But we must also allow equal rights for intellectual and academic freedom.
Unfortunately, some religious fundamentalist (NOT ALL, I must emphasize) but some, that is, the so-called "Creationist Scientists" are openly opposed to intellectual and academic freedom, and so, wish to impose their rules as to what must be taught, or added to the science curriculum in our elementary and high schools.
Now, I don't have any problem with religious fundamentalist who take the Genesis account of creation literally. If someone were to say to me, something like "I'm sorry, but I don't believe in evolution, I believe that God literally created the world in 6 days and that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that is what I believe. If you believe in Evolution, that's OK, I don't condemn you for it, but I feel I must stand on the word of God." well, I have no problem with that. You're free to believe whatever you wish, and that is the way it should be.
But I do have a problem, with those who wish to impose their doctrine on everybody else, and to insert what they call "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" or "ID" into the science curriculum in our schools. They claim to have "scientific evidence" for creationism, but their so-called "evidence" fails to stand up under scientific scrutiny. In fact, many of them have even resorted to outright fraud, and some have even been brought into a court of law under charges of fraud, and found guilty.
Also, it's not enough that they resort to such fraudulent tactics to impose their doctrine on us, but some have even resorted to fear tactics, by saying that "Evolution is equal to Atheism" (which of course it is not) and that anyone who believes in Evolution is going straight to Hell.
This is what I have a problem with. Believe whatever you want, just don't impose you beliefs on me. I'll patiently listen to your beliefs, but I'll also point out the errors, with examples of how people once believed that the Earth was flat, or the center of the universe with the sun and planets revolving around the Earth, and how we had discovered the truth, that the Earth is in fact, just another planet among several other revolving around the sun. I also will point out many other religious doctrines that are in error when examined in the light of science.
Anyway . . . . .
Hers are some more You Tube Videos.
The Texas Board of Indoctrination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93mWjngq4oA&NR=1
Transcript from video.
As a Texas resident, this is the sort of email I get. Apparently, our teachers are supposed to tell students that whenever we havenâ??t figured something out yet, we should stop our research and assume Goddidit. And if we donâ??t yet know how exactly how the first living cells formed, that somehow negates everything we do know to be true about evolution after that. But worse, they want to mislead our kids into thinking every kind of life appeared all at once, ignoring all the evident stages of progression still absent by then, as well as all the evident predecessors weâ??ve found in earlier strata. And they want to teach as fact outright falsehoods easily disproved, as well as pseudoscience already publicly exposed in a court of law. What sort of sinister saboteurs are on these school boards?
Far from being â??under the tableâ?, method-o-logical naturalism is openly and repeatedly explained in many statesâ?? educational knowledge and skills requirements for every grade from kindergarten on up, and it is further detailed in every college-level course serving as a core requirement for a science degree. Because this rule has another name too; Itâ??s also known as â??the scientific methodâ??. And minutes before Mr. Calvert made this ridiculous comment, I had already explained this to him myself.â??Well, I got involved in this while I was specializing in stock fraud;
Enron, WorldCom, those kinds of frauds.
And what causes those kinds of frauds; investors make reasoned decisions,
but the problem is theyâ??re not given adequate information,
and so their decisions turn out to be horrible.
And I found a book in 1986 by a chemist, and he says,
"yes, the evidence implies design, but I can't go there;
I simply am not allowed to postulate design because I happen to be a scientist".
And that really bothered me particularly because two years later,
I learned that this rule had a name, "mythological naturalism",
and that it was essentially an unwritten rule; it was one that was 'under the table'."
â??In religion, you can just say,
â??OK, this is what I want to believe, and as a matter of faith, I will believe it.â??
Faith is a belief that is without reason; Itâ??s independent of evidence,
itâ??s not dependent on evidence, and science is. Science has to be verifiable.
In a scientific discussion, you have to be able to show
there is a way to determine what is or is not correct.â?
â??The institutions that are charged with bringing to us the information
that we need to make that decision are suppressing not only evidence of design,
but in order to make that suppression effective,
they also have to suppress criticism of evolutionary theory.â?
â??Back off, man; Iâ??m a scientist.â?
Although Mr. Calvert claimed to be a geologist and a converted atheist, he is in fact just another lawyer trying to make an appealing case for creationism by pretending to be something he is obviously not, and by presenting science, evolution, religion, and the rejection of religion all as things they are also obviously not, and with much the same negative effect."The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in politics or religion,
but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science.â?
