Print
'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation
by David Bolinsky
David Bolinsky copied me in on this eMail, and I asked his permission to reproduce it on our website. David is the medical illustrator chiefly responsible for The Inner Life of the Cell, the magnificent animation of the internal workings of a cell that was ripped off, first by William Dembski, and then by the makers of 'Expelled', as the following eMail explains.
Richard Dawkins
To the anti-ID community which is giving XVIVO support in our ideological battle against the microcephalic apostates of "Intelligent Design":
XVIVO created The Inner Life of the Cell for Harvard, through fourteen months of painstaking examination of how a myriad of systems, functional structures and proteins in a cell, could be depicted in a sweeping panoramic style of animation, reminiscent of cinema, that fundamentally raised the bar on the visualization of molecular and cellular biology for undergraduate students. In depicting what we did, other than merely maintaining the intent of the syllabus, we needed to edit like mad. A cell has billions of molecules, millions of active functional proteins and tens of thousands of structural elements separating, sequestering and joining compartments and systems into a functional whole. An initial foundational decision process of our creative vision, consisted of editing out 95% of the contents of our cell in order to gain, for our virtual camera, a vista to visualize what elements we left in. The decisions we made blended aesthetics with science. They were not made lightly, nor were they made without extensive consultation with researchers at Harvard, and an extensive body of literature, including protein data libraries and new findings by Harvard researchers.
Given the vast number of structures to be removed, and given the structures remaining "on camera", whose positioning and relationships, both aesthetic and functional, needed to remain true to the function and beauty of molecular biology, it is inconceivable, mathematically, that the animator hired by EXPELLED's producers, independently and randomly came up with the same identical actin filament mesh XVIVO depicted in one scene, which had never before been rendered anywhere in 3D! It is astonishing that among well over a dozen functional kinesins from which an animator might choose, we both chose the same configuration of kinesin, pulling the same protein-studded vesicle, on the same microtubule! Can YOU believe we coincidentally picked the same camera angles and left in the same specific structures in the background, positioned with the same composition? Equally astonishing is the "Intellgent Design" treatment of these and other proteins surfaces, which XVIVO derived using procedural iso-surface skinning of the PDB cloud data of our proteins' atom placement. There are an infinite number of possble "correct" solutions to that problem.
Coincidence? Given their "access to the same literature" we had, where Graham Johnson at Scripps so brilliantly worked out the real motion of kinesins, I am simply blown away that the "Intelligent Design" animators slavishly made the hands of their kenesins move exactly as we did, even though we intentionally left out the stochastic Brownian motion which actually characterizes the tractive force and periodic pedicle placement of these tiny motivators. We simply did not have the time or budget to render these, and a dozen other details, to the level of insanity we would like to have done! This was, after all, an underfunded proof-of-concept piece. The cellular biology that serves as "filler" material, between scenes copied from Inner Life, is riddled with biological errors. Imagine "Intelligent Design's" depiction of protein synthesis without ribosomes!
To Mr. Dembski: The only reason I am involved in this discussion is because I do not want the reputation of my company, hard-earned as it is, to be sullied by even oblique affiliation to your sort of smarmy ethics, if only through works of ours, purloined to fit your agenda. Last year you were charging colleges thousands of dollars to give lectures showing a copy of The Inner Life of the Cell, you claimed you "found somewhere", with Harvard's and XVIVO's credits stripped out and the copyright notice removed (which is in itself a felony) and a creationist voice-over pasted on over our music (yes, I have a recording of your lecture). Harvard slapped you down for that, and yes there is a paper trail. One can only assume that had we not taken notice then, we would be debating The Inner Life of the Cell being used in EXPELLED, instead of a copy. You have enough of a colorful history that Harvard, in its wisdom, decided to 'swat the gnat' with as little fuss as possible. Imagine our surprise earlier this month, to see our work copied in a movie trailer for EXPELLED! And you are in the movie too! Not quite a star, but brown dwarfs are cool. XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring!
