How stupid can they get? First it's discovered that the makers of the stupid propaganda movie were stealing some of their cell animations from XVIVO, and now it is revealed that other segments were ripped off from PBS. It's as if there isn't a single bit of creativity in the whole movie — they can't even lie imaginatively.
In related news, here's something really weird. Expelled is suing XVIVO! Oh, and take note of the bizarre complaint that I've put in bold in the middle of this freaky press release:
Premise Media is ready to challenge the unfounded copyright infringement claims asserted recently by representatives of XVIVO, LLC concerning original animation Premise Media created for the documentary, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.
On April 14, 2008, Premise Media filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. Premise Media also seeks its attorneys' fees in responding to the XVIVO claims.
The suit results from unfounded claims recently made by representatives of XVIVO. These claims have received wide distribution as part of an ongoing campaign attempting to discredit the film and its producers.
Premise Media has also learned of grass root efforts that are underway to try to influence the ranking of internet searches regarding Expelled by those wanting to learn about the film. Their stated goal is an attempt to counter-site those searchers to other websites that criticize the themes in the movie.
"We are not surprised that opponents of our film are attempting to interfere with its important message. As the movie documents, similar tactics are being used across the country against many of the researchers, scientists, and professors who want to engage in free debate within science but have inadequate resources to challenge the Establishment. However, we do have the platform to confront the 'thought police,' and we will work tirelessly to open the doors of free speech and inquiry," said Executive Producer and Premise Chairman Logan Craft.
Executive Producer Walt Ruloff noted that, "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed opens in over 1,000 theaters nationwide this Friday, April 18th. It is interesting that these efforts are made less than ten days before the movie debuts and involve those who continually seek to thwart open debate. While bullying tactics may work against some individuals who are trying to explore the origins of life, it will not work against us. We certainly will not allow a small group of self-appointed gatekeepers to infringe our rights of free speech and our obligation to expose them for what they are — namely, intellectual thugs unwilling to accept any dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy."
Ben Stein, the star of the movie, also makes it clear that no one will shut him up. "I came to this project unsure what I would find. I am now amazed at the intolerance of many academic elites. I feel that it is my mission to speak out on behalf of targeted dissenters and fight for their freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry."
Tell me…do you see anyone trying to shut Ben Stein up? Their faux macho posturing is not persuasive.
It is good to see that the NCSE's counter-site has made them cry.
- Log in to post comments
Expelled is the biggest pile of shit ever
Mere ethical quibbling in the face of Truth.
These Expelled guys just need to lay down before they hurt themselves.
In THREE days, the CRUSHING suppression of Big Science will begin to end - hope, learning, data, honesty, academic freedom, science and American values will return to this nation. THIS will be the end.
Ben Stein and Premise have done such an outstanding job of presenting the essence of the struggles of ID that no one could hope to express it more clearly or more adeptly: suppression, Communism, Marxism, the Discovery Institute, Creation, and Religion are all interwoven in this complex and deeply-moving attempt at film-making. Caroline Crocker and Ben Stein together express themselves in such a sticky, sweet melange of undeniable TRUTH that all viewers MUST realize the unity of their position. Such a match virtually shakes Evolution, Natural Selection and Darwinism to its very core.
In the end, there is no science unless it is God-born science, and there is no data unless it is God-born data. Anything falling short of this mark is not of the one True science, HIS Science.
Mathematically, the Du Gerdemain manifolds have unfortunately failed to provide the insight into reality that was needed to disprove evolution, but God will eventually guide me to the RIGHT theory and show to me how to find the CORRECT data. In no way will HE allow the HUMAN SLAG of the DECEIVER's blogs to influence my research.
Intelligent Design follows the truth back to the reality that God is the Designer of the Universe. Each intricate part of every living thing was crafted first in the Will of the Creator and is expressed in whole by His Omnipotence in the reality which is all around. The Designer's WILL is sufficient in itself and of itself.
Why do you Hell-seekers deny the Truth? Why do you HATE the LOVE of God? Has Satan promised you a corner office and a wonderful life? A Voluptuous Maiden? A Handsome Man? A Skeptical Woman? A Thinking Man? Money? Riches? Gold? Baubles? A Paltry Few Data Points? A Least Squares Fit? How cheaply have you sold you ETERNAL souls for such a meager sum? Your linear regression will take you STRAIGHT to HELL. Nudge the data here, get a professorship. Nudge the data there, become a fellow. Fudge the data a little more, gain a Chair. Expel a colleague, become a dean. It is time for the DATA-WHORES to repent their EVIL lies. Follow the TRUTH and REPENT. One should not doubt the seriousness of this situation. The WORD is that It will end badly for those who do.
REMEMBER the TRUTH in this FILM! It will be the only thing that SAVES you.
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
And I've given up on paying much attention to them. I can't even get up the energy to get banned from Kevein 11's blog. This last week or so my blog has been mostly about Battlestar Galactica:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-of-one-dissapointing-part.h…
#4 Your linear regression will take you STRAIGHT to HELL.
This is like the "That's right...doggie style!" line in Edward Current's evolution video. Nice!
Um, Mark, (#4) that's nice and all, but you seem to be missing the point of the posting; Expelled is made with plagiarized animation. That's both illegal and unethical. Check the Bible, under "Thou shalt not steal."
Also, if you actually look at the facts, it would appear that the Expelled film is made by a pack of liars.
It really boggles the mind how "moral" people (religious nutcases) can so dramatically demonstrate their true colors. It almost seems like they really don't believe their god is watching them...? Maybe they think he doesn't care, as long as they're doing "his work?" If so, then why write the Commandments (Suggestionments?) in the first place? Sheesh!!
Is "Mike Witt" another of that "Rev. Hipple" guy/gal's loki-monikers?
As is likely the case with very many people here, I can no longer tell, except by calculating the ratio of upper- to lower-case letters used (and that's become to much of a bother to more than eyeball estimate).
If a parody, it's a nice try, but I frankly couldn't finish it - there were no tricky hooks or in-jokes to hint at its being satiric.
If serious, it was too stupidly McCreationist to even be annoying.
This is about as bad as taking the first paragraph of a student paper and having it show up verbatim on google. It's not even skillful theft.
#4
Well, there goes any pretense that Intellegent Design isn't religion...
Oh and Mark this line: "In the end, there is no science unless it is God-born science, and there is no data unless it is God-born data. Anything falling short of this mark is not of the one True science, HIS Science."
I couldn't find a better example of fascism even if I tried. You, my friend, are no different then the Islamic terrorists.
Anywho...
I've spent the last couple hours going around to different sites and blogs posting the link to Expelledexposed. I had to stop after what I was reading began to make me feel physically ill.
I wish I could say I am surprised, but I'm not...not anymore.
apparently, nothing related to this film company's underlying lack of ethical conduct surprises me now...
and please...someone tell me that #4 is a badly done parody? I'm too tired to muddle though deadpan nonsense. If it's not a parody, please don't destroy my illusions, or I'll have to join ERV in head-banging-on-desk activities.
(like being in Winnipeg for a month isn't going to drive me to that anyway!)
#4 got me going. I assumed it was a satire until the deep crazy became apparent, ie, no sense of humour detected.
This movie is a bloody joke. Did they not think anyone would notice? Now that I think of it, since their intended audience doesn't exactly hang out in university libraries, maybe that's what they thought would go down.
I'll throw together a bunch of beedios from YouTube, grab some snazzy artwork here and there, interview some people without telling them the actual angle and call myself Cecil B. Fucking DeMille.
This has to be one of the most farcical, weak attempts at infotainment in cinematic history. Makes me wonder if that was actually the goal - to show these ID people up for the buffoons they really are.
Can't get enough bad news about this film and not only because I find Stein repulsive and boring.
If evolution were the only theory that mattered then why worry so much about what other people think?
The expelled movie has taken up more articles on the blog than anything else. If what you know is true and can be proven is fact (as you make it out to be), then there should be no worry and no effort put forth to try to prove them wrong. The evidence itself is supposed to prove them wrong and thus you are adding more to make them seem legit.
It seems like someone is really scared of something if you put so much effort to combat them instead of just using the evidence that is backed by your logic to prove them wrong.