Unfortunately, thatâ??s the one thing heâ??s right about. For example, my sonâ??s high school biology teacher recently told the class that evolution was â??justâ? a theory, and that a scientific theory was nothing more than a guess that has never been proved. He also said that speciation had never been observed, and that no transitional species had ever been found, and that there was no beneficial mutations either â??despite the list of them provided in the classroomâ??s textbook. The previous science teacher wasnâ??t any better; that guy actually taught that cockroaches were classified as vertebrates! Almost no one in this state understands either evolution or taxonomy. And this is just one example of our failed school system."Evolutionary theory is not taught comprehensively in public schools;
itâ??s taught very ambiguously.â?
Here in Texas, many members of our board of education are actually under-educated religious zealots who were positioned specifically to fulfill their agenda to distort instruction on science, history, ecology, and health, and to promote their own political perspective instead. Itâ??s a gross grass roots system of indoctrination intended to condition students against the lessons they would otherwise accept if they make it to college.
Thatâ??s why Texas schools teach â??abstinence onlyâ? instead of sex education. So itâ??s no surprise that we also have one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy. Even when the state says to teach evolution, creationist teachers donâ??t understand it and wonâ??t teach it properly. So what sort of intellect can we really expect Texasâ?? high schools to produce?
â??Iâ??mâ??a prove the evolutionâ??s a buncha bull-crap.â?
â??How you going to do that?â?
â??Iâ??mâ??a fill this up wâ?? water and put a fish in it.
But his foodâ??s gonna be up on this rock.
When the fish gits hungry, heâ??s gonna have to grow legs and walk up here to eat.
If he duâ??nt, that proves thereâ??s no evolution.â?
â?¦â??Tampon, condom, pacifier, fish!â?
â??Kinda small, dontcha think?â?
â??Maybe fer eatinâ??, but not fer science.â?
â??The next day, Joy saw somethinâ?? that undid years oâ?? Sunday school.â?
â??Sweet Jesus! The fish grew feet!â?
â??What does that mean, Mommy?â?
â??I think it means we donâ??t gotta go to church no more.â?
â??the problem is theyâ??re not given adequate information,
and so their decisions turn out to be horrible.â?
â??So youâ??re saying that that the scientific community basically is suppressing evidence
that would not agree with what theyâ??re talking about?â?
â??No, Iâ??m Iâ??m saying institutions of science at the high level use mythological naturalismâ?¦.â?
â??Who?â?
â??Top menâ?.
â??And recently in Kansas, just in February, those institutions lobbied
for the school board to actually insert scientific materialism,
-mythological naturalism- into the science standards,
and then removed from the science standards an extraordinary amount
of very relevant information about evolution.
And it didnâ??t have anything to do with Intelligent Design,
but information thatâ??s relevant to our understanding about evolution was removed
because we have this irrefutable commitment that we can only explain by virtue of material causes.â?
â?¦as opposed to immaterial causes, i.e. magic. Thatâ??s what heâ??s pleading for! But whenever there is a real phenomenon which hasnâ??t yet been adequately understood, that doesnâ??t mean that it never can be, nor that we should just give up and blame mystical forces whenever we donâ??t know what the real answer is.â??OKâ?
Otherwise, everything Calvert just said is a lie. There was no â??high levelâ? scientific conspiracy, and institutions of science neither removed any information from the science standards nor â??insertedâ? any either. Rather creationists on the Kansasâ?? Board of Education tried to remove methodological naturalism â??which had always been the primary principle upon which all science is based. Thatâ??s what empirical means! Every scientist must rely on methodological naturalism or it wouldnâ??t be science. Creationists even acknowledged this fact in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial when Intelligent Design proponents confessed their accidentally-leaked intention to redefine science such that unsupported conjecture could be asserted as factual irrespective of evidence, analysis, or experimentation. Eliminating every element of practical methodology would not only disable and destroy everything science is or does, but Michael Behe testified that his expanded definition would even permit astrology to be taught as science.
â??Pisces, itâ??s a good time to pull the plug on that machine thatâ??s
been keeping your daughter alive for the past six months.
If youâ??re a Taurus, see your florist.
And if youâ??re a Gemini like me, well you can expect the unexpected.
Iâ??m Joyce Wilson, your astrologgg-----â? (she gets shot with an arrow!)
Not only did the Dover trial prove creationistsâ?? continuing agenda to neuter science from within and drag it back to a medieval level, but it also revealed that there was never any evidence of intelligent design. Nor could there be because the supernatural is -by definition- immaterial, not part of our reality. Consequently thereâ??s no way to determine whatâ??s wrong with our assumptions about it or even whether any of them were ever right on any point. Every religion might be right about different things, or all of that might have been imagined out of nothing since it can neither be evidenced nor indicated by anything in any way. It canâ??t pass any test, yet it canâ??t be falsified either. Thatâ??s why matters of faith can never be matters of science.â??All those scientists; theyâ??re all alike.
