Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
The Internet Government The Courts News Science

Creationists Silence Critics with DMCA 585

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creationists Silence Critics with DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • Oh Shit (Score:4, Funny)

    by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:22PM (#20618037) Journal
    Don't bother entering this topic unless you have asbestos briefs on.
    • by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      Liar liar, pants on fire! You don't have asbestos briefs!

      Having said that... Isn't there a law against submitting DMCA notices illegally? Isn't there a counter-DMCA notice that can be sent?

      So... Until something has actually happened in retaliation... This isn't really much of a story.
      • Re:Oh Shit (Score:4, Informative)

        by metlin ( 258108 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:27PM (#20618097) Journal

        So... Until something has actually happened in retaliation... This isn't really much of a story.
        Yes it is. It is the abuse of the law by a group that does not substantiate their claims by science and literally uses the law as a tool to censor points of view that they do not like.

        If anything, I do not see why this isn't more of a news.
        • Re:Oh Shit (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:48PM (#20618243)
          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. However, given that they actually do supposedly believe this stuff, they aren't supposed to do evil and wrong things like lie and cheat or they will go to the hell that they imagine exists. Flame on I guess?
          • Re:Oh Shit (Score:5, Insightful)

            by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) * on Saturday September 15, 2007 @04:28PM (#20618541) Homepage Journal

            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.

            • by IdahoEv ( 195056 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @05:33PM (#20619075) Homepage
              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.
      • by Quila ( 201335 )
        Having said that... Isn't there a law against submitting DMCA notices illegally? Isn't there a counter-DMCA notice that can be sent?

        #1 Yes, the creationists committed perjury according to the law by claiming they had the copyright. #2 Yes.

      • Re:Oh Shit (Score:5, Insightful)

        by click2005 ( 921437 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:33PM (#20618131)
        Having said that... Isn't there a law against submitting DMCA notices illegally? Isn't there a counter-DMCA notice that can be sent?

        Most people don't know about the counter-DMCA notices.

        I'd bet that if you made a realistic looking letter from a made-up law company it would be very hard to trace and YouTube would still remove the video. Once a DMCA notice has been received, Youtube would be also liable for copyright infringement so they'd have to remove it just in case.
      • Re:Oh Shit (Score:5, Informative)

        by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @04:15PM (#20618451) Journal
        Basicaly you file a DMCA Counter-claim which states that under penalty of pergy you believe the material was identified as infringing by "mistake" and you identify yourself completely enough so that the original complaintant can sue you if it wasn't a mistake. How to Report Counter-Claim of Infringement [ucmo.edu] goes into more detail, you might want to talk to a lawyer first too.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by dkf ( 304284 )

          under penalty of pergy
          Either you meant "penalty of perjury" or you meant something else that I really don't want to think too deeply about.
    • by philpalm ( 952191 )
      I believe the religious guys also tried to stop the Grand Canyon stores from selling books on similar topics. They must figure if they can shield people from scientific speculation promoting evolution their case for creation gets a "fairer" chance.

      looks like I will have to get my abestos suit...
    • when i clicked on a link in google for a rational response squad video i got "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." however, one of the videos it suggested i view instead was a woman smiling while being ejaculated on.
  • religion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lobster Quadrille ( 965591 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:27PM (#20618087)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by catbutt ( 469582 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:40PM (#20618195)

      ...something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution...
      Unfortunately what is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone. Evolution just goes against many if not most people's intuition. While I might think the whole idea of a sky-god watching over our every move and listening to our telepathic messages is absurd to the extreme, other people think that the idea of things as complex as you and I arising from nothing but random events to be equally absurd. (true, natural selection is not random, but the actual changes themselves were indeed random)
      • Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Vicissidude ( 878310 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @04:36PM (#20618601)
        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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:45PM (#20618225)
      It should not be so hard to admit that you could be wrong, without your life falling apart.

      Unfortunately, that's just not true for most people in the US today. After years and years of media and academic conditioning, it's very difficult for many to admit that they might be wrong. That's not just when it comes to religion, but also when it comes to politics, sporting matches, and even celebrities!

      In American schools today, and for the past decade or so, children are rarely told that their answers are wrong, even in courses like mathematics. Their answers are merely "not as correct" as they could be. So when a child writes on a math test that 2 + 3 = 4, they still get "part marks". Of course, what they should get on that question is zero, if not an outright loss of marks. Thus kids never learn that it's possible to be wrong. This is even the case in some American universities!

