own, that's a case example of copyright infringement.
  • by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @04:00AM (#21469295) Journal
    We know that, we just find it amusing that the same institute preaching that Evolution causes immorality is the one that is blatently stealing another's work [er infringing that is] it would be ironic if it were not preceded by earlier nonsense on their account.
  • by wickerprints ( 1094741 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @04:12AM (#21469357)
    To call the Discovery Institute's use of the Harvard video merely "copyright violation" overlooks the more fundamental problem, because the DI did not just copy and redistribute the content without permission, but in fact (a) distorted and misrepresented the meaning of the content via overdubbed narration, and (b) knowingly misrepresented the authorship of the content. The former is fraud (though perhaps not in a legal context), and the second is plagiarism (which does satisfy the legal definition).

    Violation of copyright is really only the superficial issue, and only addresses the ownership of the original work.

    The creationist/intelligent design cabal is successful because since the time of Darwin, they have understood that their views cannot be defended through legitimate scientific inquiry, and can never be by definition. Therefore, they attack evolution by natural selection by appealing to and exploiting public passions, fears, and ignorance, and cloaking themselves in psuedoscientific legitimacy. They hope to insinuate themselves into rational discourse by invoking a false sense of objectivity and open-mindedness, appealing to the public to "hear both sides," which is merely a sophistic tactic to put their position on equal footing with decades of confirmed and verified scientific theory.

    In the end, what I truly don't understand is why the creationists are so hell-bent on disproving evolution. History has shown us time and time again that when religion fights science, religion ends up with egg on its face. (Galileo and his support of Copernican heliocentrism comes to mind.) If I were devoutly religious, the last thing I would want is to try to prove God's existence, because then such a proof would obviate the need for faith in the first place. Such a desire to enshrine one's belief in the language of science seems horribly misplaced at best, and ultimately, is a far greater detriment and threat to religion than science. Meanwhile, the scientists can only follow the path that nature reveals.
  • Re:Uh, fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IllForgetMyNickSoonA ( 748496 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @04:14AM (#21469363)
    Actually, no. You won't find ANY supporter of the "information wants to be free" idea arguing that taking somebody's work, striping the copyright, modifying parts of it and selling it as your own product should be somehow acceptable. Quite the opposite is the case: information DOES want to be free, but the COPYRIGHTS have nothing to do with it. Check tha recent law suits of BusyBox authors, or the numerous suits on behalf of the author of the netfilter software for example.

    But I suppose you already know that and you were only trolling, correct?
  • by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @04:19AM (#21469383) Homepage Journal

    "God made it that way" ends all arguments for them so there is no rational thought behind their position.

    I am sure that most anti-evolution parents would want their child to grow up to marry a good looking person of the opposite sex with lots of money and no history of disease in the family.

  • by wickerprints ( 1094741 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @04:23AM (#21469401)
    Your post isn't going to be modded down because the rest of us are bigoted (or even merely biased) against your viewpoint, but because it fails to address the reality of the situation. (1) The Discovery Institute did not secure permission to use the video. (2) The video was shown with the copyright removed. (3) The substance of the video was changed by overdubbed narration that implied that the video depicted evidence of intelligent design in biochemical mechanisms. (4) Through the removal of copyright information and failure to refer to the actual source, the DI plagiarized the video by presenting it as its own original work rather than a derivative work. This action is not covered under fair use.

    I would also like to point out that complaining that your post will be modded down is not somehow a sort of magical incantation to prevent it from actually being modded down. That sort of reverse psychology does not work, especially when you fail to have any legitimate points.
  • by wickerprints ( 1094741 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @04:27AM (#21469417)
    That depends on whether you tried to pass the video off as your own creation. That, in essence, is the core of the issue with the Discovery Institute's usage. Despite the title of the summary, the copyright violation is not what lies at the heart of this matter--it is the plagiarism. Surely your students cannot reasonably assume you were the sole author of the video. The same could not be said of a large, well-funded organization such as the DI.
  • Re:Uh, fair use? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25, 2007 @04:44AM (#21469499)
    You keep using the word 'parody'. It's not a parody. And it's one thing to borrow someone else's data... quite another thing to borrow their artistic representation of it.
  • by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @04:59AM (#21469563)

    So, when a darwinist copies something, it's fair-use, but if a creationist copies something it's a copyright violation?
    Darwinists do not exist. It's simply a pejorative label certain obstinate creation story supporters place on their opposition.