It makes me happy, though, that you decided to implicate your friends in print, on your blog (http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/expelled-plagiarizing-harvard/#comment-229619), in what is legally, malignant infringement, since you no had doubt discussed with EXPELLED's producers, Harvard's previous legal infringement action against you, the Discovery Institute, where you are a fellow and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where you teach. Once we uncover the EXPELLED animation dollar trail, and bring it to light, we will have even more fun. The sublimely ridiculous claim that EXPELLED uses completely original animation, in light of copying our work so closely that a budget was reserved to pay for an infringement suit by Harvard, is delicious! Why should I try to take you guys down when you are doing such a splendid job yourselves? For free! So go ahead and release your movie. Just keep track of how many tickets you sell. We may just find that data valuable, too.
David Bolinsky
For more on David Bolinksy and the animation see:
(http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/147)
Also see:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/301_expelled_producers_accused_of__4_9_2008.asp
Richard Dawkins
To the anti-ID community which is giving XVIVO support in our ideological battle against the microcephalic apostates of "Intelligent Design":
XVIVO created The Inner Life of the Cell for Harvard, through fourteen months of painstaking examination of how a myriad of systems, functional structures and proteins in a cell, could be depicted in a sweeping panoramic style of animation, reminiscent of cinema, that fundamentally raised the bar on the visualization of molecular and cellular biology for undergraduate students. In depicting what we did, other than merely maintaining the intent of the syllabus, we needed to edit like mad. A cell has billions of molecules, millions of active functional proteins and tens of thousands of structural elements separating, sequestering and joining compartments and systems into a functional whole. An initial foundational decision process of our creative vision, consisted of editing out 95% of the contents of our cell in order to gain, for our virtual camera, a vista to visualize what elements we left in. The decisions we made blended aesthetics with science. They were not made lightly, nor were they made without extensive consultation with researchers at Harvard, and an extensive body of literature, including protein data libraries and new findings by Harvard researchers.
Given the vast number of structures to be removed, and given the structures remaining "on camera", whose positioning and relationships, both aesthetic and functional, needed to remain true to the function and beauty of molecular biology, it is inconceivable, mathematically, that the animator hired by EXPELLED's producers, independently and randomly came up with the same identical actin filament mesh XVIVO depicted in one scene, which had never before been rendered anywhere in 3D! It is astonishing that among well over a dozen functional kinesins from which an animator might choose, we both chose the same configuration of kinesin, pulling the same protein-studded vesicle, on the same microtubule! Can YOU believe we coincidentally picked the same camera angles and left in the same specific structures in the background, positioned with the same composition? Equally astonishing is the "Intellgent Design" treatment of these and other proteins surfaces, which XVIVO derived using procedural iso-surface skinning of the PDB cloud data of our proteins' atom placement. There are an infinite number of possble "correct" solutions to that problem.
Coincidence? Given their "access to the same literature" we had, where Graham Johnson at Scripps so brilliantly worked out the real motion of kinesins, I am simply blown away that the "Intelligent Design" animators slavishly made the hands of their kenesins move exactly as we did, even though we intentionally left out the stochastic Brownian motion which actually characterizes the tractive force and periodic pedicle placement of these tiny motivators. We simply did not have the time or budget to render these, and a dozen other details, to the level of insanity we would like to have done! This was, after all, an underfunded proof-of-concept piece. The cellular biology that serves as "filler" material, between scenes copied from Inner Life, is riddled with biological errors. Imagine "Intelligent Design's" depiction of protein synthesis without ribosomes!
To Mr. Dembski: The only reason I am involved in this discussion is because I do not want the reputation of my company, hard-earned as it is, to be sullied by even oblique affiliation to your sort of smarmy ethics, if only through works of ours, purloined to fit your agenda. Last year you were charging colleges thousands of dollars to give lectures showing a copy of The Inner Life of the Cell, you claimed you "found somewhere", with Harvard's and XVIVO's credits stripped out and the copyright notice removed (which is in itself a felony) and a creationist voice-over pasted on over our music (yes, I have a recording of your lecture). Harvard slapped you down for that, and yes there is a paper trail. One can only assume that had we not taken notice then, we would be debating The Inner Life of the Cell being used in EXPELLED, instead of a copy. You have enough of a colorful history that Harvard, in its wisdom, decided to 'swat the gnat' with as little fuss as possible. Imagine our surprise earlier this month, to see our work copied in a movie trailer for EXPELLED! And you are in the movie too! Not quite a star, but brown dwarfs are cool. XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring!