Personally their science isn't science at all but you offer nothing better. As I have stated before, the evidence that you try to provide might be real, but the world view behind it is what is flawed and thus your theory is flawed.
What if there wasn't an ice age billions of years ago, what if there was something else that happened. Because you try to look at the current data and fossil evidence that might suggest what you say is true, it might not be. You can't really observe what happened to the evidence and how it came to be, you can only make an educated guess.
In a lot of cases science isn't exact. Most yes can be proven without a doubt, but there are some grey areas and those grey areas always get defended on here like it is the gospel truth.
To say science is always right in itself is wrong. That is why the more information we learn, the more questions that we ask, but we are still learning and will continue to learn. So things we thought were right years ago, are old and outdated. I know I am stating the obvious here, but it is simply not said enough and hugely underscored.
Science should be about learning and going through the maturing process. It should not be based on arrogance.
That is why I simply can't stand PZ Myers because he doesn't just try to prove things, he just simply gives his opinion on why they are wrong. Opinions are not enough.
We don't need to hear what you think about religion, we need to see what a mature person thinks about biology. Biology has nothing to do with religion, it is a science.
Adding your political and opinions about religion just clutter up the work that could be done if you focused on improving our lives with science.
I really don't care what PZ myers thinks about religion or ID and he should not focus on things like this because it is pointless to focus on something that does not help your case.
This is why I really don't respect PZ Myers and honestly, I would never take his classes. I just do not find him honest enough and less biased enough to even trust him or his opinions on things. If a scientist cannot be objective, what is the point?
Before anyone (else) gets caught by Poe's Law, check the sig:
Intelligent Design, Institute of Theory. I believe that's the giveaway. :^)
Mark,
you said, "God will eventually guide me to the RIGHT theory" ...and he has...it's right here in this blog and the links from it. Evolution is how it happened, brother! No six days, no Adam and Eve, no talking snakes...none of that crap. And it was no miracle either, it was information garnered from and backed by OBSERVABLE evidence! Having blind-faith in a 2000 year old book of contradiction, hyperbole and myth about an invisible god is only going to get you confused. Help us all, look up "cognitive dissonance."
Hey, good news! Barack Obama comes foursquare down in favor of keeping religion out of science classrooms!
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/obama-science-in-science-cla…
Thanks, Kevin. As I said, I didn't get that far, but suspected as much.
Point of friendly criticism to Mike W., foreshadow the punchline early in your parody, just capitalization isn't quite enough. But practice makes prfect.
;)
And if Expelled really were an attempt to make IDists look bad, how would it differ from what these yahoos have done?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
A new posting at UncommonDescent reveals breaking news!!!!!
Premise Media sued XVIVO L.L.C. yesterday. See the lawsuit:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-3:2008cv00639/cas…
Amazing.
==========================================================
Planet Killer:
Why believe PZ...read it yourself...
Intro to Evolution
It's written so even you can understand it.
#20 What the...? Why is Premise suing XVIVO? Because XVIVO had the idea first, before Premise ripped it off? Legal types, please sound off and enlighten us.
Wake up, people.
Mark Witt gives his affiliation as
In case that's too obscure, let me rearrange it a bit.
I hope this helps.
#13 Caveat - The problem is that it doesn't matter how poorly made the film is, or how much they lied or stole. It is still giving validity to the people who already believe. As I was saying before, I was trying to post links to expelledexposed into other blogs (ie Baptist blogs, yahoo movies, fandango, IMDB, ABC, and anywhere I found a positive review) and you wouldn't believe the crap I was seeing. These people have already been fooled into believing in "Big Science", they are already talking about "mobilizing" and "putting the smack down" on these "arrogant old fogies" who are denying our children and teachers the greatest of all American rights "Free Speech".
Regardless of how poorly made it is, regardless of the lies, regardless of any refutation, things are going to get ugly because of this film. They have already succeeded in starting a dangerous conspiracy theory even before the release of the film that will have significant ramifications for years to come. To the religious extreme which makes up a large percentage of our population (large enough to be really dangerous) "Big Science" is trying to oppress them and is ultimately conspiring to destroy all religion. These people will fight against that whether it really exists or not and education and the science community will be the victims. And don't be surprised when they decide to come at us with subjugation and violence.
Its like a street thug tries to steal your iPod. You punch him, and he sues you for his hospital bills.
Any word on if they stole from Blade Runner or The Matrix yet? If I were them, those would be prime models to steal from.
Planet Killer wrote:
Sorry, but statements like this really kill your argument. Do you even know why this is wrong? Science is a process, a way of learning. I'm sure you mean "scientists" or the "scientific consensus", but if that's the case, then say so.
No one claims the scientific consensus is always right, and those that do tend to be people who are already well indoctrinated into an infallible, strict, and hierarchical belief system.
What makes scientists confident in their theories are the volumes of data that support them. Evolution is so incredibly rich with evidence that it would take a massive amount of evidence to convince scientists that an alternative theory is correct. What the IDiots provide are lies, wishful thinking, and no data whatsoever.
Note to self: always check to see what else has been posted since you started writing and compulsively reformatting and re-previewing your own post.
They truly are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't they? Any chance that if they ever get to trial (for the suit or countersuit or any of the RIAA suits that are bound to happen with their use of non-bought music) that they'll get John Jones as a judge? Because that would be awesome.
Anyone else having trouble opening www.expelledexposed.com ?
Is the server down or what? Dum dum duuummmmmm.
In case that's too obscure, let me rearrange it a bit.
Intelligent
Design,
Institute
Of
Theory.
I hope this helps.
Posted by: noncarborundum | April 15, 2008 9:32 PM
I think that would be the first case of subliminal institutional honesty I've seen from the creationists/ ID advocates! Here's to hopping they keep it up. If anything, I just want to see if Witt rearranges his signature block...
Shorter version of the Premise media lawsuit:
LEEROOOOYYYY nnnJENNNNKINS!!!!!
Well, I suppose it could boost their attendance as people go see this movie to find out if their work has been stolen by the good and godly folks at Premise Media.
Witt's a parodist. An astonishingly consistent one, who never breaks rabid character, and one who has fooled many of us (me, for one) in the past. Which makes me wonder...where's JanieBelle been lately?
That you, Lou FCD Mark?
So this is Intelligent Design in action: rampant plagiarism. Makes sense, really. If you truly believe goddidit, that's pretty well all you can really say: goddidit. There's no puzzle, no Aha! moment, no unique understanding of some facet of the universe that you can share with everyone else--every paper will be a plagiarised version of the one before. "Goddidit." That's all there really is. Hell, if you already know that goddidit, then why do research at all? We're done. We know it all. What's next, How did goddoit? Who fucking cares? The bible said hedidit, we know hedidit, there's nothing else. Science is brought to a screeching halt.
And so Expelled is the best possible advertisement for Intelligent Design: a cheap, hastily cribbed together cop-out that exquisitely broadcasts its creators' general incompetence and lack of imagination. On whom are they going to blame their desperate plagiarism? The Evilutionists? "Your Honour, I was expelled and discriminated against by the Darwinists, so I totally didn't have time to create my own animations based on my own understanding of biology, so I had to copy theirs...." They can claim we're censoring them all they want, but how can they blame us when everything in their own movie is a blatant work of evolutionists? They had their 15 minutes, and they blew it.
Expelled explains them and their motivations better than we ever could: "We want in, but we don't want to have to do any work. We'll crib your evidence to suit the story we were told at our mother's knee so we won't have to strain our brains at all. We'll even steal your animations! After all, you've got no higher reason to live: you sweat out the long hours examining petri dishes and pouring over data--we're too busy basking in our faith in God's Divine Certainty to dirty our hands. Can we have our tenure and our cheques now?"
I wonder if we should be promoting this movie.
I like Mark Witt, but, unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible), today's comment wasn't the best.
Not seeing why the US court in Texas has jurisdiction. It is a federal case. But XVIVO is in Connecticut. You have to file these suits in courts where the company is doing business.
Looks like either they screwed up or they aren't really serious.
If I was XVIVO, I'd have it transferred to New England.