They say theyâ??re working for us,
bâ??what they really want is to rule the world!â?
What Calvert declared to be â??very relevant information about evolutionâ? was actually a list of erroneous allegations originally contrived by Jonathan Wells, and already addressed and refuted with the other â??foundational falsehoods of creationismâ?. Every year of the last decade or so, the school boards of every state have been accosted or dominated by ignorant radical evangelicals trying to undermine our childrenâ??s education. The latest wave in the creationistâ??s strategy to promote theocracy through scientific illiteracy is the plea that we â??teach the controversyâ?, and per their request, thatâ??s what Iâ??m doing right now.
Those who demand that we teach both the â??strengths and weaknessesâ? of evolution wonâ??t admit what any of its strengths even are, (if they ever knew) but they do know that each of the alleged weaknesses theyâ??re pleading for are either irrelevant ravings or misinformation, misunderstood and misrepresented. But they donâ??t care, and theyâ??ll never correct it, because they want to deceive our kids into believing thereâ??s some scientific dispute of evolution when they know no such dissention exists. They donâ??t want to teach more about any science. They want to distort it all into an absurd parody that no one could seriously consider. They certainly donâ??t want you to understand creationism either, albeit for all the opposite reasons. Then they expect you obediently swallow it whole without any questions.
When weâ??re talking about public education, then weâ??re talking about teaching other peopleâ??s kids and trusting someone else to teach our kids. So in the interest of academic honesty and even simple human morality, those lessons shouldnâ??t be distorted by religious opinion; because what should matter most is not whatever we personally might rather believe but only what we can verify really is true. And we know evolution is real. Weâ??ve proven that it happens, and we know how it works, and thereâ??s value in understanding that. So teach what the theories actually are and what their evidence is, and keep the lessons true. Leave debates of details to the experts in the field, not mere pupils who canâ??t know enough yet to judge either side of anything. Letâ??s definitely not let impressionable children be mislead by ignorant deceivers who can neither qualify in science, nor compete against it, and who seek to subvert it instead.â??And finally, new rule:
You donâ??t have to teach both sides of a debate
if one side is a load of crap.â?
==============================
Oh! It gets even better!!!
Some religious fundamentalists have even resorted to filing false claims by using the DCMA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in order to have some You Tube Videos made by Evolutionists censored and the users banned from You Tube entirely.
What is the DMCA?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J86Wl1mc67M
But the DCMA does allow for "fair use" of some copyrighted materials.
Fair Use & Copyrights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GidwzOYiPl0
A look at some rules allowing you to use some videos, images and music under the rules of fair use and copyright law.
Copyright and Fair Use
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnXIQzMgXSw
This is a very brief discussion of what is Fair Use of copyrighted material by someone who is not an attorney and who has had over forty years experience as a songwriter and publisher.
A Fair(y) Use Tale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4F ... re=related
Disney Parody explanation of Copyright Law and Fair Use
Again, the DCMA allows for "fair use" of copyrighted materials. For example . . . . .Synopsis:
Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University provides this humorous, yet informative, review of
copyright principles delivered through the words of the very folks we can thank for nearly endless copyright terms.
If, I'm making a video about Evolution, and on my video, I wish to dispute some claim made by a creationist on one of his videos, then "fair use" allows me to include a segment from the creationist's video so that I may quote him, and dispute the claim he is making. I may use that segment, even though it is copyrighted, as long as I don't take credit for creating that segment, and as long as I state the source from which that video segment came.
One may use a segment from another person's video for the purpose of either supporting or disputing another person's claim, or even for parody. That is fair use, as long as I don't use it for commercial purposes. Conversely, he may also use segments from my video to quote me, and to dispute any statements that I have made on my video, or for parody. Fair use works both ways.
Also, I have seen on some of the videos made by creationists where the one making the video has even said something like . . . "this material on my video is not copyrighted, so feel free to use it if you wish to dispute anything I have said." or words to that effect. So, there are many of these videos made by creationists where they have said to feel free to use their material, in which case, they can not claim copyright violations.
Any yet, this is what they have done! They have filed false DMCA claims against some of the evolutionists in order to have their videos censored from You Tube, and to have the users banned from You Tube.
Here are some You Tube Videos showing examples of false DMCA claims made by creationists.
Creationist DMCA abuse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eBY5ar5Klc&NR=1
Here are some more examples . . . . .This video is a result of a collaboration between the following YouTube users;
AndromedasWake, AronRa, cdk007, djarm67, DonExodus2, dprjones, ExtantDodo, potholer54, ThetaOmega and Thunderf00t
We all share an interest in science and we have respect for the advancements and benefits that science has brought us. The internet is one example of this.
