Darwin censored by the Turkish government's internet filter

[Caladan]

Worrying news from Turkey, where a government body has moved to block sites that mention evolution or Charles Darwin.
The Council of Information Technology and Communications (BTK) released the "Secure Internet" filtering system on 22 November. Sites that includes the words "evolution" or "Darwin" are filtered if parents select the child-friendly settings on the filter, as though it's porn. Among the sites banned, according to Reporters Without Borders, is Richard Dawkins' website richarddawkins.net. The homepage of Adnan Oktar, an Islamic creationist, is still accessible. The system has already attracted controversy: apparently it bans terms linked with the Kurdish separatist movement, and Reporters Without Borders has accused the Turkish government of "backdoor censorship".

Source and full article: Darwin censored by the Turkish government's porn filter – Telegraph Blogs

 

[Gharib]

great news well done to them, thanks for sharing Caladan.

 

[Noaidi]

great news well done to them, thanks for sharing Caladan.

Yes, it's fantastic news. The last thing we want is for Turkish kids to think for themselves and find out about an important scientific process.
Well done Turkey!

 

[YmirGF]

Source and full article: Darwin censored by the Turkish government's porn filter – Telegraph Blogs

Yet another brilliant move by the Turks. Go Turkey! :sarcastic

I'm a bit surprised they have not asked for an apology from "the West" for infecting the minds of their population for the last 100+ years.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

great news well done to them, thanks for sharing Caladan.

Yes it's great when the government mandates ignorance.

 

[Caladan]

Yet another brilliant move by the Turks. Go Turkey! :sarcastic

I'm a bit surprised they have not asked for an apology from "the West" for infecting the minds of their population for the last 100+ years.

So much for the secular Islamic nation mantra.

 

[YmirGF]

So much for the secular Islamic nation mantra.

That always struck me as being a bit of an oxymoron. Secular and Islamic just don't play well together.

 

[Gharib]

name me one country other than maybe someone islamic that teaches creationism rather than this notion of living things becoming something different altogether? as far as i know the answer is 0, so look who's talking about exploring both sides or at least giving students a chance to choose. who gets to say that Darwins theories are actually facts? atheists? and i'm talking about the same darwin that claimed that those of white skin are superior/the masters of black people and them having not fully evolved. in the modern world we call that racism, three cheers for darwin supporters.

 

[Shermana]

name me one country other than maybe someone islamic that teaches creationism rather than this notion of living things becoming something different altogether? as far as i know the answer is 0, so look who's talking about exploring both sides or at least giving students a chance to choose. who gets to say that Darwins theories are actually facts? atheists? and i'm talking about the same darwin that claimed that those of white skin are superior/the masters of black people and them having not fully evolved. in the modern world we call that racism, three cheers for darwin supporters.

I always wonder how Darwin supporters reconcile the Black and Indian thing. Usually the excuses are "that was the mentality of the time" or something like that. So why not his other theories? And yes, it does in fact tend to be Atheists who say that Darwin's theories are "facts", as if the "evidence" is substantial and indisputable.

 

[Gharib]

I always wonder how Darwin supporters reconcile the Black and Indian thing. Usually the excuses are "that was the mentality of the time" or something like that. So why not his other theories? And yes, it does in fact tend to be Atheists who say that Darwin's theories are "facts", as if the "evidence" is substantial and indisputable.

you are spot on they actually do say that it was the mentality of the time to consider white man superior to black man, i guess it was during those same times when black men were so un-evolved that they had to keep them in zoos so the white superior folks could look at them from close up.

and the amount of indisputable "evidence" is amazing, don't know where you live but just the other day i saw a fly evolve into a dead fly. LOL

 

[jarofthoughts]

name me one country other than maybe someone islamic that teaches creationism rather than this notion of living things becoming something different altogether? as far as i know the answer is 0, so look who's talking about exploring both sides or at least giving students a chance to choose.

There is no 'both sides'.
Creationism is just plain wrong, not to mention that it is not science.
The Theory of Evolution on the other hand has mountains of evidence behind it and is one of the best founded scientific Theories we have.
It is, in fact, the only game in town.

who gets to say that Darwins theories are actually facts? atheists?

Mostly scientists.
You know, those people who do this stuff for a living.
But the evidence is available to anyone who cares to look.

and i'm talking about the same darwin that claimed that those of white skin are superior/the masters of black people and them having not fully evolved. in the modern world we call that racism, three cheers for darwin supporters.

I think you have a somewhat skewed view of what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
While the core concept is still the same the Theory has gone through multiple revisions and additions, just like every other scientific Theory out there.
Science does not have infallible prophets and all its Theories are constantly up for review.