It makes me happy, though, that you decided to implicate your friends in print, on your blog (http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/expelled-plagiarizing-harvard/#comment-229619), in what is legally, malignant infringement, since you no had doubt discussed with EXPELLED's producers, Harvard's previous legal infringement action against you, the Discovery Institute, where you are a fellow and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where you teach. Once we uncover the EXPELLED animation dollar trail, and bring it to light, we will have even more fun. The sublimely ridiculous claim that EXPELLED uses completely original animation, in light of copying our work so closely that a budget was reserved to pay for an infringement suit by Harvard, is delicious! Why should I try to take you guys down when you are doing such a splendid job yourselves? For free! So go ahead and release your movie. Just keep track of how many tickets you sell. We may just find that data valuable, too.
David Bolinsky
For more on David Bolinksy and the animation see:
(http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/147)
Also see:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/301_expelled_producers_accused_of__4_9_2008.asp
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, April 11, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 91 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #158984 by clodhopper on April 11, 2008 at 9:31 am
Sounds like an argument from personal incredulity.... Other Comments by clodhopper
3. Comment #158988 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 9:56 am
Once we uncover the EXPELLED animation dollar trail, and bring it to light, we will have even more fun.Don't attorneys generally discourage their clients from making such statements? Surely David Bolinsky has representation.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
4. Comment #158989 by sarah95 on April 11, 2008 at 9:57 am
To Mr. Dembski: The only reason I am involved in this discussion is because I do not want the reputation of my company, hard-earned as it is, to be sullied by even oblique affiliation to your sort of smarmy ethics, if only through works of ours, purloined to fit your agenda. Last year you were charging colleges thousands of dollars to give lectures showing a copy of The Inner Life of the Cell, you claimed you "found somewhere", with Harvard's and XVIVO's credits stripped out and the copyright notice removed (which is in itself a felony) and a creationist voice-over pasted on over our music (yes, I have a recording of your lecture). Harvard slapped you down for that, and yes there is a paper trail. One can only assume that had we not taken notice then, we would be debating The Inner Life of the Cell being used in EXPELLED, instead of a copy. You have enough of a colorful history that Harvard, in its wisdom, decided to 'swat the gnat' with as little fuss as possible. Imagine our surprise earlier this month, to see our work copied in a movie trailer for EXPELLED! And you are in the movie too! Not quite a star, but brown dwarfs are cool. XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring!
Whack-a-ID! I'd pay to play THAT game! Perhaps the closest one can get to paying for such a game is just donating to the NAS or NCSE. Oh well, it was a pleasant thought anyway...
(Would the whacker mallet be a "logic mallet"?)
Other Comments by sarah95
5. Comment #158991 by Elles on April 11, 2008 at 9:59 am
Sloppy movie-making, sloppy thinking, and now they've sloppily ripped off an animation.I hope Ben Stein is sloppy enough to miss his credit card payments and spiral into debt. Heehee.
Other Comments by Elles
6. Comment #158992 by DavidJGrossman on April 11, 2008 at 10:00 am
Before it gets deleted:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/expelled-plagiarizing-harvard/#comment-229619
"William Dembski
04/10/2008
3:37 pm
I've gotten to know the producers quite well. As far as I can tell, they made sure to budget for lawsuits. Also, I know for a fact that they have one of the best intellectual property attorneys in the business. I expect that the producers made their video close enough to the Harvard video to get tongues awagging (Headline: "Harvard University Seeks Injunction Against Ben Stein and EXPELLED" â€" you think that might generate interest in the movie?), but different enough so that they are unexposed.
It was a nice touch on the producer's part to use the same music as the XVIVO video. Presumably they got permission from the artist â€" or is that another possible oversight to explore? But then again, one of the producers was for years in the music business. So most likely they're covered here as well.
BOTTOM LINE: Before you think the producers of EXPELLED are idiots, you might think that they are chess players who have seen several moves ahead. For instance, have you ever thought who stood to gain the most from the Machine Video featured at UD a week ago? . . ."