    What always gets me is that one group will flame another group, then call it bigotry if that group flames them back, or disagrees with them. This goes for copyrighted material users, file-sharers/industry, race, religion, Operating Systems, etc. Just read the posts above this one and you'll see a lot of bashing already in progress. See bigotry at its' finest. I wouldn't be surprised if my post gets modded down.
    I rarely see the "pro-science" side call creationists bigots. More often it's "knowledge deficient" or some synonym there of. Tolerance is a funny idea. You ought only tolerate what doesn't harm you or others. In this case I cannot tolerate creationism. You have already prematurely labeled me a bigot but if it means simply I am intolerant of inadequately supported ideas then thank you I must be a bigot.
  • by sqrt(2) ( 786011 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @05:14AM (#21469633) Journal
    That's why I said good scientists. A PhD doing those things is actually just being a good politician. If you consider that their job is really to keep the money flowing into their department, then they ARE doing a good job. The problem is really that we've allowed a system to form where those types of people have a place.
  • kdawsonisatroll? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qmaqdk ( 522323 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @05:21AM (#21469659)
    If you're a creationist, everyone in here is a troll. What, with the science-voodoo and all.
  • by wickerprints ( 1094741 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @05:38AM (#21469735)
    Your post is misleading, because the controversy over intelligent design, and the problem that scientists have with it, is not that it is true or false. The creationists/ID proponents would like people to frame it in such a context, because it pits scientists against dogmatic faith in a supernatural creator. I will only say this once, because it is so obvious that it is a wonder that it needs to be said at all:

    The problem is that the theory of Intelligent Design* is not science.

    Note that this statement does not say anything about the truth of ID. It merely states that ID as a proposed explanation of the origin of life does not satisfy fundamental criteria necessary to be called science. I cannot tell you whether ID is true or false, because I DO NOT KNOW. But I can tell you that it isn't a scientific theory. Why its proponents seem so desperate to enshrine it as science and somehow believe that shrouding it in the mantle of science would increase its legitimacy, I cannot understand. I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the universe had a divine creator, as I am also willing to entertain the notion of a supernatural origin of life, as are many scientists. But as scientists, none of us can rationally place those notions in a scientific framework.

    *Note that I use the phrase "Intelligent Design" here in its broadest context--that the origin of life is supernatural, rather than in its specific statements that strive to demonstrate this claim (e.g., the argument of irreducible complexity).
  • by novakyu ( 636495 ) <> on Sunday November 25, 2007 @06:59AM (#21470005) Homepage
    Er, before you start foaming at your mouth, I recommend that you actually watch the original video with the original narration. Listen to every word carefully (I'm not a biologist, but I could understand most of it, so unless you are stupid or utterly unqualified to make the remarks you did, you should be able to also), and ask yourself: "Which part of that original narration supports Darwinian evolution?"

    Your integrity ought to be questioned if your answer is anything other than "Nothing!" The video does look like a ... very sophisticated computer animation with probably biologically correct description of the cell. But that's where it stops. It describes what happens in the cell TODAY, not what might have happened over last couple billion years (or, in the interest of fairness, whether it just had to be designed by a creator).

    Given this fact, your characterization of the modified presentation as "distorted and misrepresented" is ... well, let's say over-zealous. I'm not saying that the creationist is right in not correctly attributing the Harvard biologist who made the original animation. But, given that the original says nothing about "Creation vs. Evolution" debate, would his presentation have been any less effective if he made the correct attribution? No. After, all, creationists also claim to be (I'm not supporting or denying their claim) scientists, and it is no shame to refer to another scientist's work.

    As for the copyright aspect ... well, I am not a lawyer and I wouldn't be able to make a cogent argument for or against this particular use. But let me just say, what the creationist did looks very similar to what some people do to make those anime "music videos" on the YouTube. If you condemn him as "distorting and misrepresenting" the original work, by the same measure, you should condemn the people creating those music videos because they are putting the animation together with music that was never designed to be put together and creating possibly misleading atmosphere. Is that what you want to do?

    The whole "creation vs. evolution" argument has an effect on people that makes them utterly stupid and unable to make intelligent, rational arguments (yes, that goes for rabid creationists, as well as rabid evolutionists). If you want to save what is left of your intelligence, I advise you to take a step back and look at the debate from a distance. That's what I do as a believing scientist.

    As for what copyright ought to allow people to do and ought not, I invite you to watch Lessig's wonderful presentation and make up your own mind: [].
  • by OeLeWaPpErKe ( 412765 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @07:45AM (#21470153) Homepage
    Perhaps some kind of DRM on harvard's videos is in order ?