From the Texas docket link: "Cause: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation"
Antitrust. That, right there, is comedy gold.
Yeah, obviously a parody but I'm in a hurry today so I didn't really savour it. I'm glad someone pointed out the IDIOT joke; in my hurry, I missed it, though I thought the "Institute of Theory" alone was a giveaway.
And when they withdraw the suit, next week or next month, that will not be a loss for them, oh no. That will be just the next move in their cunning chess game which will inevitably end with The Evilutionist King toppled (that would be Richard Dawkins) and his Pawn (that would be PZ) served up with breaded calamari for Logan Craft's lunch.
This thing will beat out the Bible for Biggest Pile O' Bullshite Ever.
I wonder if we should be promoting this movie.
Don't get all crazy now, Brownian. :)
So if someone made a video that showed Expelled, but with a newly dubbed voice-over telling how stupid and plagiarized every bit of it was, would they have any grounds to complain about infringing on their movie since most of it was never really theirs to begin with?
I think it's weird that these people, who insist that for anything to exist it needs a creator, in this ONE INSTANCE refuse to acknowledge the ACTUAL creator of something. I guess god told them to steal. Or maybe it evolved in their computer spontaneously.
And thee-erre goes my irony meter. Bye-bye, irony meter.
I was worried that the Expelled Exposed website wasn't catchy enough — not enough video, no cyclically changing factoids on the front page — but if it's got the creeping moral degenerates of Premise Media this upset, it can't be all bad. My guess is that they had such low hopes of defending themselves in court that they decided to go on the offense instead.
I tried to visit ExpelledExposed website and my browser said the site is not responding. Either the site is legitimately overloaded with hits or it's experiencing a denial of service attack.
The only people that's going to win from this whole mess is the lawyers.
Oh yeah.
Expelled
Expelled Exposed has been overloaded. That thing has been linked to all over the internet -- It has quickly become a major phenomenon.
Tomorrow, Premise Media will use this to claim Expelled is the #1 most popular subject on the interwebs.
How is it that we're both grassroots and elite?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Haha... damn. I was enjoying the new design.
But they have the right to free speech--without having anybody criticize them (no freedom of speech for thee).
That's the only way to make sense of their "movie" as well, since they clearly can blither on about it as much as they like. The persecution of having facts used against them, however, is absolutely intolerable and unfair to those such as they who have no command of the facts.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#47
The same way we have an all-powerful global conspiracy suppressing absolutely all free thought, yet our stupid server gets overloaded.
ummm.... injunction to delay the premier of Expelled anyone? I'd say their counter-suit is intended to (a) create publicity (is that one of Mathis's tools for PR?) and (b) delay a possible ruling until then.
Get Jeremy Irons on it stat!!
Premise Media has also learned of grass root efforts that are underway to try to influence the ranking of internet searches regarding Expelled by those wanting to learn about the film. Their stated goal is an attempt to counter-site those searchers to other websites that criticize the themes in the movie.
We are not surprised that opponents of our film are attempting to interfere with its important message.
Therefore, we must ban free speech in order to suppress all criticism of ID! How dare people think they can question authority or bring information to the public!
Yes, the NCSE site is overloaded.
Oops. Forgot I could use blockquote tags here. Correction:
Therefore, we must ban free speech in order to suppress all criticism of ID! How dare people think they can question authority or bring information to the public!
Premise Media has also learned of grass root efforts that are underway to try to influence the ranking of internet searches regarding Expelled by those wanting to learn about the film.
Be still my heart! Not a grassroots effort?! And to think that I thought this effort was organized and sanctioned by "Big Science". What a letdown...
I haven't read many of the other comments, so if I'm repeating somebody's post inadvertently, kindly tell me to shut up.
Anyways, has anyone ever thought of the possibility that the reason behind Expelled's tightly-guarded private screenings and non-disclosure agreements was specifically because they were aware of their own blatantly-plagiarized material, and were unwilling to expose it to the general public? That seems like a typical underhanded strategy: bulldoze the film into theatres and generate some bucks from their foaming fanbase, before those pesky XVIVO folks can disrupt the movie from entering theatres in the first place by bringing to light their theft of intellectual property. They may have attempted to keep the movie locked down to their supporters, who are either too dumb to recognize the lifted segments, or too loyal to the message to do the right thing.
But seriously, this whole counter-suit thing is hilarious; they can't even respond to legal jargon without foaming at the mouth about the EVIL DARWINISTS and their Gestapo thugs. I especially like how they try to appear as if they're the downtrodden underdogs yearning to breathe free in a sea of oppression. Hmm, let's see, who has more funds at their disposal to burn in court, Premise (backed by the entire creationist movement), or XVIVO?
"I have the American right to teach your children that palm trees are actually insects, and you EVIL taxonomists will never stand in the way of my free speech!"
Y'know, reading this post one thing struck me: XVIVO has said they believe this is infringing on their copyright, but don't have the funds to pursue legal action at this time.
So what do the producers of the film do? They sue XVIVO knowing their target doesn't have the finances for a long, drawn-out suit.
I smell someone trying to win a settlement on the cheap, before another group funds XVIVO's copyright claim. Here's hoping a group like the EFF can step in and wallop the film producers.
While that is a very pleasant image to savor, I think you mean Peter Irons...
Sorry Mark (#4), but if there is a "great beyond" called Heaven and it's filled with liars, crooks, egotism, ignorance, and denial of facts like Expelled is, I want no part of it. There are too many conspiracy kooks already, claiming how they have evidunce (misspelling intentional) that all known facts are wrong and how the kooks are going to supposedly save us from those conspirators whose facts can't accurately be disputed nor countered. And like any other good joke, it's funny at first, but becomes more and more annoying each time you hear it.
In short, this revolution is unlikely to happen. At most, the science which treats you when you're ill, comforts you with modern devices like your computer, and ensures you the comforts you've grown accustomed to like more and better food, will find it harder to progress due to increased restrictions. More so than it is already.
they are chalking the sidewalks for expelled at the ohio state university. i saw it today when i was going to get dinner across campus. :*(
Holy shit people, I was just watching "The Universe" program on the Science channel and guess who had a commercial for their delightful propaganda movie? Yes thats right Expelled. It was only about 10 seconds long and the commercial didn't even say what it was about. I just saw a brief flash of Ben Stein and then "Expelled in theaters April 18th".
I'm actually appalled that a channel that promoted such great programs would allow these douchebags to advertise with them.
Perhaps since the commercial was kind of ambiguous it slipped through.
Call me an 'elitist self-appointed gatekeeper,' but...
I really don't get the accusation that scientists are elitists for not letting any old crackpot theory equal time. I mean aren't there certain arenas in life where we expect quality control? I won't call my doctor an elitist for insisting on doing surgery herself rather than handing me the knife.
That's not elitism, it's occupational specialization.
bah
OK, I give up. Was that a funny send up by Mark Witt or ... the other thing? I can't tell anymore. They're all so stupid, the spoofs have to work real hard to get by. I thought it was straight from the Onion, then I followed the link and all the links on that site seem pretty straight fundieloonytoons.
How to shut Ben Stein up? Pay him more money that they did.
@57 I hope that is their idea. XVIVO does not have the funds to do this on their own. Harvard wont do anything until the movie comes out. And, considering their work is XVIVOs work, I doubt Harvard will leave them hanging.
And, if you read my blag link above, now EXPELLED has the Howard Hughes Medical Institute on their asses.
They are full fledged retards if they dont take the animation out and proclaim 'OMG TEH DARWINIZT SUPPRESSED MEH MOVAH!'
I want an Intelligent Design Institute of Theory t-shirt.
"They are full fledged retards if they dont take the animation out and proclaim 'OMG TEH DARWINIZT SUPPRESSED MEH MOVAH!'"
This is clearly part of their plan.
Yeah, we have to let them through, otherwise we're doing it "again"...
To PZ:
People would love to shut Ben Stein up by closing down this movie. They are trying to figure out a way to do so if they can, whether by bogus threats of lawsuits or anything else.
The Establishment, thought police, Darwinian, and academic elites.