Other Comments by DavidJGrossman
7. Comment #158999 by Devolution on April 11, 2008 at 10:11 am
Does anyone know if this piece of garbage is even going to be shown on the big screen? I cant find any mention of it here in Southern CA. If by any chance Expelled is playing near your home, by all means go and see it! But whatever you do dont buy a ticket for Expelled, just buy a ticket for another movie and sneak in.
Several friends and I plan to do this while loudly laughing and doing Ben Stein impressions throughout. Good times.
Other Comments by Devolution
8. Comment #159001 by akado on April 11, 2008 at 10:16 am
What a shameful, underhanded, and just idiotic things these people display in their works!
Not only that they're trying to spread their ideolgy around like a virus, but also at the expense of others works.
Right after being caught of fruad by missleading some interviewees and then trying to keep them from seeing the first screenings which they initially failed at.
they truely are taking themselves down with their own stupidity =3
Other Comments by akado
9. Comment #159007 by Philip1978 on April 11, 2008 at 10:32 am
I do often wonder if people REALLY are that stupid and then I read this sort of thing and the answer is a resounding "YES PHILIP, THEY ARE!"Did they really not sit around and think "Hang on a second chaps, won't we get completely shredded if we do that? Ah, they aren't that clever, they will never notice! Plus we have God on our side and He ALWAYS wins and since we made this for Him he will protect us! Now about that PZ Myers...!"
Such dribbling stupidity deserves to be taken to task it really does!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
10. Comment #159019 by yussel123 on April 11, 2008 at 10:49 am
I'm scientifically illiterate, so I really didn't understand the technical language in the e-mail. I think, however, I understand enough to conclude that I will not waste any of my money on this film.My problem is that I'm equally suspicious of the ID people and the non-ID people because any charlatan could manipulate the evidence, and I don't know enough to be able to detect when I'm being lied to. What shold I do?
Other Comments by yussel123
11. Comment #159020 by EvidenceOnly on April 11, 2008 at 10:49 am
Why are we surprised of the continuous deception coming out of the Discovery Institute?Religion starts with believing that human-written books are the word of a supernatural being (initial deception).
Each religion then claims that their supernatural being is the one and only and therefore their religion is the TRUE religion (second deception).
They then go on ignoring the texts in their books that don't really fit them and use what fits them to drive a political agenda that forces their "truths" down everyones throat such as anti gay, anti gay marriage, anti stem cell research, anti condoms, ... (3rd deception).
I could go on an one for a very long time.
Somewhere in this list is violating copyright and claiming this is original new work.
Somewhere in this are claims that Darwin caused all misery in the world (as if there was no misery in the world before Darwin?).
Let's face it. These just add to the very long list of lies that go thousands of years back.
That does not mean that they should get away with it though.
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
12. Comment #159021 by maton100 on April 11, 2008 at 10:54 am
Expelled is all pomp and no circumstance. The cell footage was actually a journey through Ben Stein's nasal cavity. Other Comments by maton100
13. Comment #159022 by n0rr1s on April 11, 2008 at 10:55 am
sarah95:Whack-a-ID! I'd pay to play THAT game! Perhaps the closest one can get to paying for such a game is just donating to the NAS or NCSE. Oh well, it was a pleasant thought anyway...
(Would the whacker mallet be a "logic mallet"?)
You'd never him them with the logic mallet: it would go right over their heads.
You'll need to smack 'em with the clue bat, maybe even the trusty clue-by-four.
Other Comments by n0rr1s
14. Comment #159032 by Mitchell Gilks on April 11, 2008 at 11:07 am
This is nothing new. IDiots are well known for two things, criminal stupidity, and criminal dishonesty. Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
15. Comment #159034 by cdhabecker on April 11, 2008 at 11:10 am
ENCOURAGE theists to put their trust in Expelled.ENCOURAGE theists to quote Expelled at school board meetings.
ENCOURAGE theists to recommend Expelled to their friends.
ENCOURAGE theists to spend money on Expelled.
ENCOURAGE theist candidates to support Expelled publicly.
The harder theists swallow Expelled, the angrier they will be at its producers and supporters when the movie utterly fails them. Consider: if Richard Dawkins were to ridicule a hypothetical Expelled movie, the theists would cry "strawman!" But the theists are actually championing this softball and delivering it with a shiny bow on top.