    Are slashdot writers truly this hypocritical ? If nobody gets to enforce copyright (especially not riaa) then why does slashdot get to ?
  • Re:It was planned. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @08:17AM (#21470279)
    I doubt it was meant in mockery. Unfortunately, I think those guys are dead serious with this.
  • by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @08:51AM (#21470405) Journal

    Perhaps some kind of DRM on harvard's videos is in order ?


    Are slashdot writers truly this hypocritical ? If nobody gets to enforce copyright (especially not riaa) then why does slashdot get to ?

    That's not hypocritical. They didn't just copy the Harvard video, they stripped the copyright statement! That's plagarism. Note that even the most liberal OSS licenses (e.g. the two-clause BSD) still maintain that you are not allowed to remove the copyright notice. And I doubt you'll find many slashdotters who would claim that plagiarism should be allowed.

    If they had just copied and distributed the Harvard video, I'm sure not many people here would have objected.

    I'm a scientist. If you make copies of my articles and propagate them, I'm happy. If you take my articles, change a few things, remove my name and add yours, I'm angry.
  • Um... all of it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NIckGorton ( 974753 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @10:07AM (#21470777)

    and ask yourself: "Which part of that original narration supports Darwinian evolution?"
    The entire thing supports evolutionary theory. This is because biology - in all its manifestations - cannot be understood without an understanding of evolutionary theory. It would be like trying to discuss or explain organic chemistry while denying the existence of the atom.
  • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @11:47AM (#21471321) Journal
    Speak for yourself. I, personally, am delighted that Christians have attacked The Golden Compass. For the first time I can remember, they've actually a picked a film that's anti-religion to attack as anti-religious.
  • Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bombula ( 670389 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @12:17PM (#21471553)
    I'm not going to say all Creationists are dumb. I've met a few who aren't

    Anyone who supports a premise that is so overwhelming contradicted by evidence from a thousand different intersecting angles is either extremely stupid (stupid encompasses denial and wishful thinking) or extremely ignorant. Either you don't understand, or you don't know any better. Take your pick.

  • Re:It was planned. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @12:36PM (#21471707)
    The difference between a cult and a religion is just the number of people who follow it and whether it's tax exempt.

    Mostly the latter.
  • Re:It was planned. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mikael ( 484 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @01:19PM (#21471963)
    If you have any discussion about the legal rights of any religion, then using one of the established religions as an example, you risk starting a flame-war. So you need to create a hypothetical religion based on a particular character. All religions have one or more gods who helped create the world, and stories about interactions with humans in the past, thus in the case of Pastafarianism, The Flying Spaghetti Monster fills the role of being a God, and allows the discussion to take place without insulting anyone.

    An exampled discussion: Should religion artwork be allowed in government buildings?

    If all religions are to be treated fairly, then if you are to permit marble sculptures of religions figures, then you must allow be willing to accept sculptures of His Holy Noodlyness. If you are to permit paintings of a guy in white robes, white curly hair, and a long beard, then you must also be willing to permit paintings of a plate of spaghetti reaching out.

  • by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @02:14PM (#21472375) Homepage Journal
    I would actually go as far as to say that Science is largely built by people using the representations of others.

    If one scientist reads about a scientific experiment of another scientist. The scientist decides to try the experiment. The scientist sits down and repeats the experiment and carefully writes down each step he takes in the experiment. When he is done, he has a notebook full of information and test results that are surprisingly similar to the first scientist.

    So, we now have the case where scientist A has a notebook that says I did this and got these results. Scientist B has a notebook says I did this and got these results. The two notebooks are surprisingly similar.

    Is Scientist B a copyright violating plagiarist?

    There is one very subtle point to be made. Yes, there is an argument that Scientist B should cite Scientist A. However, this is countered by the idea that nature is the source of the information. Scientists may intentionally distance themselves the original experiment to make sure that information from the first experiment does not affect the second experiment; in which case it is easy to accidentally lose the citation.

    Science was built by people repeating the same experiments over, over and over again. When they repeat the same experiments, they come up with the same results. If we had a lawsuit every time one scientist repeated an experiment of another simply because the notes on the experiment came out similar, then science would halt dead in its tracks.

    Lets say Scientist A and Scientist B had different theories about what caused a result set. In that case the two scientists would have different narratives for the existing data. They then would put together a third experiment to test different predictions.