That's probably all that the IDiots who come over here are ever going to read. Too bad that they didn't include liberal, the media, ACLU, and "the left". The mantra feels so empty without those words.
RE: #14
"As I have stated before, the evidence that you try to provide might be real, but the world view behind it is what is flawed and thus your theory is flawed."
Let me see if I understand this. The facts are real but because you don't agree with the people presenting them, the facts are no longer real?
Is that right?
I'm sure XVIVO will be represented pro bono.
The lawyer will be rewarded when Premise Media loses.
Wazza (#47), see Sven (#34). And if I.D.I.O.T. wasn't enough, can I really be the first to pick up on "Auguste du (= French de le) Gerdemain"?
The IDiots probably took your "CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY APPARATUS DIRECTIVE" made-up organization title seriously, too. Pathetic.
And if someone does indeed want to "learn about the film," then I can't think of a better site than Expelled Exposed
People would love to shut Ben Stein up by closing down this movie. They are trying to figure out a way to do so if they can, whether by bogus threats of lawsuits or anything else.
I must admit that I've wanted to shut Ben Stein up for years, especially back when he was doing those advertisements for Visine. Man, those were annoying.
However, in this case, the group that is running to launch a lawsuit is Premise Media. Harvard was obviously waiting on the release.
How does Sven's point (which I already knew about, having encountered the Intelligent Design Institute Of Theory before) impact on mine?
I was asking about the Expelled Crew's statement, in which they claim that there's a grassroots campaign, then call their opponents elitist
RE: #14
I don't think you understand ToE, or science in general. Not only are there MANY fields of study that highly indicate ToE (including things that Darwin never foresaw, such as genetics, the understanding of which relies almost entirely on evolution as a process), but most of modern biology is built on the foundation of processes such as natural selection and mutation. Hell, we watch these things happen every day! Ever heard of antibiotic resistance?
Anybody who denies that evolution exists either knows absolutely nothing about modern biology, absolutely refuses to believe in hard evidence because it conflicts with their worldview, or both.
#69, they're ridiculing the movie, not trying to shut it down. I'd imagine some would prefer if the propaga- I mean objective documentary was never made, but now that it has been I would think few people want to actually shut it down. Unlike fundamentalists, most normal people prefer not to be complete hypocrites.
I can't believe it. You linked to [url=http://expelledexposed.com/]Expelled[/url] yet again! How dare you try to repress the fine folks who produced [url=http://expelledexposed.com/]Expelled.[/url] Their pseudoscience must be [url=http://expelledexposed.com/]Expelled.[/url]
This is great news.
If the filmmakers are really serious about their accusations (hard to tell at times), then they're no doubt thinking they're just turning the tables or some such righteous horse-pucky.
But I seriously doubt that any court in America would uphold such a baseless suit, and would open their lawyers up to harassment charges.
These goofballs keep punching themselves and think that the spectators are cheering for them.
Re: #69
Following up on #78's point...
You seem to be mistaking "shutting Ben Stein up" or "closing down this movie" with "countering its claims with well-researched, established facts." Yes, I realize it's easy to make this mistake when you so fervently buy into an idea that you willingly gouge out your eyes in the face of contrary evidence.
They can't help but lie.
They are disgusting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbxaT_m8daw&feature=related
So...under what legal theory does Premise Media sue XVIVO? One guess is a declaratory judgment. Premise alleges that they do not infringe XVIVO's copyright, and that XVIVO is wrongly saying that they are, so let's settle this right now. The other guess is tortious interference with a business interest. Premise might claim that XVIVO has no standing to sue on the copyright, possibly because they no longer own it. XVIVO's actions would then wrongly damage Premise's reputation (smirk).
The ownership question is, AFAICS, the biggest outstanding legal issue. But, even if Harvard owns the copyright, the XVIVO authors retain some personal rights under the Visual Artists' Rights Act of 1990 (VARA); see 17 USC 106A. I've never had occasion to get involved with that question personally.
PK at number 14 is making the same statement he's been making for weeks, that we don't engage with their ideas.
The reason for that, of course, is that it's impossible to wrestle smoke.
I always find it funny when people complain that a blogger shouldn't be blogging about what they're blogging about.
Disagree with their positions vociferously, fine... but "I don't like you and I don't respect you because you always blog about X when I think you should be blogging about Y?" That just strikes me as stupid.
There are plenty of other blogs out there, Planet Killer. If you don't like what this blogger blogs about, try another one. Maybe even here on, ya know - ScienceBlogs.
Any possibility of the mighty Seed media empire setting up a mirror site?
Steve_C @ #82
Oh my FSM.. they just went after Gravity. Cue to around 2:40 in the linked youtube clip and listen to him.
Does anybody actually think we'd try to "Shut up" Ben Stein? The stupidity he routinely displays in these promotional engagements does far more to hurt their cause then help it.
D'oh.. my bad on the blockquotes. "They are disgusting." and the linked clip are from Steve_C.
Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but has anyone noticed that Expelled Exposed is now on the first page of Google, fourth from the top? That is when you search for Expelled, as well.
Good job, Pharyngulites (and others)!
Unless I am (once again) not understanding how teh internet works, this has all happened in one day. It was on the sixth page just yesterday.
It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Once can be considered coincidence, but twice starts becoming a pattern. It makes me wonder how many copyright clearances for music and film clips the producers neglected to get. My guess is it will turn out to be more than a handful. Hope they have deep enough pockets to afford all the litigation after Expelled tanks at the box office. They probably do, as from all evidence, no actual money (or skill, or research, or intelligence) went into making the film in the first place.
http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?q=expelled&date=2008-4-15&sa=X
This is fantastic, by the way.
On the first Google page when you search for Expelled, "expelledthemovie" naturally takes the first two spots, then the wikipedia entry, which bashes the film, and then....
(4) expelledexposed
(5) Pharyngula: EXPELLED!
(6) 'Lying for Jesus?' by Richard Dawkins
(7) Stupid youtube trailer
(8) NCSE Resource
(9) Time Magazine Reviews 'Expelled' - The Panda's Thumb
#74, perhaps you should read the comments responding to #4. If people can't see that is an attempt at satire, then it's kind of hypocritical to criticize Creationists for making the same mistake. I doubt they really did think that was serious, but the fact that some people who read Pharyngula are attempting to bring up the Google listing of Expelled Exposed is true, regardless of the fictional title of P.Z.'s post.
Poe's Law, people!
Mark Witt? "I.D.I.o.T"?
Excellent job, SA. Keep up the great work.
Wazza, my apologies. Your comment #47 was not the one I was responding to. And in fact I don't see it now. It was either a browser glitch or a brain cramp, probably the latter. The illogic of "grassroots elitism" is so common these days, I've come to think of it as a principal characteristic of Homo normalis.
Just posted this on the Expelled blog:
You know, with the millions that Ruloff has sunk into this mendacious piece of propaganda that would make Goebbels proud, between production and distribution, he could have done something much smarter:
He could have bought a laboratory, outfitted it with scanning electron microscopes and the latest research equipment, given lifetime research grants to all those poor "expelled" scientists (they wouldn't even have to waste time teaching like they would as a tenured University preofessor) and told them to do all the ID research they could imagine! Surely then with the avalanche of brilliant discoveries that would flow like honey, it would be trivial to convert all those mean doubting Thomas scientists, no?
And then why don't Ruloff and Stein and Mathis et al. mount a campaign against medical and drug companies as well? Why just Universities? Why aren't Christians burning crosses out in front of Merck, Pfizer, Roche, etc etc. demanding that they start developing new drugs using the principles of ID instead of stuffy old evolution-based cellular biology? We could surely cure AIDS, cancer, and the common cold by next month with such brilliant science!
But IDers aren't soinf this. Why not? Could it be because the lying shills of Creationism-with-the-serial-numbers-filed-off ID know very well that they CAN'T produce any real science? That their "theory" is nothing but a load of hot air that explains nothing and predicts nothing, and can only be kept alive by shoving it down the throats of people who are doing real work to advance knowledge? THink about it.
I left a comment that included the word "Spurlock" in it at the Expelled blog. However, their server is extremely slammed right now.
I hope PBS sues. I'd up my contribution.