 

[Noaidi]

name me one country other than maybe someone islamic that teaches creationism rather than this notion of living things becoming something different altogether?

Which creation story are you referring to? All of them? Sorry, but science teachers simply don't have the time to teach the creation stories of the Judeo-Christians, the ancient Norse, Australian Aboriginals, the Yanomamo, the .....

With ToE, the evidence is there for all to view - and that's how science should be taught, with no recourse to myths.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I always wonder how Darwin supporters reconcile the Black and Indian thing. Usually the excuses are "that was the mentality of the time" or something like that.

It was.

So why not his other theories?

Oh, lots of things have been modified and added upon since Darwin's time.
Most notably he got the medium of heredity completely wrong seeing as no-one knew about DNA back in the day.
But the things that have stuck around have done so because they have been confirmed by tons of evidence.

And yes, it does in fact tend to be Atheists who say that Darwin's theories are "facts", as if the "evidence" is substantial and indisputable.

Evolution, by its textbook definition IS an indisputable fact.
So Evolution is BOTH a fact and a Theory.

Oh, and just for the record, there are plenty of religious scientists who are Evolutionary Biologists.

 

[jarofthoughts]

you are spot on they actually do say that it was the mentality of the time to consider white man superior to black man, i guess it was during those same times when black men were so un-evolved that they had to keep them in zoos so the white superior folks could look at them from close up.

and the amount of indisputable "evidence" is amazing, don't know where you live but just the other day i saw a fly evolve into a dead fly. LOL

I don't think this dignifies an actual answer, so:

 

[Revoltingest]

.....i'm talking about the same darwin that claimed that those of white skin are superior/the masters of black people and them having not fully evolved.

Source?

 

[Gharib]

There is no 'both sides'.
Creationism is just plain wrong, not to mention that it is not science.

i believe the same thing can be said about evolution, it's not science, it's just wishful thinking to escape the real world, everyone loves a mythical story of humans someday evolving into lions, or developing wings.

The Theory of Evolution on the other hand has mountains of evidence behind it and is one of the best founded scientific Theories we have.
It is, in fact, the only game in town.

i agree, a theory, let me know when it becomes a fact. it's been a theory for centuries now, when exactly is the 'theory' part going to evolve?

Mostly scientists.
You know, those people who do this stuff for a living.
But the evidence is available to anyone who cares to look.

you mean atheists, i know of scientists who don't believe in this evolution of yours. so it can't be scientists.

I think you have a somewhat skewed view of what the Theory of Evolution actually is.

i know for sure it's not a fact because everyone keeps calling it a theory.

While the core concept is still the same the Theory has gone through multiple revisions and additions, just like every other scientific Theory out there.
Science does not have infallible prophets and all its Theories are constantly up for review.

so how much longer is it going to take for some real scientists to come along and take this mythical theory for review and throw it out the window.

i'f you don't mind, can you explain in brief how humans came to be?

 

[not nom]

this notion of living things becoming something different altogether

see? you haven't the faintest clue about evolution.

in other news, turkey, with this clever hi tech web move, also blocked sites that criticize evolution or darwin? stupid haha... turkey has no place in the EU. none.

 

[Gharib]

Source?

let me know if the following isn't sufficient:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

 

[Gharib]

see? you haven't the faintest clue about evolution.

please do enlighten me. whats wrong with my statement?

 

[Shermana]

It was.



Oh, lots of things have been modified and added upon since Darwin's time.
Most notably he got the medium of heredity completely wrong seeing as no-one knew about DNA back in the day.
But the things that have stuck around have done so because they have been confirmed by tons of evidence.



Evolution, by its textbook definition IS an indisputable fact.
So Evolution is BOTH a fact and a Theory.

Oh, and just for the record, there are plenty of religious scientists who are Evolutionary Biologists.

So because it was the mindset of his time, that means he has an excuse for claiming as a matter of fact that they were basically sub-humans?

The problem with the word "Evolution" is that only part of it is an indisputable fact. Micro-evolution is a fact. The "Theory" part is that all these micro-changes will cause drastically species, beyond just different breeds, which is the only kind of "Speciation" that has been actually observed. Once again, the "Species problem" comes into play. It often becomes a mired semantics game with disregard to the actual observable results and measurable data. I have discussed this in greater depth on other threads.

What there IS "tons of evidence" for is Epigenetics, which vindicates Lamarck more and more every day.

And there are plenty of professional biologists who are anti-macro-evolutionists, though they may not be the majority, they exist and they say the exact same thing I'm saying here.