"Filthy Dreamers" Film Fundraiser

Posted 3 December 2013 by Wesley R. Elsberry

The Honors program at the University of Central Florida has a documentary film class whose previous projects have been well-received. Now, they are crowdsourcing funding for their latest project, "Filthy Dreamers". This one is about antievolution efforts in Florida following the 1925 Scopes trial.

In the late 1920's a controversy sparked about the teaching of evolution to women students at Florida State Women's College. Nearly 100 years later, public figures and activists are still trying to control curriculum in public schools, colleges and universities. The students enrolled in this Honors class through the University of Central Florida aim to educate and inform our viewers about the long history of censorship in the classrooms, the libraries and around the campus.

Please check it out.

18 Comments

Robert Byers · 3 December 2013

Long history of censorship. Yes its the history of mankind and only challenged in theb anglo-American civilization as far it did. mOstly to defend against censorship of Christianity.
Are they coming OUT against censorship or in favour of it??
It is the right of the people to censor wrong or dangerous ideas in their public institutions. everyone believes that.
however today its about who decides.
Creationism is censored in schools in classes dealing with origins.
Finally HONOUR students are standing against censorship even if it allows ideas they don't like.
When's the movie opening. Creationists will flock to it.
Hmmm. I'm suspicious. why would this forum be supporting a ANTI-censorship film!!??!!

DS · 3 December 2013

Maybe he will get it, maybe he won't. Maybe someone will are, maybe no one will. theb as far it did, indeed.

Roger · 4 December 2013

Robert, it's hard to decipher your grammar but I assume you are against censorship. The problem is with a title like "Filthy Dreamers" it is just asking for a pornographic film to be produced parodying it. If so, I guess you won't have any problems with that in the name of freedom from censorship, right?

DS · 4 December 2013

Of course Robert has it completely backwards. The christian fundamentalists are the ones who are trying to censor science education and they are still at it one hundred years later. So I guess Robert is against censorship, I guess he will defend the right to teach good science in a science classroom, right? I guess creationists will flock to this movie to support the fight against censorship, right? We'll see.

And scientists have never censored religious freedom. You are free to preach whatever nonsense you want in your tax free church, no matter how illogical, self contradictory or divorced from reality. What you can't do is preach religious nonsense in place of science in a government funded science classroom. That's not censorship. Unless you want scientists to come to your church to give a sermon on evolution every Sunday. Thought not.

Robert Byers · 4 December 2013

Roger said: Robert, it's hard to decipher your grammar but I assume you are against censorship. The problem is with a title like "Filthy Dreamers" it is just asking for a pornographic film to be produced parodying it. If so, I guess you won't have any problems with that in the name of freedom from censorship, right?

I am not anymore against censorship. It is the RIGHT of a people to censor what they want in their nation. The people by vote etc. If the people, like Americans, say there is a freedom of speech that trumps censorship then thats fine with me. No because they agree with such freedom but because the only way to ensure the truth is spoken is to take censorship power away form government. This means stuff one doesn't like must be allowed. Pornography is not speech and so can be censored and anyways free speech is about important things. slander laws also stop free speech. Schools are different. What kids are taught can be censored however who decides? I am for the voters to vote up or down what is taught in origin subjects. Right now creationism is censored by trumped up laws since WW11. everyone agrees with censorship these days as everyone has their list of what they won't tolerate or fear can lead society wrong. the agreat agreement however is for truth to prevail one must have freedom of speech. This movie , I suspect, advocates freedom of speech for their position only. it made sense to the old school folks to censor evolution and makes sense for new school folks to censor creationism . For truth we must endure freedom of speech. YUCK

Tenncrain · 4 December 2013

Not to mention that when anti-evolutionists lost the battle on having evolution banned outright, they then somehow felt entitled to have their ideas be given an end run around the science peer-review process even when everything else in science has to fight tooth and nail to stay alive or they otherwise get tossed into the proverbial waste basket. What a rather bizarre idea of "fairness" to say the least. Anyway, still waiting for Byres to answer these questions:

Robert Byers, What about finally giving us a full review of an evo-devo (click here) book like Sean B Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful (click here)? Remember, it's a popular level book for the public which is something you routinely stress. You could use this book to show how evo-devo and other evidence for evolution depends on fossils as you routinely parrot.......unless evo-devo really doesn't depend on fossils.

