Ideas aren't made for stealing

Given that their prophet lifted whole parts of “his” work from the less attention-seeking Wallace it's no surprise that Darwin's acoloytes think it's okay to steal people's ideas. Dr William Dembski, Professor of Mathematical Complexity at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the leading visionaries in information theory and its applications to ID, draws attention to the latest terrible example of this intellectual piracy.

RationalWiki is reprinting large portions of an article I did with Robert Marks that far exceeds anything permissible under “fair use” copyright protections. I was getting ready to contact my attorney about having them remove our article from their website (go here — I’ve saved this page in case it changes as a consequence of this post), but couldn’t find any contact information on the site.

Question: Who is running this site and how to contact them?

That the thief tries to hide their identity behind the anonymousness afforded by the internet is simply sickening and a clear indication of what my father would have called “girly yellow cowardliness” but that was back in the day when people still had a moral backbone and went to church on Sundays. And do the darwinbots feel any shame when this pilfering of Professor Dembski's words has been exposed? Of course not; some number-juggler at "scienceblogs" even claims that it is Professor Dembski who is being unreasonable in simply trying to control who can read the fruits of his research. Of course it's easy for them to talk a good fight, but I doubt they'll be sounding so confident when the case goes to law, because one thing the Intelligent Design movement is renowned for is its record of performance in the courtroom.

Find out why there is an Intelligent Design controversy.

Neurolaw's chilling developments

The materialists' ideological attachment to the idea that your innermost thoughts and feelings are nothing more than the result of chemicals sloshing about in the sack of your brain is now taking an eerie turn into the courtroom with the new field of "neurolaw". This is the notion that their fantastical neurobabble should be used as evidence in court or for deciding sentencing; they're selling the idea of the Ultimate Lie Detector but really the whole thing's as convincing as a Fairy Powered Dream Machine. Given everything else that's happening in society with special "human rights" commissions being set up to stop pastors from preaching against the sodomite machine and the push to redefine Intelligent Design as a "hate crime" you have to wonder how long until the Darwin Police are scanning people's brains to find out whether you're sympathetic to Intelligent Design and whammo if you're not marching with the atheist herd then it's off to the gulag or badthink reeducation camp for you. As someone who helped write the Constitution I don't understand how the country that built the canadarm has come to the point where this is something which looks like it could really happen.