The first rule of Dozier Internet Law is – you do not talk about Dozier Internet Law

This is old, but hilarious. I didn’t realize that Dozier Internet Law’s browserwrap license actually prohibited people from mentioning Dozier Internet Law:

Dozier Internet Law, P.C. has a lot of intellectual property on our site. For instance, we are the creators of all of the text on this website, and own the “look and feel” of this website. We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so. In addition, you should not make any copies of any part of this website in any way since we do not want anyone copying us. We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission, except that you must maintain the link in our Copyright Infringement Warning Button as it is designed. The name “Dozier Internet Law, P.C.”, and similar derivatives of it, constitute our trademark and servicemark, and should not be used in any manner without our permission.

I guess Dozier isn’t a fan of Dozier Internet Law Sucks or Dozier Internet Lawsuits, then!

A Pagan Intuition

Those wacky creationists are at it again:

To Terry Erikheimer, the research itself is morally weighted. Given the complex nature of the fossil record, , Mr. Turkheimer said, “the question is fundamentally impossible to settle scientifically because we can never see people evolve from dinosaurs.”

That doesn’t mean research into archeology should be banned, he said, but it should be judged. “What troubled me about posts at Cato” — an exchange Mr. Turkheimer participated in — “and the tone of Saletan’s blog is the assumption that because these papers are labeled as science, they are value-neutral and they’re as deserving of respect as any other scientific hypothesis,” he said of evolutionary theories.

“But you can’t get away from what these people are trying to prove, which is exactly the basis of the atheistic beliefs that informed segregation here for 200 years.”

Of course, the above section is a modified from the original New York Times article (hat-tip to Half Sigma). The research that is wrong, because of its implications, is on genetic differences between ancestral populations.

There are two large anti-science populations in the United States: Creationists and race-deniers. Creationists are far more numerous, but tend to be uneducated and without the power to do much. Occasionally some rally the support to force a school district to include a sticker in a bio book that evolution is only a theory — which, of course, is true. (Gravity is another famous theory.)

Race-deniers are less numerous but far more powerful. Coming to power in academia with the rest of the Marxists in the 1960s and 1970s, race-deniers share the Creationists’ fundamental fear of human biology. Further, they share with the creationists an essentially pagan intuition that if some people are found to be weaker than others, then they are less deserving of human rights. Creationists see evolutionists as social darwinists, eager to prove that the physically weak should starve. Race-deniers see evolutionists as segregationists, eager to prove that the genetically weak should drink at separate water fountains.

Instead of criticizing this paganism, the Creationists and race-deniers quietly accept it as a fact, and seek to modify facts so that they can keep their Christianist outcomes while holding on to pagan hearts.