Time is the enemy of Expelled. Time begets reflection and questions, and Expelled can withstand neither.
Other Comments by cdhabecker
16. Comment #159035 by IanRobinson on April 11, 2008 at 11:11 am
My problem is that I'm equally suspicious of the ID people and the non-ID people because any charlatan could manipulate the evidence, and I don't know enough to be able to detect when I'm being lied to. What shold I do?
Study?
Ian
Other Comments by IanRobinson
17. Comment #159038 by yussel123 on April 11, 2008 at 11:13 am
#16Don't be a wise guy. I'm to old to go back to school for an education. What do I do now?
Other Comments by yussel123
18. Comment #159039 by phiwilli on April 11, 2008 at 11:14 am
Those expelled guys are examples of what I like to call the Torquemada syndrome, doing evil that good may come (strongly opposed by St. Paul, Rom. 3:7-8), an obnoxious version of: the end (if it's good enough, such convincing the gullible of ID, or better, of creationism, or better, of the literal infallibility of the Bible) justifies the use of any means, no matter how dishonest or despicable.Other Comments by phiwilli
19. Comment #159049 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 11:29 am
yussell23: My problem is that I'm equally suspicious of the ID people and the non-ID people because any charlatan could manipulate the evidence, and I don't know enough to be able to detect when I'm being lied to. What shold I do?We're all in the same boat. No one is an expert at everything. So we have to set up a system of checks and balances to catch the bullshit. Then we can periodically check the system to make sure it's not being corrupted. Checking the system is a lot easier than having to check every claim by every expert in every field.
Anti-bullshit aspects of the current system, off the top of my head:
1. Scientists compete with each other for recognition and publication space. So typically they're not shy about criticizing each other.
2. Anonymous peer review provides a reasonable means to give feedback to the author of a bad study so he can improve his work.
3. The reviewers don't talk to each other. They submit their remarks independently to the editor of the journal, who shields their identities. Thus they can be honest without fears of retaliation.
4. Scientific papers have a defined structure. Each part must be clear enough to allow replication or corroboration of the data by an independent party.
5. Often the names of the authors of the study are removed prior to sending it out for review. Criticism must be directed at the methods, statistics, reasoning, and conclusions. There's no place for personal attacks against the authors.
6. Important papers are discussed in detail at professional meetings. Go to one of these meetings and you'll see that people love finding flaws, just like little kids love "Where's Waldo?"
Scientific reports have to jump all these hurdles before they're taken seriously.
Whenever you hear about a study in the news that hasn't jumped these hurdles, that's a red flag. Trial by media or by high school classroom is a cakewalk compared to trial by peer review.
The intelligent design advocates are taking their case to the high school kids and the general public rather than the scientific journals for a reason. The cold fusion guys did this also. Same with a lot of alternative medicine claims, free energy claims, perpetual motion machines, etc.
It's always the same bullshit: "Let us tell you what Big Science/Big Pharma/Big Gov't don't want you to know! Listen to us and judge for yourself!"
But if the "Bigs" have become so corrupted, we non-experts are all totally screwed, across the board. Might as well drink the Kool-Aid now.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
20. Comment #159055 by Animavore on April 11, 2008 at 11:35 am
If they were gonna rip off an animation, I think Mickey Mouse would've been more apporpriate. Other Comments by Animavore
21. Comment #159058 by yussel123 on April 11, 2008 at 11:39 am
Dr. Benway:Thank you
Other Comments by yussel123
22. Comment #159074 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 12:11 pm
yusell23: Thank youHappy to help.
"Expelled" makes the case that certain scientists have been hassled for questioning "the Darwinists."
Note the emphasis in this thesis upon people rather than papers. A very clever misdirection. I'm surprised I haven't heard much talk about this angle yet.
Science is a battleground of papers not people. A scientific paper today may be alive and valiantly fending off attacks even though its author died long ago.
Wouldn't it be nice to know which papers were denied publication due to anti-ID bigotry?
Hmm. For some reason I'm imagining the sound of crickets chirping.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
23. Comment #159083 by Dr.GH on April 11, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Several friends and I plan to do this while loudly laughing and doing Ben Stein impressions throughout. Good times.