      Of course, when it comes to religion it's even worse. At least with math there is some well-defined correct answer. But that just isn't the case when it comes to deities and gods and the afterlife. So when you have people who are used to never being "wrong" (even if they're completely incorrect) having to face questions without answers, it's beyond their comprehension. And so we see the rise of fundamentalism, with these religiously-confused individuals going so far as to try to censor others with differing, let alone contradictory, beliefs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by joe 155 ( 937621 )
      I largely agree with you but have one point to raise (for which no doubt I'll be modded to minus-infinity).

      I agree Darwinian evolution (which is what I assume you mean by "evolution") is a pretty neat idea, it seems to fit with a lot of the evidence we have about how the creatures on this planet came to exist. It isn't the only idea which would fit with the "facts" (I'll leave post-modern type discussions about the existence of objective reality though) of our world however. I do not currently have a the
      • Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pla ( 258480 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @04:17PM (#20618459) Journal
        if that is the case then your "definitively proven" fact could easily be wrong for there is endless potential for finding examples of evolutions which goes against the Darwinian formula.

        True - But in the complete lack of such evidence, despite people on both sides of the issue doing their damnedest to find any, only a fool would doggedly insist on the counterfactual stance. Evolution may well have a few holes that we find someday; perhaps even a complete parallel mechanism of speciation has played out over the eons of Earth's history (or even off-planet, "in a galaxy far, far away"). But the core mechanisms of evolution do not count as mere conjecture, or even mere theory.

        We have absolute proof-of-concept of every aspect of evolution, from creation of increasingly complex organic molecules on a young Earth, to tidal and glacial generation of lipid membranes, to endosymbiosis as a means of producing progressively more complex cells, to progressively more cohesive "colonies" of multicellular life such as bacterial plaques to sponges to jellyfish, all the way through to producing divergent species via artifical separation of populations.

        The "missing links" so proudly flaunted by creationists amount to nothing more than pages lost from the family album in a fire. Just because you don't have photographic proof that your grandfather existed, you don't presume that Prometheus scooped up some dust and breathed life into it to bridge the gap between the pictures of your great grandfather and your father.

        a theory is only good so long as the evidence is (following Popper) - and none of us know the future.

        In the strictest sense, you have it absolutely correct - Thus we still call evolution a "theory".

        In practice, as humans, we can only reserve judgement on the validity of a theory against so much evidence before we informally accept it. Not knowing the future, we could also hold out judgement that the Earth will continue to have gravity tomorrow. But we don't.
        • you have it absolutely correct - Thus we still call evolution a "theory".

          AH, you bring up something many don't understand about science and theories. Yes evolution is theory, specifically it's Scientific Theory [wikipedia.org], which has a totally different connotation to what many people take "theory" as meaning, how it's used colloquially. When we say evolution is a scientific theory part of it's meaning is that it has not been proved scientifically false as of yet. Then if and when it is proven false the theory is

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mvdwege ( 243851 )

          Evolution may well have a few holes that we find someday;

          This is an especially ironic statement given that it occurs in a discussion linked to Richard Dawkins' blog.

          Remember, this is the man who attacks fellow evolutionary biologists as crypto-creationists when they cast doubt on the gradualistic theory of evolution.

          This just goes to show that fundamentalist atheism is just as dogmatically religious as that which it purports to oppose.


      • Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)

        by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @05:11PM (#20618911)
        We can't directly and distinctly perceive magnetism, the rotation of the earth, the strong nuclear force either, continental drift or photons, yet there seems to be no problem with acceptance of these phenomena as real. Heck we even have people who claim the moon landings are a fraud because they don't believe the evidence and haven't gone there themselves.

        The issue here is really very simple. Scientific investigation and study has resulted in the understanding of evolution as the mechanism for ever increasing complexity in life. Science at its very foundation requires naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena. Since science has not advanced to the point where a set of axioms can be constructed that allow the deductive proof of these explanations, we have the situation where inductive logic is used for the proof of these explanations. It is the fundamental structure of science today.

        Now we have the problem that the Bible teaches something else; i.e. an external supernatural force a.k.a. God is responsible for the creation of complex forms of life. Some people reject the teachings of science in this regard and choose the Biblical account instead. I have no problem with people having these beliefs. It is, or at should be a free country.

        The problem I have is that some people who adhere to the Biblical account believe that this account means the scientific account is wrong despite the fact that they are unable to provide the counter examples that would invalidate the inductive reasoning used by in the scientific account. Not only is this an issue, but there have been endless attempts to teach these non-scientific beliefs (non-scientific in the sense that they rely on supernatural rather than naturalistic explanations) as if they were science, or even attempt to redefine the basic framework of science to accommodate these supernatural explanations, or use the legal process to forbid teaching the scientific explanation.