Also,

Byers, are you ever going to address this Christian link about Christian scientists that accept and routinely use radiometric dating? You have repeatedly avoided this question for over a year now (Byers, click here to see).

Furthermore,

Byers, when are you going to get around to fully discussing SINE insertions? You could use SINEs to tie in with your wild claim that "genetic researchers today are like alchemists of yesterday" and oh here's a link to the post about SINEs that you have ignored: http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-300136

+ + + + + + + + Since you have repeatedly run away from these questions, perhaps we should give you a little wiggle room by giving you the option of addressing another matter you have not answered:

Byers, are you ever going to make a full critique of this particular link?

Standard Disclaimer: As this matter is somewhat offtopic for this thread, it's understandable if this post along with any replies are posted/moved to the BW.

phhht · 4 December 2013

Jesus, Robert Byers, your posts are like mud that talks.

Robert Byers said:
Roger said: Robert, it's hard to decipher your grammar but I assume you are against censorship. The problem is with a title like "Filthy Dreamers" it is just asking for a pornographic film to be produced parodying it. If so, I guess you won't have any problems with that in the name of freedom from censorship, right?
I am not anymore against censorship. It is the RIGHT of a people to censor what they want in their nation. The people by vote etc. If the people, like Americans, say there is a freedom of speech that trumps censorship then thats fine with me. No because they agree with such freedom but because the only way to ensure the truth is spoken is to take censorship power away form government. This means stuff one doesn't like must be allowed. Pornography is not speech and so can be censored and anyways free speech is about important things. slander laws also stop free speech. Schools are different. What kids are taught can be censored however who decides? I am for the voters to vote up or down what is taught in origin subjects. Right now creationism is censored by trumped up laws since WW11. everyone agrees with censorship these days as everyone has their list of what they won't tolerate or fear can lead society wrong. the agreat agreement however is for truth to prevail one must have freedom of speech. This movie , I suspect, advocates freedom of speech for their position only. it made sense to the old school folks to censor evolution and makes sense for new school folks to censor creationism . For truth we must endure freedom of speech. YUCK

Tenncrain · 4 December 2013

phhht said: Jesus, Robert Byers, your posts are like mud that talks.

Well, as the saying goes, you can't shine mud!

stevaroni · 4 December 2013

Robert Byers said: Right now creationism is censored by trumped up laws since WW11.

No. It. Hasn't. Nobody, for example, is censoring you right now, though you probably deserve it. Nobody is censoring the idiots over at uncommon descent. Nobody is censoring morons like Bill O'Reily who uses his podium to spout nonsense science denial. I was in a Barnes & Noble just the other day in the science section and there were the usual copies of Dembski's make-believe books right next to real science books by the likes of Neil Shubin. Parents are free to teach their kids any kind of fantasy-based explanation they want, and nobody intervenes. The only time people get worked up is when creationists insist on trying to use schools to teach children facts about nature that are demonstrably wrong. Only in a creationists mind does "you can't teach children false facts" equal "censorship". You want to try and change the status quo? That's easy, Byers. Trivially easy. All the well-funded DI has to do is produce some tiny sliver of actual, empirical evidence that the fantasy of creation is an actual, true fact. Then it will be constitutionally prohibited for science to try and stop you from teaching it in every school in the land. See how easy that is, Byers? You just need one teeny, tiny scrap of actual hard evidence and the whole problem goes away. And yet, are creationist organs like the Discovery Institute busy in research labs? No. They're in court. You have to ask yourself why, Byers. It's so trivially easy to avoid all this legal messiness. And yet they can't do it.

Mike Elzinga · 5 December 2013

Tenncrain said:
phhht said: Jesus, Robert Byers, your posts are like mud that talks.
Well, as the saying goes, you can't shine mud!

Mud at least has some substance and can become a tangible solid form. Byers appears to be a hollow, inchoate voice from deep within a Purple Haze; the barest hint of something trying but failing to condense into a substantial form.