We believe that the internet offers extraordinary and valuable opportunities for education, and through sites such as YouTube, a forum for open discussion and exchange of views. In order for people to fully benefit from the internet, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and a lack of censorship are essential.
We are concerned that there are some people who are attempting to prohibit free speech on the internet. They are doing so by the unwarranted service of notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ("DMCA").
We recognize that Copyright is an important legal right. The DMCA provides a method for copyright owners to protect their work against plagiarism and exploitation.
However, we are also aware that some people are misusing the DMCA. They are issuing notices that are not a legitimate attempt to protect their copyright, but are a cynical way of attempting to prevent adverse comment on, and criticism of, their views. They are using it maliciously, wrongly and probably illegally. We consider such actions to be abhorrent. It is a sick and cowardly way of attempting to restrict free speech and limit the potential of the internet for education.
Some of us have been subjected to such notices.
We are sure that our own experiences are not the only occasions when the DMCA has been misused.
We would like to know how often it is happening? Who else has been served with DMCA notices? Who served these notices? What happened as a result?
We would like to hear from you by contacting us at the channel DMCAabuse (not this one) if you have been served with a DMCA notice that you consider was issued in order to prohibit free expression rather than to protect copyright. (Any information you send us will be treated with confidentiality and will not be disclosed without your prior permission.)
We believe that opportunity for education, freedom of expression and freedom of speech are causes worth protecting. We want to do what we can to protect them.
Please help us do that.
Thank you.
http://www.youtube.com/DMCAabuse
Why the DMCA is Bad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue_84-p4 ... re=related
False filing of DMCAsIt's terrible that creationists are abusing the DMCA to stifle free speech. What people need to understand is that this very abuse is the entire purpose of the DMCA from start to finish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ztXK1C9DzM
Killing Free Speech: Fair Use Video Removed by YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p60ullKChWk&feature=fvw
There was no justification for removing the video. I used 18 seconds of audio, with one still frame in order to comment on an extremely serious matter where the President of the United States makes another false statement.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use,"one of these examples is quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment
And finally . . . . .
ATTACK OF THE VOTE-BOTS!!!
A Vote-Bot is some kind of program that is set up to automatically vote on how good or bad you think a particular video is.
Below each video frame is 5 stars to click on to cast your vote.
1 Star = Poor
2 Stars = Nothing special
3 Stars = Worth watching
4 Stars = Pretty cool
5 Stars = Awesome!
Now, what many creationists have done was to have installed some kind of software on their computers, which automatically logs on with one account, casts a vote, then logs on with another account to cast another vote, and by using multiple accounts and automatically casting multiple 1 Star votes, they can bring down the rating of a particular video, and then, they can make multiple reports with false claims of Terms Of Services, TOS violations to have the video removed from You Tube, and to have the user banned.
I don't know exactly how a Vote-Bot works, I'm merely speculating, but it is used to cast multiple 1 Star votes on a video to bring it's ratings down, and then, by using multiple accounts to report false TOS violations, they can have a video that they find objectionable to be removed, and the user banned from You Tube.
This is a very effective form of censorship.
Here are some You Tube Videos made by people who have been attacked by Vote-Bots.
Attack of the Vote Bots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SorfgV9Quo
Youtube vs The Users (Originally posted by Thunderf00t)Been attacked by a vote bot though I am not surprised in the least bit so not angry. It was bound to happen as when you expose abusers as they will turn their abuse towards you. I stand up to bullies
This wont shut me up and I will not shut down my channel as a result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRpzqLElu04
Oh yes indeed!JRChadwick
February 21, 2009
This video was removed from Thunderf00t's channel by YouTube, so I am reposing it.
It just keeps on getting better! Doesn't it?
Now, as I have said before, I support religious freedom, and the right for people to believe as they wish. But most of all, I support intellectual and academic freedom, and the right to disagree with the creationists.
But unfortunately, many religious fundamentalists (again I must emphasize, NOT ALL!) but many of them do not support intellectual or academic freedom.
In order to have freedom OF religion, it must also include freedom FROM religion!
Now, I'm an evolutionist myself, but I do believe in a God, and I do believe in the 10 Commandments, which includes the one that says "Thou shalt not lie" but this is exactly what the rabid creationists are doing.
They are lying through the cracks of their teeth. They lie like a wet rug!
Some of these creationists have even been brought up on fraud charges in a court of law.
But I also believe that there is an even higher court, and someday, these people who have perpetrated one hoax after another to support their claims when their is no scientific evidence for their claims, and have committed fraud, and have ripped people off for money in the name of God, someday, they will have to stand before God and give a full account of their lives and their actions.
When the time comes, when they have to face God, it will really suck to be them.
I'm fat and sassy! I love to sing & dance & stomp my feet & really rock your world!