I wouldn't mind coming along with you, but being disruptive would be a very bad idea. Preparing some sort of handout that could be passed out to people leaving might work.
Other Comments by Dr.GH
24. Comment #159085 by Koreman on April 11, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I feel pity those people don't understand the basics of quantum mechanics. Far more devastating to deluded bronze age ideas with an early 20th century flavor than evolutionary biology ever can be. I guess god is showing off in ignorance too.Other Comments by Koreman
25. Comment #159087 by Frankus1122 on April 11, 2008 at 12:29 pm
From Dr. Benway:
Note the emphasis in this thesis upon people rather than papers.
Good point. I made a similar one on some other thread (hence the praise).
IDers complain that no one will listen to them, that they are "not allowed" to have their ideas heard. But that is not the case from what I can tell. Any science they do (and there seems to be very little) has been shot down because it is bad science. I have read refutations of the irreducible complexity arguments that make sense to me.
They may have a point on some level however. It is like what happens here. Someone posts an opinion and is asked to back it up. They don't. They post more unsubstantiated opinion. We ask them to back it up. They don't. They post the same nonsense again and again. At some point you do refuse to listen. It is like the boy who cried wolf complaining that no one will listen to him. That may be true but there is a reason for that behaviour.
If any real science is done then the scientists can go through the process Dr. Benway listed above.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
26. Comment #159098 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Good point. I made a similar one on some other thread (hence the praise).Great minds think alike. ;)
Reputation is part of the checks-and-balances system in science.
A shady businessman can get caught cheating the public. He may be fined and his business may go under. But generally he can start a new business with a new name and carry on.
But a scientist can't hide behind a corporate entity. Once his reputation is injured due to publicly revealed dishonesty or idiocy, he can't recover. That's it for him.
So yes, I imagine that after rejections from several journals for pseudocientific methods, if the bloke doesn't wise up quickly he's going to be toast. Publish or perish, eh? Time to start looking for a private industry gig.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
27. Comment #159105 by Teratornis on April 11, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Copyright is a form of speech restriction. I believe restricting speech does more harm than good. The best cure for bad speech is more speech, rather than censorship. Imagine if, instead of standing on the shoulders of giants, Newton had been sued by all of them for infringement. Making it easy for Newton to "rip off" earlier work (with proper attribution) created more value for humanity than all the value destroyed by cranks who misused the same easy access to information. While winning court cases is certainly better than losing them, legal victories don't appear to change many minds, and thus ring a bit hollow. Crucifying creationists in court merely led to their subsequent resurrection as Intelligent Design proponents. Next it will be something else. We can chop heads off that Hydra indefinitely. Of course I have no idea how to get off this treadmill; it would seem we're stuck running in place until science determines what causes religion.
I might mention that Wikipedia has seen its share of bitter disputes, and has been amazingly successful at resolving even some seemingly intractable ones. Two of the core policies on Wikipedia are "Be civil" and "Do not make legal threats." Making legal threats is extremely bad form on Wikipedia, and usually results in a temporary block. Of course in the wider world, disputes take place with no Leviathan to mediate them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEGAL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)
This is part of why Wikipedia has become one of the world's top ten sites. The success is no accident, but rather results from a combination of technical features and a remarkably effective set of rules for personal behavior.
I'm a bit disappointed by the tone of David Bolinsky's essay. Bolinsky has understandable cause to be upset, but anger is a largely maladaptive emotion that evolved to help our ancestors deal with threats in the Pleistocene. Those threats were physical and immediate, such as hungry cave bears wandering into camp. When the threat is abstract and remote, getting angry doesn't increase one's ability to overpower the keyboard. The proper emotion for online disputes is sangfroid. As this is not a natural response we must deliberately cultivate it.
When one feels that instantaneous flood of blinding rage at the latest onscreen affront, I suggest asking a simple question:
What would Sam Harris do?
When we get emotional, we get careless and make mistakes. Often in a dispute, victory accrues to the side which is last to "lose it." It's better to stick to the facts, without emotional embellishment, and let the other side get upset and make mistakes.
Of course I'm advising myself here as much as anyone else. Must ... stay ... calm. Must remember to ask what Sam Harris would do.