Amazing, particularly how they're suing in Texas when Harvard is in Connecticut -
I watched the video, and it was loaded with problems. That bit at 2:40 about an intelligent designer keeping the planets from falling - did he actually suggest that they should teach "Intelligent Falling" in science classrooms? And then he said that no speciation has ever occurred - when we have already observed this. Forget about ambulocetus - we've seen speciation in real-time. And to say that no one has ever answered their claims is ludicrous.
I've just got to ask, who is that gal smiling and nodding behind Stein in the clip? Very annoying smirk.
I notice that Expelled Exposed does a good job debunking the claims of the film. Keep it up.
There are Expelled ads on TV every other commercial break during the Daily Show and Colbert Report. I guess it's nice that they're blowing their ad money on one of the audiences least likely to be receptive to their message? I'm sick of seeing the ads though.
pcarini:
What an astonishingly deluded fool Stein is.
It may be that this movie will serve to bring this particular conflict between superstition and science to a head. If so, bring it on. Let's make this a national debate. "20 20", "60 Minutes", morning shows, the works. This is the age of communication, and this is a time when real scientists can speak and be heard. Science has the truth on its side, and truth seeking people are more intelligent, more passionate, and far more resilient than whiners for Jesus. Scientists investigate and do research, they pray. Go ahead Ben Stein and company, rouse the sleeping dog. It's a great time for the masses to become educated.
Aw, man, Expelled took my comment down.
Must have said "bullshit" one too many times.
Encouraging theatre-hopping might have been what did it, though. You know, pay to see the Spurlock movie, then sneak into "Expelled!", and scream "BULLSHIT!" when you see any bullshit?
Yeah, that one.
With any luck they will line up a showing at the White House, winning a double "thumbs up!" by pResident Bu--sh-- and "Man-sized safe" Cheney. It would tank the movie completely, especially when photos reveal Cheney eating deep-fried Iraqi infant organs instead of popcorn.
RamblinDude: Just to clarify, that link and "They are disgusting." comment was from Steve_C, I just mis-blockquoted. I agree, of course, but credit where it is due.
Inoculated Mind:
Unless we're talking a different Harvard, I think you mean Massachusetts. Massholes, not Conneticunts*
*I accept no responsibility for either term. Both are terms I heard residents of one state call residents of the other
Bah.. 100% error rate in my posts tonight. That should be "Connecticunts", not "Conneticunts".
I'm starting to believe that I no longer exist in reality. Tomorrow, we'll all wake up and Expelled, and the circus that seems to have followed it into town, will have been just an odd dream to be forgotten over toast and coffee.
Then again, we're all having too much fun for this to end so soon.
Kinetic Aunts? My favorite band!
Harvard : Massachusetts :: Yale : Connecticut
Personally, I look forward to the statements issued by the "Intelligent Design, Institute of Theory".
Mark provides the script, and I have to imagine for myself the slick hair, porcelain teeth, white suit, southern accent and hand-waving and bible-thumping.
Ohhh, how I laugh!
I haven't seen a "DEMONS OUT!!!" yet, but the anticipation is fun...
I remember reading that they have a top intellectual property lawyer on their team. Bear in mind they've had years to work on their case and probably had this planned all along.
I know that it is unlikely to be the case but my thought is this. Do you suppose they might use this as an excuse to postpone releasing the movie on Friday by saying they need to clear up the lawsuit they have launched first?
That way they can save face with the people when they lose the lawsuit by spinning the story around and saying that it is further proof of the death grip Big Science has on the education system.Then they can remove the evidence of plagiarism and weep to their flock about how much this is proof of their claims.
Since there cannot be anyway they could possibly win in court and since they are not really concerned with science it just seems to me that they can only make it to their advantage if they deflect the problem by setting you guys up to seem like you are suppressing them which is the focus they seem to want to employ here.
As I said it is probably wrong but it does make me wonder.We shall see on the 18th.
Fly, Fly, my pretties!
You are right Nick #105 this is too much fun!
PK you have a coprolite brain, why PZ puts up with you must be some comic fetish.
Non illegitimi corborundum!
Re: #108
What are they gonna do? Bleed on me?
What a massive bag o' hammers equals the intellectual powers of Andrew!
"Bear in mind they've had years to work on their case and probably had this planned all along."
After seeing the spectacular failure of so many of their "plans" lately, I have to say that I'm incredulous.
I grabbed a copy of the complaint from the court web site. It spends quite a bit of effort to make the case that Texas is an appropriate venue. This particular court is a favorite among venue shoppers.
I would post it where everyone could read it but even though it is only 16 pages it is a 1.4MB pdf and I don't have that much space handy. It is interesting reading and I particularly like the claim:
"47. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that XVIVO does not have a copyright or intellectual property interest in the Inner Life Video or any models, processes, or depictions in the Inner Life Video."
They also use a term I hadn't seen before: "Darwinianists".
No, you can sue wherever it is 'convenient' and somehow Texas is a very lawsuit friendly place. Although XVIVO did not threaten with a lawsuit, Expelled has filed for declaratory judgement which basically is a request for the courts to resolve the issue.
The courts may throw out the request depending on the details of the case, or they may decide to hear it. In either case, the issue will be the alleged copyright infringement by Premise Media.
Will make for some interesting theater.
In case it hasn't been already, feel free to digg here: http://digg.com/movies/Ben_Stein_s_Expelled_Plagiarizes_Again
No, you can sue wherever it is 'convenient' and somehow Texas is a very lawsuit friendly place. Although XVIVO did not threaten with a lawsuit, Expelled has filed for declaratory judgement which basically is a request for the courts to resolve the issue.
The courts may throw out the request depending on the details of the case, or they may decide to hear it. In either case, the issue will be the alleged copyright infringement by Premise Media.
Will make for some interesting theater.
"Ben Stein, the star of the movie, also makes it clear that no one will shut him up."
Huh? I thought it was that foot in his mouth that gagged him!
If the makers of Expelled are sued successfully, what does that mean? Will they have to edit the film, or will they just be out of a lot of money?
Both, unless the settlement includes permission for them to use it
and I can't see that happening.
As a World of Warcraft player, the use of the term "aggro" pleases me, especially since it also carries connotations of wading into areas for which one is less ready or not capable.
Leeeroooy Jenkins indeed. ERV, did you put him up to this? :)
Biggest.
Wankers.
Ever.
First post here, yay. Anyway...
Has anyone given the thought, cynical though it may be, that they are actively trying to get enough companies and whatnot to sue them and trying to not get it shown at all?
Hear me out, though my ability to explain in words is woeful I'll do my best.
-Make a Movie about how 'Big Science' opresses IDiots.
-Lie, cheat, steal, etc.
-PR, PR, PR etc.
-Get sued by XVIVO and everyone else they have plagiarised from.
-Claim that 'Big Science' is opressing them.
-Movie never gets shown.
-Expelled 2, Expelled is opressed. etc.
Perhaps Expelled: The Sequel: Definitely No Intelligence Allowed will air before the original?
http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/its-now-wednesday/
^_^
Expelled. Am I doin it rite?
As I said before in #69, Darwinists would love to shut this movie down.
They would love it if there were some legal means of forcing it to be closed down.
You can see this in the excitement all over the Darwinist blogosphere when XVIVO released their cease and desist note in an obvious attempt to intimidate the producers of "Expelled". And now it looks like the producers are playing a bit of hardball in return, which hopefully will teach XVIVO and their Darwinist fans that it is not so easy to shut a movie down just because you do not like it.
Of course there will be the usual childish name-calling that goes on here and at Pandas Thumb, and that passes for debate. Obviously, shutting down the movie is not an option, however much Darwinists might fantasise about it.
But so what? Anyone can see that the Darwinists are very, very worried about this movie and its possible impact on the culture wars.
I wonder how well Gonzalez would do at suing Iowa State in the aftermath of this movie?
Let's see what happens, starting Friday...
"But so what? Anyone can see that the Darwinists are very, very worried about this movie and its possible impact on the culture wars."
And remember folks, ID is all about science.
"As I said before in #69, Darwinists would love to shut this movie down."