    It sounds likely that this Discovery group is engaged in crap science. There really is no experiment which can ever prove of disprove the disagreement between evolutionists and creationists. The fact that creationists can stick their narrative on the works of other scientists proves this point.

    We may hate creationists with every fiber of our being. They may be a thorn in our sides. But do we really want courts controlling the natural give and take that exists in the scientific community because we hate creationists? Do we really want science to be driven by our hatred of a group that is on the fringe?
  • Re:It was planned. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 25, 2007 @03:44PM (#21473033)

    Tell ya what. I'll happily buy that when the FSM can be used in a discussion thread WITHOUT someone slamming the spiritual beliefs of others.
    FSM doesn't serve to slam spiritual beliefs, only religious fanaticism and intolerance.

    Note: I did not use the word "religion". Big difference 'tween being religious and bein' spiritual.
    Too true. It's religion that causes the problems, not spirituality.
  • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @05:08PM (#21473517) Homepage
    Painful childbirth was eve's punishment for eating the apple, I love pointing this out to pregnant Christians when they discuss epidurals. I once pointed it out to a Christian obstetrician, that was priceless.

    Try it sometime, you'll see a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance Christians undergo when faced with some of the less savory aspects of The Bible. They've got prepared excuses for things like creation, but not childbirth pain.

    "It's SUPPOSED to hurt, and you're SUPPOSED to suffer. Epidurals are in direct defiance of god's wishes and you'll burn in hell."

    In fact...most of my arguing with Christians works this way these days. I've long given up trying to educate them - it's futile. Now I just point out flaws in their "Christian" behavior. A good one is to point out the bit where they're not supposed to own cars or TV sets, that they have to give everything they own to the poor and let god provide for their basic needs (Matthew 19:21).

  • Re:Uh, fair use? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @05:23PM (#21473607)

    It is possible that what this Discovery group did was illegal. Sticking a different narrative on a set of pictures is not illegal. Now, Publishing the new work and saying that the pictures were the creation of the new author would be wrong.
    It seems quite likely that the use of the video along with the removal of original credits and the replacement of the narrative would be considered a derivative work, and a violation of the original creators' copyright.
  • by Meorah ( 308102 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @06:06PM (#21473803)
    You can be both quite easily. Darwin, Galileo, Einstein, Copernicus, and Tesla would all disagree with your supposition that observation and faith are mutually exclusive. I'm sure there are plenty of other giants I missed, but you get the idea.
  • by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Sunday November 25, 2007 @08:44PM (#21474547) Journal

    The RIAA is bad because they're suing innocent people
    Wait, you only attack the RIAA when they sue innocent people? Because as far as I've seen slashdot rallies to the defense of any pirate!
  • Re:It was planned. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by melikamp ( 631205 ) on Monday November 26, 2007 @12:05AM (#21475323) Homepage Journal

    Actually he just gave the hungry people a way to eat and share the food they had brought with them, but hidden, and without exposure of what they had with them to those around them.

    Right. And he did not really resurrect, he simply went into the deep coma on the cross, and then woke up in the tomb, scared away the guards by covering his head with a white sheet with holes for eyes, and went to hang out with the Apostles. And in the end he did not rise up to heaven, but rather collapsed from excessive blood loss, which is sort of a vertical movement too, so the holy author is not stretching the (scientific) truth by much...

    Who cares what "really happened"? From the religious side, is that even remotely important for the statement of Christian faith, which boils down to accepting the message of peace and love from the Jewish god? From the historical side, what sources are you using? Not one of the primary sources gives us an indication that these short parables were fairy tail versions of actual events. Not one. The holy authors themselves considered them to be accurate. From the modern, scientific point of view, we cannot even be sure that these are not mere stories with Jesus cast as the main character. Whenever you come up with a rationalistic explanation of a myth, you just make up history. It is certainly possible that Jesus got off the boat and stood on the shallow place, which was perceived as walking on water. Who cares? We cannot even be sure that he was on a boat that night.

  • Re:It was planned. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Monday November 26, 2007 @04:08AM (#21476223) Journal
    'Separation of Church and State does not equal Sterilization of Church from State.'

    Actually it does, you see, after you separate things they are no longer combined. As you have already pointed out, it is not practical to represent everyone's beliefs (numbers are irrelevant, if a single person has a belief they are equally entitled to have that belief respected as another individual who happens to have a belief shared by many others); therefore the only way to respect ALL religions is not to represent any of them in government.

