Intelligent Design, Round Two

<a href=“”>The newest weapon…Copyright law?</a>

There’s also a particularly funny <a href=“”>post</a> culled from an article on <a href=“”>blogspot.</a> Later on on this last, the term IDiot is used to describe Intelligent Design advocates. I literally loled at that; anyone else heard that one before?


Wow imagine that it has to do with my state {rolls eyes}

Amazing, a good use of the Copyright.

Masterfully done.

Of course, the funny thing is, the broken knee in the blogspot article actually <i>is</i> irreducibly complex; it isn’t explainable by internal (read “natural”) forces alone, and thus must be explained by reference to a “designer,” who went and <I>GAH MY LEG-BENDERS!</I>

I’m stupid. Explain it to me in simple English.

The books that define the scientific method and things related to it have been copyrighted by (the real) scientists.

Now, if any creationist tries to reason that creationism is scientific, they’ll have to have to explain how it follows the scientific method. If they try to reason how evolution is not scientific, they will have to explain how evolution does not follow the scientific method. And that involves quoting large parts of the copyrighted material.

Even if creationists are willing to pay scientists for the right to reproduce that material, our heroes won’t allow it.

Isn’t that beautiful? large smile, eyes shining

This is beautiful. When I originally read an article on it, the guy said something like “you can’t copyright concepts” and was acting like he was going to try to get around it. This is going to get interesting.

From what I’ve heard, you are copyrighting concepts, actually. Or specific uses of concepts at any rate. Such as what Sony is doing/did with that brain thing a little while back. A lawyer could probably explain it better. Or better yet Wikipedia to the rescue!