Everybody flog Hugh harder, he needs his persecution fix.
Hugh, I want to tell you how wrong you are, but I worry about coming up against Poe's Law
it's not that the film is a threat to us, it's just that it's such a compendium of lies that we don't want anyone to see it after being told it's the truth. We actually want it shown, but only if the people who see it actually realise how wrong it is.
By the way, CHRISTIANS ARE ALL NAZIS
how does that make you feel?
If it hurts you, apply the ever-so-christian Golden Rule and consider how it makes us feel.
Oh, except atheists don't have feelings, right?
#123, Hugh Slaman said:
If I see a Darwinist, I'll ask him. But as an evolutionist, I am very concerned of any positive impact this movie could have on science education or legislation, or the possibility of it taken seriously by anyone who has more than two brain cells to rub together. I'm already embarrassed enough by what goes on in this country that, when I travel abroad, I point to the maple leaf patch on my backpack and tell everybody I'm from Canada. This would be one more thing I'd have to act sheepish about.
I'm thinking not very well at all considering that he was denied tenure as a result of his piss-poor work ethic and complete lack of awarded grants.
Now, I know you enjoy tying your burning stupid to his denial of tenure, but, and this may be asking far too much, you should try to live in reality (if for no other reason than the fact that the courts exist in reality).
Aside from that, the only thing people are worried about is figuring out a way of repairing the damage this collection of lies and stolen material will inevitably inflict upon young minds as our educators will be forced to clean up the results of this feculent pseudo-science.
Whatever happens, I'm going to bet that it's not going to convince anyone to do any scientific research involving Intelligent Design, especially not any of its proponents.
Tyler,
ID ought to be all about science. But what happens when there are barriers to pursuing certain scientific projects due to ideology and culture? Then you have to wage a culture war to give science a chance.
For an idea of what I think ID ought to be like, see "The Design Matrix" by Mike Gene. He is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, or with Demsbki. See www.idthink.net He is way more interesting, sophisticated, and creative on these issues than, say, Dawkins or Myers. Unfortunately, he has to hide behind a pseudonym like "Mike Gene" because of...well because of the kinds of things "Expelled" will show us.
Hahaha... I think we should call Hugh's little cult the Church of the Virtual Flagellants.
I can't wait for the movie to come out.
I don't want to stop it.
I don't want to shut it down.
I don't want Ben Stein to shut up.
I don't want to put any obstacles in Premise Media's way that Premise Media hasn't put there itself.
I can't wait to see it shredded into confetti in the venues of criticism, and carelessly crushed underheel in the marketplace of ideas.
I admit that I am afraid, though.
I am sorely afraid.
I have a profound fear that blind indifference will win out, and the movie will fade from memory before the world has had a chance to ridicule it into cultural artifact in a class with Reefer Madness and Hell's Highway.
Really?
Behe, for example, can't get his views out? The International Darwinist Conspiracy silences him?
Well, then how did I hear about him?
Someone throw Hugh a rope. He's drowning in Kool-Aid.
Then please demonstrate to us why Intelligent Design is "science."
Also, can you please explain in detail why "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" does not explain what sort of positive contributions Intelligent Design "theory" would make to mainstream science if its proponents were not, allegedly, excluded, and can you explain in detail why "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" alleges that Intelligent Design proponents were unfairly barred from making any contributions to science when they demonstrated that they, especially G. Gonzalez, had no desire or drive to make any contributions to science in the first place, and can you please explain in detail what relevance to Intelligent Design "theory" is in claiming that both Hitler and Stalin were both inspired to become monsters by Charles Darwin, even though both men's actions, as well as numerous other evidence suggest that neither so much as touched any of Charles Darwin's books?
Magic, duh.
Call me crazy, but ID is science right? Then what about all the comments about god?
http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/ive-been-misled-i-thought-expel…
(I posted that in response to other users here, in fact.)
[cough] I am not an attorney. The following does not constitute legal advice and should not be construed as such. You should consult an attorney before taking any action related to any matters discussed herein.
Sorry, but there isn't anything remotely odd or unusual about the makers of Expelled filing a declaratory judgement lawsuit. It's what would be expected, given that they have been effectively put on notice as to an alleged infringement. This is, in fact, the common downside of a potentially injured party asserting an infringement claim; said party is then potentially a DJ target.
The filmmakers have two options: ignore the assertion and wait to be sued, or get in first and hope to adjust the playing field in their favor (for one, they have a good chance of being able to select a jurisdiction which they judge to be most favorable to their case). No damages are being sought here (AFAIK, not having read the case, just going on how these cases typically work), they're just asking for a ruling in advance that they're not infringing copyright as asserted.
This sort of thing happens all the time. If XVIVO didn't see this coming, they should fire their lawyers immediately.
Apparently the Darwanist conspiracy hasn't reached Disney Co. yet, because I just saw my first Expelled commercial on an ESPN national broadcast (it almost made "Baseball Tonight" distasteful for me).
Um, Hugh,
get over yourself lad, the movie is not even being released internationally at this stage. Much as you believe that your "god" states you live in the only country in the planet, believe it or not there are a hell of a lot of us outside the US borders. Frankly, most of us couldn't give a crap about your little movie and its "impact on the culture wars", whatever the fuck that means.
What most free thinking human beings ARE concerned about however is the systematic and relentless corruption of children that you, and your ilk, are determined to insidously introduce through the education system by repeatedly lying and claiming ID is scientifically based. You are an adult, you have chosen your sad co-dependency cult and its brainwashing, leave the innocent kids alone.
How mean of all you Evil Scientists! The Christians gave us one book, The Holly Bibble, many centuries ago, is it so unreasonable that they expect to take and pervert all human knowledge since then quite freely?
The court case will be putting the Fun back into Fundamentalism as usual. They don't have a great track record in court; their best results have been obtained by not turning up, as they get creamed when they appear (judges really don't like liars, so they upset judges). Of course, they'll complain they're being persecuted as People With Brains laugh at the nasties.
It is entirely possible that the Expelled team intentionally took a chance and copied the XVIVO animation as closely as they thought they could get away with legally, in the hopes that it would provoke exactly the confrontation it has provoked, so that they could in turn launch into a whole new whine about suppression of "free speech" and the "Darwinist thought police" and all that crap. These people have a serious persecution complex they need to feed, and given their rank dishonesty and sleaze all throughout the promotion of this movie the past several months, I wouldn't put it past them. They desperately want to be martyrs under the oppressive yoke of the scientistic priesthood, and they'll latch onto anything to push that meme and flatter their own perverse craving for victimhood.
Ben Stein asks what "Darwinists" are afraid of. Well, I think he should ask his producers what they are afraid of. Why worry about a little site that debunks the claims in your film?
Oh that's right. Because then they'll be exposed for the deceiptful morons that they are.
Ben Stein will shut up as soon as he gets paid to do something else.
How stupid can they get? First it's discovered that the makers of the stupid propaganda movie were stealing some of their cell animations from XVIVO
I got into this topical blog late, but wanted to address PZ comment on the lawsuit. There has been much debate in blogs about the alleged animations. One thing is for certain, if it goes to trial, the evidence will show one way or another. It will either make PZ look "stupid" or it will make "Premise" the producers of "Expelled" look "stupid".
Then please demonstrate to us why Intelligent Design is "science."
Jer. 33:25 says nature has it's laws. Nature itself is not "free thinking" it in subjection to these laws which it cannot break...Some of these laws of nature are...
1) Biogenesis
This law states, life comes from life. Organism reproduce other organisms after their own kind. This basically is what observational science tells us.
2) Chemistry
We all know that life requires specific chemistry. Our body needs chemistry to operate in a uniform manner. Atoms and molecules have their properties because electrons are bound by the laws of quantum physics.
3) Physics
Which is generally mathematical with formulas such as E=mc2. Physics shows us how energy cannot be created nor destroyed, also how energy is transported, how gravity operates, how mass moves through space and more.
Now if this were a public school, more than likely the quoted Bible verse would be taken out, and the rest discussed as an alternative view to evolution. But I wanted to point out, that the Bible does mention the laws of nature.