    As I am sure you will agree, the best solution is to not include religious representations on city halls at all (particularly since they lack any legitimate function). Just as religious moral values have no place in our laws and should instead be instilled by family and friends and enforced through stigma in those same circles. An excellent example is prostitution, without a moral component defined by religious values there is no justification for laws against prostitution and thus there should be none. Instead, families with those beliefs should teach their children not to be or solicit prostitutes and leave those with other values alone.

  • Re:It was planned. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anzya ( 464805 ) on Monday November 26, 2007 @05:07AM (#21476477)
    Unfortunatly I don't have time to answer all your idéeas but let me ask you this. What where the odds that all happenings in the exodus would happen just when Moses needed them? I got no problem with natural explenations to miracles. It's the timing that I find to be a miracle.
    Sadly I don't belive I can get you to see things in the same way.
  • Re:It was planned. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Johnny5000 ( 451029 ) on Monday November 26, 2007 @08:58AM (#21477753) Homepage Journal
    Because if ID is correct, it allows for FSM as much as Christianity or any other religion that involves a creator.

    And this is precisely where this point starts falling apart.
    ID isn't anywhere near "correct."

    To make this point clearer - ID is an overarching project that encompasses many religions and materialist scenarios - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, ancient Egyptian beliefs, FSM, and more.

    Except 99.99% of ID enthusiasts are nutty Christians trying to force their beliefs on others. The ID movement is their attempt to get their religion taught in school, and everyone knows it. Since they can't get the Bible taught in American public schools, they do the next best thing- disguise the Bible in some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to fool the religious idiots who don't understand science, and then pretend it's science and some kind of alternative to a pretty rock-solid actual scientific theory, and try to fool a bunch of kids who don't know any better.
  • Re:It was planned. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nuzak ( 959558 ) on Monday November 26, 2007 @01:32PM (#21481049) Journal
    Ooh, three squares on my ID bingo card.

    Gravity is a theory, bible boy.
  • Re:It was planned. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonamused Cow-herd ( 614126 ) on Monday November 26, 2007 @01:42PM (#21481199)

    So to ask that FSM be taught alongside ID is to show a category misunderstanding. ID does not stand in contrast with FSM, but rather FSM falls under ID (as does directed panspermia and other non-religious creation scenarios)
    Right. I'm not sure what immaterial fantasy world you live in, but clearly you're reducing ID to something that is basically worthless if you're going to reduce it to something "common to all religions" or some such nonsense. If all you mean by ID is that SOMETHING created stuff with an intelligent purpose, that's one thing, but it's completely Intellectually Dishonest (ID? =P) to claim that's what the ID debate is.

    It's only when you start making SPECIFIC claims about how/what was designed, and when, that the debate gets sticky. Go back far enough, we don't have any explanation for how things came about (e.g., far before the Big Bang) -- so Intelligent Design becomes as reasonable a candidate as any other. But what most ID proponents are talking about is the evolution (sorry, creation) of complex biological organisms. In that respect, FSMism differs GREATLY from Christianity. Furthermore, the "major" religions, and all the minor ones too, seem to be unable to agree on all that as well.

    So yeah, if you reduce Intelligent Design to a stupid undebatable metaphysical nothing, you're right that it's a class misunderstanding. However, for those of us that live in the real world, the ID debate is clearly linked to particular religious ideologies, and will be embraced with THOSE ideologies in mind if adopted in PRACTICE.

    Long story short: nobody buys the stupid argument that ID "isn't about Christianity" -- least of all the people who support it. ID proponents are clearly just using that as an intellectually dishonest shield from rightful criticism. And FSMism exposes such crap for what it is: an affront to the legitimate search for reasonable explanation of observable phenomena.
  • Re:It was planned. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonamused Cow-herd ( 614126 ) on Monday November 26, 2007 @01:48PM (#21481285)

    and is often represented as fact when it is still just theory
    And what would you propose calling it? Guess what -- any non-synthetic belief you have (e.g., anything you don't base solely on faith or math) is falsifiable, and therefore a theory. Everything you work under is a theory. Here's a theory I have: the Sun will rise tomorrow. It's true, the Sun could not rise tomorrow (some galactic cataclysm -- or if you prefer, God decided to eradicate the Sun overnight). Therefore, my theory could be proven wrong. But that doesn't mean it IS wrong. In fact, I would contend you'd be foolish to believe otherwise.

    Oh my god, the Sun might not rise tomorrow! It's just a theory! Strike all mention of orbits and our solar system from science textbooks; this is just a theory!

IN MY OPINION anyone interested in improving himself should not rule out becoming pure energy. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.