Other Comments by Teratornis
28. Comment #159111 by scoobie on April 11, 2008 at 12:55 pm
IDiots are well known for two things, criminal stupidity, and criminal dishonesty.
A quick look through the comments on that blog linked to above shows an outstanding collection of both.
Other Comments by scoobie
29. Comment #159127 by Raiko on April 11, 2008 at 1:19 pm
The sublimely ridiculous claim that EXPELLED uses completely original animation, in light of copying our work so closely that a budget was reserved to pay for an infringement suit by Harvard, is delicious!
I went to the link. I read that:
(Headline: "Harvard University Seeks Injunction Against Ben Stein and EXPELLED" â€" you think that might generate interest in the movie?)
... this is- wow. I can't even wrap my mind around it. Dembski is apparently lacking enough conscience to only think "yay publicity!" instead of considering any moral implications such an act would have. He's obviously fully aware that they're engageing in illegal activity for this - and happy with it.
Before you think the producers of EXPELLED are idiots, you might think that they are chess players who have seen several moves ahead.
He somehow forgets to mention that some of their moves involve letting the knight run straight!
Other Comments by Raiko
30. Comment #159144 by Hostile2012 on April 11, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I like the last paragraph, it pretty much sums up the intelligence of ID proponents.Other Comments by Hostile2012
31. Comment #159150 by Blake C. Stacey on April 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm
A fellow by the 'nym of Quidam made a very neat illustration of how plagiarized the Expelled clip is, which I've shamelessly reposted here, with due attribution:http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=637
There is no ethical way to defend creationism, because the assertions at its core are fundamentally untrue; we are now seeing that dishonesty infect the entirety of the creationists' behavior.
Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey
32. Comment #159153 by D'Arcy on April 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm
As I see it, a group of religious people has taken someone else's discovery and then claimed it as its own.
What's new about that? Nothing. The whole of religion is based on what goes on in the society from which the religion sprang. No religion has ever discovered anything useful to humanity, nor made any useful predictions about future lines of enquiry. Religion is forever doomed to be hanging onto the coattails of knowledge. Bring on the IDers, they actually want to discredit modern science, but only by dishonest means, because they can't succeed any other way. They won't succeed because knowledge is too important to society, but they can and do present obstacles that must be overcome.
They are hoping that their 6004 year old universe is to become the truth. As Lenin said: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". The Discovery Institute and other IDers have learnt well from Lenin.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
33. Comment #159156 by MelM on April 11, 2008 at 2:02 pm
So, what's going on now? David Bolinsky's name was on the letter sent to Premise Media. So what's he saying about legal action? The letter said "...of material produced by XVIVO LLC, in which XVIVO holds a copyright"From the email posted above: XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring!
...
Once we uncover the EXPELLED animation dollar trail, and bring it to light, we will have even more fun. The sublimely ridiculous claim that EXPELLED uses completely original animation, in light of copying our work so closely that a budget was reserved to pay for an infringement suit by Harvard, is delicious! Why should I try to take you guys down when you are doing such a splendid job yourselves? For free! So go ahead and release your movie. Just keep track of how many tickets you sell. We may just find that data valuable, too.
Other Comments by MelM
34. Comment #159161 by robotaholic on April 11, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I think this story has been a debacle and it's not stopping either. If I beleived in karma, I would say that this is what they get for misrepresenting themselves to the various scientists they interviewed/quoted.Other Comments by robotaholic
35. Comment #159163 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I agree with the spirit of Teratornis' post re: threats (although I'm not sure I agree re: copyright; artists need to eat). Usually there's nothing to be gained by threatening legal action.
If you're considering legal action, be quiet as a mouse. The less known regarding what you feel, intend, or know, the better.
Because I sympathize with XVIVO I'm ambivalent about discussing Bolinsky's letter further.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
36. Comment #159168 by Chris Jackson on April 11, 2008 at 2:23 pm
From what I remember of A-level Biology, the chances of these two videos being similar by merit of coincidence alone is about as unlikely as an invisible sky-man creating the Universe. A Eukaryotic cell is a tangled mess of interacting systems and structural components that make the clear observation of a single system (such as vesicle transportation along structural proteins) impossible.