ID ought to be all about science. But what happens when there are barriers to pursuing certain scientific projects due to ideology and culture? Then you have to wage a culture war to give science a chance.
Who are preventing the ID'ers from setting up their own research facility? They could have used some of their money on lab equipment.
But all these years they've only produced words.
Apparantly, critics of Expelled are doing sneaky things in the grass ...
And yet Expelled has had a marketing campaign using that same tactic
"We are not surprised that opponents of our film are attempting to interfere with its important message."
but I thought it was an "impartial documentary"?
me oh my, now i gots me the vapors!
Who are preventing the ID'ers from setting up their own research facility? They could have used some of their money on lab equipment.
But all these years they've only produced words.
let's be specific here.
It's exactly spin they have produced, and PR they have spent their money on.
'words' is too general a term.
while they have been busily spending millions on propaganda, ITMT, there have been at least a thousand papers published in scientific journals (in the last year alone) testing and exploring various nuances and actual predictions born of the ToE.
According to wikipedia, a declaratory judgement is fairly common in intellectual property cases when one party issues a cease and desist letter, but is yet to file a lawsuit.
Oh, PZ:
Once the Expelled Exposed site is back up and running, you should probably link to it from the post you wrote after you got Expelled, since it seems to have a pretty high ranking on Google.
"Why believe PZ...read it yourself...
Intro to Evolution
It's written so even you can understand it."
yeah, so what? What if it did not happen in the way
that it is shown. I see what evolution is in what you showed me. I already knew about that. That doesn't impress me much at all. The part that I am talking about is changing from one species into another.
See, there is real evidence. We all know that, but what I am saying is that maybe the evidence did not happen the way the atheists are trying to prove it happened. Those Atheists just happen to be scientists and represent one world view with one closed minded point of view on how all of this took place.
Not much has changed on darwin's theories. I mean just with more fossil evidence that we cannot witness at all. With a theory backed that has holes in it and trying to push a world view of a religion full of skeptics.
I mean, why is evolution pushed so hard on people and yet everyone else agrees with science. Why is this one theory which really has nothing to do with proven science pushed so hard.
At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter. Evolution for right or wrong isn't really the issue. The issue comes down is there a God or not. Most of the people on here who put their heads in the sand are going to say no.
I am not one of those people. I just find it a little strange at the arrogance of the author of the blog and then he just outright attacks religion because they have a different world view. Typical.
I am right and you are wrong and I have science to back it up. You are stupid and you believe in the myth of religion etc... Really doesn't do anything to convert people and just puts them off. I mean if you can't handle religion then you have issues that your blog isn't going to fix.
See, that is the issue here. He attacks them because he views them as a threat. If he really did not feel that way he would just ignore them. That is why I feel the expelled is a big huge threat to the atheist community. If you did not have doubts about evolution or atheism you would not react in such a manner. I think we all know this but I just said what a lot of people out there are thinking.
If [insert whatever here] isn't a threat then you would let it hang itself instead of giving more promotion to them.
Comment #47 called out to me.....
(I ignored his obvious spelling error...)
Oh - PZ - you have now lost me to ERV as the blog-that-stole-my-heart.
(Just so you know....)
See, there is real evidence. We all know that, but what I am saying is that maybe the evidence did not happen the way the atheists are trying to prove it happened.
*yawn*
you're a rather boring conspiracy theorist, you know?
"As I said before in #69, Darwinists would love to shut this movie down."
actually, I personally can't argue with "hugh" on this point.
there isn't any such thing as a "Darwinist", but frankly I've grown entirely weary of debunking the asinine claims of morons like the now dead D James Kennedy.
I'd prefer Expelled died a premature death, and was simply replaced by a tombstone referencing the Index to Creationist Claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Expelled: Last Gasp of the Terminally Ignorant.
He attacks them because he views them as a threat
if ridicule of the moronic is an attack, then yeah.
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
-Thomas Jefferson
when ID rises to the point of being in a place where reason can act on it, THEN come back and tell us you are being repressed, moron.
"It is good to see that the NCSE's counter-site has made them cry."
It is good to see that the NCSE's counter-site is currently experiencing high traffic and they are working to resolve the problem.
@#152
"..trying to push a world view of a religion full of skeptics."
I believe I have just witnessed an oxymoron by a moron.
"With a theory backed that has holes in it and trying to push a world view of a religion full of skeptics."
Would those be gaping holes, Planet Killer?
Yet another goatseist.
Typo'd my own handle. How embarrassing. Oh well.
152, stop fighting a 150 year old argument, things have moved on a little since Darwin wrote The Origin. If we become friends, may I call you 15?
Looks like some good samaritan leaked Expelled: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1327190
"Looks like some good samaritan leaked Expelled: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1327190"
I can see it now. Expelled's producers announce "PZ Myers has been distributing a stolen copy of Expelled on his blog!!"
Ben Stein and Co. just seem to me to be the bullies that everyone hated at school. You know, the kids who thought they knew it all but really knew nothing. The kids who flunked their classes because they thought they know more than the teachers. The kids who picked fights in the playground and got beaten to a pulp.
By the way, I was wondering if anyone knew Yoko Ono's official email address? I sent this to her Facebook page, but considering the amount of junk she must get, she might not read it:
Dear Yoko,
I am writing to you to inform you that a creationist film, 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' by Premise Media, opening in the United States, has made use of your late husband's song, 'Imagine'. It interlaces parts of the song with images of the holocaust, and even subtitles the lyrics at the bottom of the screen.
The main message of the film is that evolution by natural selection, as originally proposed by Charles Darwin, and the lack of belief in a god, is a necessary cause of the holocaust. I was hoping you would consult your own lawyers for the possibility of legal action, considering not only are they using your husband's song, they are abusing it and linking it with the murder of millions of people, something I know you and your husband will totally abhor.
It is due to open in theatres across America this Friday 18th April. The website set up by the National Centre for Science Education, to counteract the lies of Expelled, is here: http://expelledexposed.com/ and the main website for the movie is here: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
Yours sincerely,
Matthew Hone
I'm confused. The person referencing Mike Gene wasn't you, and someone else asked him to show how ID is science... and you give a biblical verse, biogenesis, and a general vague description of chemistry and physics? I don't get it.
I fail. The 'you' was Michael.
Just seen Stein talking about that flick at Missouri State on YT,and yep,now im convinced ! Sorry Americans,you guys are headed for the dark ages,youre doomed,get out while you can,the theocracy is coming,and nothing is going to stop it.
I will watch your cultural and technical decline over the coming decades with great interest,its history in the making.
"I will watch your cultural and technical decline over the coming decades with great interest,its history in the making."
It would be dreadful history though, considering the amount of great scientific research being done in America. Science will survive, but it'll take a heavy blow, and progress will probably be put back a hundred years.
Mark Witt, Planet Killer and the rest of you who just can't seem wrap your minds around why your arguments carry no weight whatsoever.
Could we agree to clearly define by what we understand to be science, what it is and how it is done.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method
* Introduction to the Scientific Method
o I. The scientific method has four steps
o II. Testing hypotheses
o III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
o IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
o V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?
o VI. Conclusion
o VII. References
Introduction to the Scientific Method
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
I admit that I occasionally get tired of going against the current, I live in Florida where I am actively part of the fight against the return of the dark ages. I don't think I have much hope in making anyone agree with my views outside of a very small group of people who already do, but I guess I have to keep trying.
The case against XVIVO is because they have been making up fantasy stories that people, sorry, Big Science, were going to sue them to stop their terribly important movie. Where did you guys think that the trolls came from that pretended to know that PZ wanted to sue the Expelled producers?
Since nobody did sue them, they have to sue someone else to keep up appearances. Now at least they can go back to saying that the movie is tied up in court because Big Science is trying to stop them.
Just thought you would all like to see this comment from BobC over on the Expelled blog, if you haven't already.
Further little bit of evidence of the typically hilarious and underhanded manipulation and distortion that comes day-in-day-out from the people behind expelled. Such a tiny thing, but SO indicative!
------------
BobC said over at Expelled:
In comment #261 a person who is moderating comments on this blog had the nerve to change the words of my comments. This is extremely unethical. I never heard of this happening before anywhere.
