Several years ago, friend-of-the-site RationalWiki posted a stunningly thorough side-by-side refutation of a Conservapedia article on creationism. Conservapedia, naturally, could offer no argument in defense, but happily threatened the site with a copyright suit, because if you can’t beat ‘em, sue ‘em, “fair use” notwithstanding.
Now, history is set to repeat itself. Another RationalWiki user has posted a thorough, well-sourced, compelling refutation of William Dembski’s latest attempt to ground creationism in science, and rather than engage in a debate on the merits, Dembski himself is now threatening to sue.
By means of background, Dembski is not a lawyer. But it’s common knowledge that U.S. copyright law explicitly preserves the right to excerpt a work, even substantially, for comment and criticism. See 17 U.S.C. ยง 107. Dembski’s complaint against RationalWiki is so wrong that no lawyer would take it; and if they did, they’d be laughed out of court. But it’s still further proof that (1) creationists can only protect their views by censorship and, (2) they’re willing to ignore established law when convenient, be it the Establishment Clause or federal copyright statutes.
Disappointing to be sure, but not surprising. Though the Bible may not be much for science, it does have some good insights on human nature. And as the author of Ecclesiastes would’ve put it, “there is nothing new under the sun” (1:9-14).
Clearly, his knowledge of the law rivals his knowledge of biology.
Posted by James F | November 16, 2009, 6:17 pmSICK BURN! Ba-doosh!* Love it.
* = Dwight’s “explosion” sound.
Posted by ACG | November 16, 2009, 6:19 pmThe word on the street is Dembski no long holds the copyright for the paper. When it was published, he signed it over to the journal IEEE – pretty standard.
Posted by Thomas | November 17, 2009, 1:28 pmYou’re right, that’s a very good point. Awk for him.
Posted by ACG | November 18, 2009, 6:26 pm