The claim that the two animations were made by separate teams becomes all the more improbable when the level of Scientific knowledge displayed by the IDiot camp are considered. Anyone who feels the need to refer to Biological processes in terms of Divine control, and who presents a system of Protein Synthesis without including Ribosomes clearly lacks the ability to create such an animation. Whilst some aspects of the animation are divergent (colour of the vesicle, camera angles used, image quality etc.) there is a level of similarity at work here far beyond mere inspiration.
Other Comments by Chris Jackson
37. Comment #159173 by Quine on April 11, 2008 at 2:32 pm
It is important to remember that the copyright issue is a side show to the central fraud of the movie. If they had done their own animation, it would have made no difference. I am happy to have this "problem" for them, but do not want to let it distract from the core attempt to misrepresent science to the public. Other Comments by Quine
38. Comment #159182 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Visual representations of cell structures cannot be like photographs. They must be inventions or abstractions because we can't actually look at the innards of functioning cells in real time.
XVIVO "Reclining woman
Expelled "Reclining woman"
Other Comments by Dr Benway
39. Comment #159185 by Elles on April 11, 2008 at 2:50 pm
"If they were gonna rip off an animation, I think Mickey Mouse would've been more apporpriate."I, Elles, personally can not think of an explanation of how a sentient mouse could have come about through natural forces. It was therefore designed by God... er... Walt Disney.
Other Comments by Elles
40. Comment #159188 by Peacebeuponme on April 11, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I wonder what mikejswalker's reclining woman looks like.Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
41. Comment #159195 by Frankus1122 on April 11, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Dr. Benway,Did you edit the second image?
I could have sworn they were identical a minute ago.
Also how do you embed an image in a post?
Other Comments by Frankus1122
43. Comment #159203 by Quine on April 11, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Quiddam, very nice indeed.Frankus1122, Just upload your image to an image sharing server (plenty of free ones) and when you get the URL you put it in the "img" tag such as:
<img
src="http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8354/howtofakerepo1285175226xl8.jpg"
border="0" alt="IDiot"/>
Which will get you this:
Other Comments by Quine
44. Comment #159217 by rthille on April 11, 2008 at 5:03 pm
This is one time where I think the $250,000/copy fine seems appropriate. This was willful, for commercial gain, not some kids downloading a song or CD from the net. I'd also charge them with the felony for the removal of the copyright if I were able...Other Comments by rthille
45. Comment #159218 by Frankus1122 on April 11, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Thanks Quine. Other Comments by Frankus1122
46. Comment #159247 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 11, 2008 at 6:25 pm
It makes me happy, though, that you decided to implicate your friends in print, on your blog (http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/expelled-plagiarizing-harvard/#comment-229619),
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That SO made my day. Rock on, David! How ironic to leave such an implication on a PUBLC blog. Oh, teh ironeez...tis deelishus! :)
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
47. Comment #159248 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 11, 2008 at 6:32 pm
My problem is that I'm equally suspicious of the ID people and the non-ID people because any charlatan could manipulate the evidence, and I don't know enough to be able to detect when I'm being lied to. What shold I do?
Get a second opinion, and why not a third? Do a bit of research on your own to get the gist, and ask other experts in the field questions. Learning something new can be fun and exciting. The important point is to ask questions.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
48. Comment #159249 by sent2null on April 11, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Oh I knew I was in for some fun reading when the email started with : "To the anti-ID community which is giving XVIVO support in our ideological battle against the microcephalic apostates of "Intelligent Design""
I laughed uncontrollably at that bold section, the rest was just icing. The record of the ID-iots plagiarism is plain for all to see.
Other Comments by sent2null
49. Comment #159265 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 7:38 pm
The stoopid..... it burns!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040808/content/01125112.guest.html
Other Comments by Dr Benway
50. Comment #159266 by quill on April 11, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Of course this kind of makes the case for them, since plagiarism is one of many things that actually does get people expelled. :/ Other Comments by quill
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Richard Dawkins
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
Mark Twain
"By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none."
Charlie Chaplin
"I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
Mark Twain
"The universe is a strange and wondrous place. The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudoscientific charlatans."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
Your Inner Fish
Neil Shubin
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #158982 by adamd164 on April 11, 2008 at 9:29 am
Take a look at the comparison for yourself, here.
Other Comments by adamd164