Roger · 5 December 2013

Robert Byers said:
Roger said: Robert, it's hard to decipher your grammar but I assume you are against censorship. The problem is with a title like "Filthy Dreamers" it is just asking for a pornographic film to be produced parodying it. If so, I guess you won't have any problems with that in the name of freedom from censorship, right?
I am not anymore against censorship. It is the RIGHT of a people to censor what they want in their nation. The people by vote etc. If the people, like Americans, say there is a freedom of speech that trumps censorship then thats fine with me. No because they agree with such freedom but because the only way to ensure the truth is spoken is to take censorship power away form government. This means stuff one doesn't like must be allowed. Pornography is not speech and so can be censored and anyways free speech is about important things. slander laws also stop free speech. Schools are different. What kids are taught can be censored however who decides? I am for the voters to vote up or down what is taught in origin subjects. Right now creationism is censored by trumped up laws since WW11. everyone agrees with censorship these days as everyone has their list of what they won't tolerate or fear can lead society wrong. the agreat agreement however is for truth to prevail one must have freedom of speech. This movie , I suspect, advocates freedom of speech for their position only. it made sense to the old school folks to censor evolution and makes sense for new school folks to censor creationism . For truth we must endure freedom of speech. YUCK

So your argument is something should be censored when you disagree with it and uncensored when you agree. And you have the gall to call this freedom of speech??

DS · 5 December 2013

World war eleven? Does this guy know something nobody else knows?

So Robert, you are officially against censorship, right? But you want what is taught in science class to be decided by popular vote, right? And you don't see a problem with this position, right? That's what I thought. As Roger pointed out more succinctly, this is Orwellian double speak on a monumental scale. Get a grip dude.

Wesley,

If you don't dump the garbage to the bathroom wall, this is the stink you get.

TomS · 5 December 2013

stevaroni said:
Robert Byers said: Right now creationism is censored by trumped up laws since WW11.
No. It. Hasn't. Nobody, for example, is censoring you right now, though you probably deserve it.

Rather, the advocates of things like "Intelligent Design" are doing the closest thing to "censoring" that there is. They are the ones who squelch any talk about "what happened, when and where, why or how, who". How or why did it come about that the human eyes are standard vertebrate eyes, rather than like the eyes of insects, octopuses, or potatoes? Was it just a massive coincidence that doesn't need any explaining? Why can't we talk about that? It isn't the scientists that are squelching conversation about that.

DS · 5 December 2013

TomS said:
stevaroni said:
Robert Byers said: Right now creationism is censored by trumped up laws since WW11.
No. It. Hasn't. Nobody, for example, is censoring you right now, though you probably deserve it.
Rather, the advocates of things like "Intelligent Design" are doing the closest thing to "censoring" that there is. They are the ones who squelch any talk about "what happened, when and where, why or how, who". How or why did it come about that the human eyes are standard vertebrate eyes, rather than like the eyes of insects, octopuses, or potatoes? Was it just a massive coincidence that doesn't need any explaining? Why can't we talk about that? It isn't the scientists that are squelching conversation about that.

Of course (or should I say of coarse) you are right. But it's even worse than that. They not only don't want anyone to learn about their "alternative" but they don't want anyone to learn the real science either. It's the ultimate censorship. Ignorance is their only friend.

Robert Byers · 5 December 2013

Roger said:
Robert Byers said:
Roger said: Robert, it's hard to decipher your grammar but I assume you are against censorship. The problem is with a title like "Filthy Dreamers" it is just asking for a pornographic film to be produced parodying it. If so, I guess you won't have any problems with that in the name of freedom from censorship, right?
I am not anymore against censorship. It is the RIGHT of a people to censor what they want in their nation. The people by vote etc. If the people, like Americans, say there is a freedom of speech that trumps censorship then thats fine with me. No because they agree with such freedom but because the only way to ensure the truth is spoken is to take censorship power away form government. This means stuff one doesn't like must be allowed. Pornography is not speech and so can be censored and anyways free speech is about important things. slander laws also stop free speech. Schools are different. What kids are taught can be censored however who decides? I am for the voters to vote up or down what is taught in origin subjects. Right now creationism is censored by trumped up laws since WW11. everyone agrees with censorship these days as everyone has their list of what they won't tolerate or fear can lead society wrong. the agreat agreement however is for truth to prevail one must have freedom of speech. This movie , I suspect, advocates freedom of speech for their position only. it made sense to the old school folks to censor evolution and makes sense for new school folks to censor creationism . For truth we must endure freedom of speech. YUCK
So your argument is something should be censored when you disagree with it and uncensored when you agree. And you have the gall to call this freedom of speech??