        Here it is at the end. You cannot appeal to a higher power and call the result science. Creationism and its bastard stepchild, intelligent design are bankrupt intellectual concepts and frauds when they are presented as science or alternatives to scientific evolution.

    • Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rossifer ( 581396 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @05:28PM (#20619047) Journal
      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.

  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:27PM (#20618091)
    Do they want to appeal to the religio-creationist market or to the more technical athiest, sceptic, agnostic market.

    The way they handled this (with banning the rational guys) is going to mean they can't have both.

    I think they would have been better served to take the videos down, and then after processing that they were fair use, put them back up. That would have not pissed off either market particularly.
    • by garcia ( 6573 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:47PM (#20618239)
      Do they want to appeal to the religio-creationist market or to the more technical athiest, sceptic, agnostic market.

      They aren't appealing to any group other than those that are willing to file a DMCA takedown request. The group, while also complaining in the way they are, should also file a counter-claim (as has been mentioned in this thread and others earlier in the week) and wait for it to be reinstated if GooTube decides it's appropriate.
  • by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:27PM (#20618095) Homepage
    Isn't the correct response to a false DMCA take-down notice to file a DMCA counterclaim? Was that done in this case?
  • Counterclaim!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slashdot@ g m ail.com> on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:29PM (#20618105) Homepage Journal
    Since the videos are public domain, we can follow the recent tactics of the Jedi teacher vs. Viacom. [slashdot.org]
  • by GoatRavisher ( 779902 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:29PM (#20618107)
    There is no god but the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  • THE DMCA... greedy idiot designed, criminal tested!!!

  • by tulmad ( 25666 )
    If you need an evangelist ministry to get people to believe your claims, it's not really science.
  • Ugh...why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jarjarthejedi ( 996957 ) <christianpinchNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:35PM (#20618147) Journal
    As a Creationist I'm stunned that they would do something this dumb. Honestly, I have no problem with people arguing about religion and trying to prove it wrong, that's to be expected and trying to silence it is akin to saying that your argument is weaker than your opponent's. This is really quite a dumb thing for them to do, I hope some kind of counter-claim is filed and the videos are put back up. There are some extreme Creationists out there who don't want to debate the topic and just want to shut up anyone who doesn't believe, I would hate for those people to become the stereotypical Creationist when they're really the minority (though having been on /. a which that stereotype is already in effect to an extent...ugh).

    Not cool guys. Don't go making the rest of us look bad just because you can't take some criticism/arguing. And really don't make the rest of us look back by using a sore subject (DMCA) improperly and illegally to try and silence the criticism.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wasabii ( 693236 )
      What do you mean, have an argument? You can't have an argument without facts and evidence to compare.

      Last I checked you had none of either. Heresay does not count.
    • Re:Ugh...why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kentrel ( 526003 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @04:02PM (#20618363) Journal
      Debate the topic? Do you realize Evolution vs Creationism is undebatable, since Creationists have no evidence?? It's a Fact vs Belief debate, where the people on the Belief side won't accept fact.

      Its as pointless as a Round Earth vs Flat Earth argument. In fact, people shouldn't even be debating these Creationist scumbags, since it just gives the false impression that their opinion carries any relevance to the origin of Life.
      Also, As a Creationist, are you really in a position to determine what is or is not "dumb"? Come on man, you realize you're on a science and technology forum. You sure you're not just trolling?

    • Re:Ugh...why? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tukkayoot ( 528280 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @04:58PM (#20618809) Homepage

      As a Creationist I'm stunned that they would do something this dumb. Honestly, I have no problem with people arguing about religion and trying to prove it wrong, that's to be expected and trying to silence it is akin to saying that your argument is weaker than your opponent's.

      You're obviously not well-versed on the tactics of proponents of creationism, because if you were, their actions here would come as absolutely no surprise. Intellectual dishonesty and sleazy tactics are par for the course because their argument is so much incredibly weaker than the argument for evolution. One of their most common tactics is "quote mining [aquaticape.org]," where they take a quote from a prominent scientist or scientific paper completely out of context, sometimes to create an impression that the scientist is saying the exact opposite of the point they're making. Or they will totally misapply other scientific concepts ... most popularly, the second law of thermodynamics [talkorigins.org]. Or they'll conduct interviews with biologists under false pretenses, as they did here [skeptics.com.au] and here [scienceblogs.com].

