You can only push old media so far before they snap: apparently the Associated Press will soon define when quoting becomes copyright infringement, in an attempt to stop bloggers from quoting news stories at length when discussing them. The message to bloggers is, apparently, “stop quoting,” and this really has me mad.
Mainly because the Associated Press can’t do that. The United States’ copyright laws allow quoting and copying within reasonable limits for commenting and criticism. Under the copyright law, if you quote more than what you need to make your point, you’re infringing someone’s copyright. But if you’re copying more than you need, you’re probably also a bad writer. And even if you are a bad writer, and infringing their copyrights, the AP can’t and won’t try to stop you: the de minimis infringement of one blogger is completely unworthy of the attention a lawsuit requires.
Essentially, this is a solution in search of a problem. No-one will copy so much as to be an “unfair use,” and if they do, they won’t be prosecuted, because it’s not worth it. But it’s also saber-rattling, an attempt to scare the internet into silence with an empty threat. And that’s not cool.
Below the line, an entire AP article reproduced. Just because. Continue reading
Up for the signature of governor Bobby Jindal is the bill listed below, the “Louisiana Science Education Act,” which encourages teachers to tell their students to “think critically” about an enumerated number of theories, chief among them evolution. Don’t be fooled by the title and the apparently innocuous intent. S.B. 733 may be about science, but PZ Myers is right to be worried: this latest “teach the controversy” bill is meant to open up a backdoor for teachers to undercut scientific theories they don’t like in the classroom.
At first blush, it doesn’t sound so bad. After all, who’s against critically examining scientific theories in the classroom? Let the kids play around in the marketplace of ideas, for Christ’s sake!
The problem, of course, is that this bill is for Christ’s sake. While critical examination of science is fine, and laudable, the problem (let Ken Miller explain it if you don’t believe me) is that the bill points out which theories are to be critically examined, thus sending a tacit message that there’s some reason why these theories are… suspicious. But most importantly, the bill gives public school teachers a rationale to hang their hat on when they want to introduce pseudoscience. Seemingly innocuous on the macro-level, the devil is (as always) in the details. The bill’s operative sections are a one-two step to letting intelligent design or straight-out six-day creationism back into the classroom. Here’s how it works:
Step One: under sections (b)(1)-(2), a teacher can “teach the controversy” about evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and cloning. But how to teach those difficult subjects without guidance?
Step Two: glad you asked. Since section (c) asks teachers to use supplemental texts while teaching the “critique” of the enumerated theories, teachers are invited to imagine what books would be useful in criticizing evolution. What books are out there that criticize evolution, at a level that students would understand? Easy. Think Of Pandas in People. Think Answers In Genesis materials. And you can’t object; after all, it’s in the name of critique. Right?
It’s also a coded message to creationists. Section (d) states that the bill can’t be used to discriminate for or against any religion or “nonreligion.” While seemingly curative, this clause is the real kicker. Recall that creationists think that teaching evolution is discriminating against fundamentalist Christianity. If science can’t “discriminate against religion,” in the mind of the ever-persecuted fundamentalist, section (d) invites God back into science by phrasing science as an attack on God. No good. It’s bad metaphysics, and it’s bad science.
What will Bobby Jindal do about this bill? Will he see the dangers, and stop it? Will he be fooled by the creationist double-speak? No: you see, he’s one of those creationists himself. This is a man who John McCain wants to put within one breath of the presidency. Doesn’t that tell you something about John McCain?
Here we have politicized science at its finest – a fancy, uncontroversial title, and an inoffensive public purpose, and a hidden agenda. Tricksy creationists.
The important parts of the statute follow below the line. Continue reading
Saves us the trouble. Right thoughtful of the creationists, isn’t it?
This latest incident revolves around the publication of a paper that proves – again – that new traits can evolve in an organism, given enough generations. In the experiment, a colony of e. coli, over the course of many generations and twenty years of observation, evolved the ability to metabolize citrates, a trait not present in native e. coli.
Boring? Maybe. But since creationists like to yell about how evolution “cannot generate any new information,” the study is a heckuva talking point.
Of course, the Answers in Genesis spin team was out immediately: they explain here how, while it may be true that a bacterium can evolve a new trait, that doesn’t prove anything about “molecules to man” evolution! Apparently the folks at AiG don’t think you know the difference between billions of years in the wild on Earth, and twenty years in a lab. Sheesh.
Assuming I’m a creationist, and assuming that I’m smart enough to see through that feeble attempt at a rebuttal, the e. coli study is a doozy of a piece of evidence. Why, if I were a “creation scientist,” my “faith” – and I use the term loosely – would be shaken! What does AiG have to say to a concerned creationist like me?
It’s important for us all to remember that when we read science news that seems to “confirm” evolution, it’s never a true threat to the biblical worldview and the creation account because God’s Word never changes but man’s fallible ideas do.
Huh. Remember how science has to be something you can disprove? How it has to be falsifiable? Please add this to the list of “things creationists don’t understand about science.”