No and yes. I'm saying its originally the right of a people to censor wrong things in their country. In our countries, however we made a decision to trump that right by a freedom of speech that then trumps the peoples right to censor. In other words in order to have the truth one must allow freedom of speech despite its harm and offensive now and then. Say in slander. In schools however its a different case. The voters can censor ideas or conclusions they see as wrong because they are directly being taught to a captive audience. I then say it should be up to the voters to decide what is censored and what isn't. As a reasonablr aggreement by the people it simply should be both sides in major contentions get equal time. The people could censor evolution back then or censor creationism now but shouldn't. This has nothing to do with trumped up law decisions since WW11 about these matters.

DS · 5 December 2013

Told you he wouldn't get it. Come on world war eleven!

Scott F · 5 December 2013

The notion of an individual "freedom of speech" seems to be a relatively new thing, and isn't shared equally around the world even today. China, for example, and most Islamic cultures don't seem to share this idea (speaking as someone not familiar with either). Authoritarian cultures (not just "governments" but "cultures") certainly don't share this notion at all. It's not too surprising that an authoritarian mind(*) views censorship as a natural "right of the people", and that "freedom of speech" is both harmful and offensive, based solely on "trumped up law decisions" passed only in the last 50 years. Notice that it's okay to censor ideas, "because they are directly being taught to a captive audience." Censorship is just fine, when the audience has no choice but to listen. The very idea of a "liberal" or "classical" education never occurs to the authoritarian mind. To the authoritarian, "education" is synonymous with "indoctrination". Actively seeking after knowledge and questioning authority is antithetical to such a person, and it is only "right" to oppose and try to suppress such things.

Truly remarkable, in this day and age.

(*) And I'm viewing the "creationist mind" as a necessary subset of the "authoritarian mind." That is, all creationists are necessarily authoritarians, while not all authoritarians are creationists.

Dave Luckett · 5 December 2013

Scott F said: The notion of an individual "freedom of speech" seems to be a relatively new thing, and isn't shared equally around the world even today....

It's not merely freedom of speech. Byers is cack-witted enough to be espousing two different enlightenment values, but compounding them with the ideas of a premodern society and using both of them in ways that destroy their actual value. He is assuming the right of the minority to be heard, the right to advocate without fear of reprisal. That's intensely an enlightenment value. But the right of the minority to be heard does not include the right to have their wishes carried into public policy. For where does public policy come from? Whence should it arise? We say, now, that government and its policy is, in Lincoln's great words, of the people, for the people, by the people. That would have been thought worse than shocking by the rulers of Europe, mostly, even then - and in previous centuries completely unthinkable. But that's where Byers is getting this from. The people should rule, says Byers. The people are generally in favor of "teaching the controversy"; of "teaching both sides", so therefore both should be taught. He's right, in a sense. About 60%+ of Americans think that. They're wrong, of course, and the wrong arises out of uncritical acceptance of propaganda. There is no "controversy", in science. There are no "both sides" to the evidence. The evidence is unequivocal. The science is unimpeachable. Science is what you teach in the public schools. Nevertheless, the uncomfortable fact exists. A solid majority of Americans accept the facts of evolution, although probably a majority also accept it as a process overseen by God. But an intractible minority does not, and a strong majority of Americans would allow their bogus objections to evolution to be taught in public schools as if they were evidential. Why? For the very reason that the American people support the right of the minority to be heard! This is what Byers is hammering at. He's no threat in himself, of course. Anyone who reads his attempts will immediately understand that he's irrational and incoherent, both. But he has stumbled inadvertently on political ideas that resonate, which are that the people should rule, and that minorities have the right to advocate. Of course these notions are completely at odds with the basic ideas informing Byers, which are that authority, expressed by selected interpretations of selected Biblical texts, is what really should rule; that majority opinion is irrelevant; that error has no rights at all. Further, his deeply fractured understanding floats to the surface when he thinks about what he calls "censorship". Byers thinks both that the people have the right to "censor" views, and also that "censorship" of his views is illegitimate. He thinks both of those by turns, according to his convenience at the time. Nevertheless, Byers is on to something. It's not a factual something. It's got nothing to do with science, or evidence, or reason. But it has a political reality, and it has to be dealt with by political means, because of the very fact that it is a political reality and not a rational or scientific one.