      At best, being a creationist means you're simply ignorant or uneducated on biology. If you actually seek to spread or reinforce that ignorance among the general public, you're either a jackass or an idiot and one shouldn't be surprised when you use the methods of a jackass or idiot.
  • The website that receives a DMCA claim has no idea as to the verity of the claim or not. It is not up to them to decide what is infringement or not, only to follow the rule of law. The DMCA has a provision for the person or entity that it is being used against to submit a counter-claim to the website to give them notice that if the person making the claim wants to continue to contest the item, that they can take you to court, but that you have given notice to the website objecting to the take-down and the w
  • Panda's Thumb (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:42PM (#20618203)
    The Panda's Thumb also has a story [pandasthumb.org] 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.
    • Um... Source? (Score:3, Informative)

      by abb3w ( 696381 )

      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."

      This would not surprise me. However... the Wayback Machine seems to have a decent collection [archive.org] of content from the CSE website at DrDino.com; my quick sampling indicates they started asserting at least some copyright in 2005, and didn't turn up any quote on those lines. Care to point to a particular page from the W

  • by thatskinnyguy ( 1129515 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @03:43PM (#20618215)
    Dear Whiners,

    We here at YouTube are all about free speech. We like it so much we are an outlet for free speech.

    Starting immediately, we have implemented a policy so that things are kept fair and balanced around here for the First Amendment. Every time you request a certain video/user removed just because you don't like what they have to say, not only will their account/video be deleted, but an account/video that advocates your point of view will also deleted.

    There will be some dissent over this policy in the short term. However, in the long term it will serve to stop filling our email boxes full of whining complaints and petty bullshit.

    For those wanting to play the DMCA card where it doesn't belong, we have also instituted a policy of banning your IP so that we don't have to listen to your illiterate ass.

    Play nice in the sandbox and make YouTube a thing that all can enjoy!

    The YouTube Management
  • by hansamurai ( 907719 ) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Saturday September 15, 2007 @04:14PM (#20618443) Homepage Journal

    The RRS videoes attack creationism (AKA intelligent design)
    I always thought creationism and intelligent design were two different beliefs, where creationism is you believe exactly what the Bible says in Genesis and intelligent design is the Christian's answer to evolution? Sort of a mix between creationism and evolution? I may be wrong but I don't think it's as simple as saying "aka" to infer some sort of equality.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Phroggy ( 441 )
      Creation Science is actually scientific, in that it begins with a hypothesis (the universe and everything in it was created in six literal days by a supernatural God around 4,000 BC or so, and a worldwide catastrophic event happened about 2,000 years later that wiped out just about everything except one guy's family and a bunch of animals that survived on a big boat), then seeks to find evidence that supports the hypothesis. It's a bit more complicated than that - there are different theories about exactly
  • Religion! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WhiteWolf666 ( 145211 ) <sherwin@nOsPaM.amiran.us> on Saturday September 15, 2007 @04:18PM (#20618477) Homepage Journal
    A challenge:

    Show me a miracle! Not just a long shot chance, but an honest to god miracle (this means not someone who was resuscitated 5 minutes after death, or 1 hour after being frozen underwater. I'm talking about ashes->living. I'm talking about buried->talking)

    I want evidence, or better yet, a "proof". A proof of miracles, or God, would be fine.

    Barring proof, highly suggestive evidence, something that can be tested via the scientific method, would be good too.

    You see, I can conduct all kinds of experiments that point at evolution, and I can dig up core samples with fossils that suggest it as well. I can do DNA analysis that point to it as well, and given enough time, I can develop an observational methadology to prove evolution going forward.

    Do that for me with God. Or Miracles.

    That's the difference between faith and science. Faith relies upon, "well, you can't prove it isn't true." Science relies upon, "All the evidence points in that direction, so lets test it."

    It's stupid to base an argument on the impossibility of proving a negative result; yet thats what most creationists do. In this sense, as Richard Dawkins would say, religion is nothing more than a mental virus. A piece of intellectual stupidity that seems to resonate with people as an intellectual comfort blanket, no different than the ostrich sticking his head in the sand (or up his rear).

    That's not to say there isn't value to spirituality. But creationism, and fundamentalist beliefs in the "reality" of the bible? Hogwash.
  • by mikesd81 ( 518581 ) <mikesd1@noSpaM.verizon.net> on Saturday September 15, 2007 @04:30PM (#20618555) Homepage
    The link is to blurb that explains nothing which links to another blurb that explains nothing. All this story accomplished was to start yet another creation/evolution war. Come on now, I know it's Saturday, but it can't be that slow of a news day. I did a quick google news search and the only link that came up for this story is the slashdot one. It's not even a story.
  • by Conspiracy_Of_Doves ( 236787 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @05:17PM (#20618961)
    'Thou shalt not bear false witness'?
  • by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @05:37PM (#20619113) Homepage
    This is an obvious violation of the Cthurch of Scientology's trademark, trade secret, copyright and patented techniques for dealing with its critics. How dare they!
  • by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @05:52PM (#20619245)
    Case in point, my co-workers. We're having drinks after work and the conversation turns to pothead cosmology, i.e. the stuff that sounds profound when you're 14 and blitzed on something mind-altering. Direct quote: "Man, how do we even know that we're what people say we are? This whole solar system could just be an atom in a booger in the nose of some giant." I swear to God, direct quote. This is the point at which I bowed out of the conversation. Previously the question was "Like how do the scientists even know what they're saying, like space is really expanding?" Redshift, I reply. "Yeah, but how can you really know?" Redshift, it's the doppler shifting of light from radiant stellar objects as they recede into the distance. How do we know that atoms aren't just miniature solar systems? Firstly, the whole electrons as planets around a nuclear as sun model is 19th century. Electrons are actually in zones of probability, the electron cloud. Furthermore, matter does not scale down to the atomic scale and retain all the characteristics we're used to. It's the same reason why "shrinking man" stories won't work, a human whose entire body, including atoms, is reduced to the size of an ant would not be able to breathe normal-sized air molecules, the gas could not exchange in the lungs. A miniature-sized human would need to breathe miniaturized air. "Ok. Well dude, could you imagine what the fourth dimension would be like?" It's time. Length, width, height, time. Four dimensions. You'll get people arguing some strange stuff off of string theory with 11-dimensions but I don't think anybody really understands what's going on there. Quantum mechanics makes grown men cry.

    There's so much stuff out there that we don't know, that's completely mindblowing to contemplate, and most people are content getting slackjawed and starry-eyed over shit we already know the answer to. Go figure.
  • Time to reverse it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HermMunster ( 972336 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @07:32PM (#20620021)
    Someone set up a listing of those that are issuing the DMCA notices. Then begin to issue DMCA notices to them. Also it would be good to issue counter complaints against those issuing the notices. That's your right. It works too.
  • by interiot ( 50685 ) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @08:06PM (#20620327) Homepage
    C'mon, this is really straightfoward stuff...
    1. If they're filing false take-down notices, then CSEministry committed perjury, which means they can be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years.
    2. Begging YouTube to put the videos up won't do much, because it does nothing to change their liability under the law. Filing a counter-notification will get YouTube to put the videos back up [reddit.com], since that gets YouTube off the hook, and you don't have to go to court to do that.
    3. It's not YouTube's job to decide whether a video is covered by fair use or not. It's 1) the uploader's job to figure out whether they want to assert under the penalty of perjury that it falls under fair use, (eg. they should consult a lawyer first) and 2) if CSEministry continues to assert that it's not fair use, then CSEministry will need to take the uploader to court, and then a judge will decide if it's fair use or not
  • We're pretty pissed (Score:4, Informative)

    by renegadesx ( 977007 ) on Sunday September 16, 2007 @12:08AM (#20622001)
    These flagging have been carried out by Dr Dino's son Eric Hovind. The RSS got involved after RabidApe got suspended and Sapient was basically sticking up for RabidApe. Eddygoombah and co have also been on the receiving ends of takedowns but as far as I know, the RSS and RabidApe are the only ones that have actually been suspended as a result of Hovind's illegal activities.

    I have yet to have any of my videos flagged, but I know many people that have. We are really pissed to say the least

    Oh and Eric Hovind sent an email to Sapient asking him to "call" Hovind. Sapeient replied that under the circumstances it would be best to talk via email and say any reply will be publicly shown and can be used in a court of law and any reply would be a verification of that. Hovind has yet to reply.

    All video's that have been taken down were in full compliance with "fair use". To make matters worse for Hovind, all material used was public domain anyways, the copyright archives (http://www.copyright.org/records) contain no filings reflecting any change from public domain to copyrighted material.

    Check out http://www.rationalrespnders.com/ [rationalrespnders.com] to keep updated on the situation.

Air is water with holes in it.