My comment in #261 was:
The National Center for Science Education will be posting our full response to the Ben Stein movie Expelled on this site on April 15; for now, we hope you will find this collection of resources helpful.
But somebody who runs this blog changed it to:
"Big Science will be posting our full response to the Ben Stein movie Expelled on this site on April 15; for now, we hope you will find this collection of resources helpful."
http://expelledexposed.com/
I'm just amazed at the breathtaking stupidity and dishonesty of the people in charge of this blog.
------------
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/04/11/expelled-from-expelled-2/#c…
Those Expelled folk are so desperate to invent the concept of Big Science!! (BobC's original comment is actually now #262, the numbering must've shifted slightly.)
@152
Let's make something clear. We are not afraid of religion because we have doubts about our own position. We're responding with natural, justified fear to the threat of a destructive, viral cultural force. We're moved to energetically defend our values not as a reaction against their decay, but because you and yours are trying to undermine the foundation of our civilization: reason. We know full well that if we allow you power over the public school classroom, you'll be using that influence in the voting booth just a few years down the road. We know Expelled is a propaganda tool in that effort. We will see you fail.
Planet killer, you are two syllabals shy of complete asteroid.
Excellent letter Matt.
OT: The Pope is visiting Bush at the White House. Appropriately, he will be greeted by 9,000 guests, a choir, and a 21 gun salute!! Peace & Luv Jah Vohl!
Shut the movie down? I personally can't wait until it has enough exposure that the RIAA takes note of all of the music used illegally.
I'd like to know how these things go - since the Expelled people have already been notified of intent to sue over the XVIVO video, if they go ahead and release on Friday under the threat of copyright infringement will they get even more of a judgment against them? Basically, they're trying to profit off of something that has already been questioned rather than delay release until those issues are resolved, which to me seems to thumb a nose at any notions of fair play. A judge sympathetic might be less inclined to look at them sympathetically as a result
Carlie,do you ever sleep lol......
As to my previous comment,im not at all saying that there is not pockets where good science is still done and taught in the US,but if one takes in all the blog comments,YT vids or legislative changes regarding teaching creotard dimwitism equal to science to schoolchildren,one can but conclude that the US is well and truly doomed.
As to what drives these people,one can only speculate,I personally cannot understand it at all,maybe something Sartre once said applies here,"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you." And most of those promoting to return to the dark ages now were probably religiously and intellectually abused themselves.
Doesnt make it any better tho...
Expelled Exposed is #8 on Google. Yesterday it was still just on the second page. It's rising fast.
Well the level of silliness of Ben Stein et al have now hit a new low.
The second part of the movie title is so bang on the spot with these people as to be almost prophetic.No intelligence allowed indeed.
My thought though is this. Do you suppose it possible they might use this as an excuse to postpone releasing the movie on Friday by saying they need to clear up the lawsuit they have launched first?
That way they can save face with the people when they lose the lawsuit by spinning the story around and saying that it is further proof of the death grip Big Science has on the education system.
I cannot see how they could possibly hope to win on the charge of copyright since I am sure it will be possible to put a timeline on when each version of the clip was made.
It would seem to be consistent with their web of lies to allow the movie to be postponed and thereby say to the flock they shepherd that they tried to show the science but that BIG SCIENCE censored them after they lose in court.
This way they could remove the copyrighted material from the film and use the advertising from the court case in their favour.
Then again maybe I am leaning too much toward conspiracy theory.
Does anyone know if Another Brick in the Wall (Part Two) is still used in the film? I'm sure Roger Waters would like to know it's being used by one of Nixon's speechwriters to promote a Creationist agenda.
My irony meter's been overloaded a lot these past few days.
They aren't going to delay the movie. They want the movie out there. This is all a ploy to increase the "controversy" and create more attention for themselves. That's all it is, is an attempt to exploit the Christian persecution complex. It's a good angle for them: some days, it seems every Christian in the world believes themselves to be hanging on a cross.
Bttm ln, th mv s cmng t nd ll th tntrms nd thrts f lwsts ddn't stp t PZ.
Y ls.
[This is one of the kansas trolls. Please ignore them; I'd simply delete this, but people have already responded. -pzm]
I agree with PZ,there will be no delaying of the movie,they want it out there.
I really really hate to imagine how much damage it will do for science education in your country,and as some previous commenter said,there might be violence or worse coming the way of scientists in the not too distant future,as the creo zombies mobilize and the movement grows.....
"Hey, you! Yeah, you [PZ Loses Again]! You're an asshole loser, d'ya know that, buddy-boy!"
[aside to Max]
"What a fuckin' loser!"
@182: Oh yes, the movie is coming out. Among laughters. Because it is a RIDICULOUS movie.
If it was just my opinion that counted, that Expelled movie would beat every humoristic movies at the box office.
...mostly because they suck a lot lately, so I search my amusement elsewhere. Creationist movies are comedy gold.
Sioux,these people are zombies,they have no free will and no capacity to compute any data that does not comply with their worldview,their brains are fucked.Rather unfortunate there's 250 million of them in your country tho lol,although it would make for a great battlefield for Resident Evil 5.......
The Expelled persecution complex:
ToE: In conclusion, ToE's principals are applicable particularly in genetics because...
ID: No it didn't! It happened THIS way!
ToE: ...ok. Justify your position.
ID: The bible says so!
ToE: ...and?
ID: (uh oh...) Well, the evidence just LOOKS like that... uh, starlight time-warp... radiometric dating JUST DOESN'T WORK... uh...
ToE: There ya go. Empty smoke. Now, as we move on...
ID: Stop persecuting me, just because I have a different worldview! You just want to shut down all dissenters of EVILution!
ToE: Then provide us with a model that illustrates your claims.
ID: uh... *cycle repeats*
*continued*
ToE: Now, in relation to ancient andogenous retroviruses...
ID: Darwinism caused the Holocaust!
ToE: No, thousands of years of anti-semitism and a fascist ruler caused the Holocaust. Look up the word "pogrom." Also, even if it did, does that make ToE false? I heard Hitler had a dog. Are all dog owners Nazis?
ID: How dare you! You cannot stop me from spreading this incredibly important message to the masses!
ToE: Ridiculing your bad research is not "stopping" you.
ID: Those Darwinists make me sick. First they kill millions of Jews, then they try to silence all discussion about their crimes.
ToE: *sigh*... can we PLEASE talk about SCIENCE, and not social matters, which have NO BEARING ON SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY WHATSOEVER?? Don't you have a moon landing to debunk?
Maybe it really is just very high traffic, but I just tried to go to the ExpelledExposed site, and got what looks like the old site from last week, with the Chris Comer video at the top, and an apology for not having the full site available, due to high traffic.
This is at 8:30 am Eastern Time--an odd time of day for a site to experience high traffic.
Could someone be running a Denial of Service attack on ExpelledExposed?
High traffic could've easily crushed their server to the point where it just went offline, even though fewer people are presently trying to access it.
*and again...*
ID: You'll see. You'll all see! I'll make me a movie, yeah, where I chronicle ALL the instances of dirty Lib'rul EVILutionist bias in the scientific community! And then I'll show it to the world!
ToE: Ok, I'll go and watch...
ID: Not so fast, monkey-boy. This is a private screening. Invitation only.
ToE: ...are you sriously making a movie about expulsion and academic freedom, while simultaneously only allowing people sympathetic to your cause?
ID: *GASP* Now you're trying to subvert my movie by stooping to gate-crashing! PZ arrived and tried to get in without an invitation!
ToE: ...there were no invitations. You simply had to fill out an online...
ID: Y'see folks! He admits to trying to get in uninvited! The nerve! Now it's been proven beyond a doubt that Big Science wants to crush the little guy.
ToE: Whatever. Here's me crushing you *crickets chirp*. BTW, that scene with the organelles dancing around looks awfully familiar...
ID: Are you implying we stole it?? You sick dorks! Now, I'm going to counter-sue you for this moment of treachery!
ToE: ...nobody sued you in the first place.
ID: Enough! Nothing will stop my all-important message from reaching the public. Not private screenings, not non-disclosure agreements, nothing!!! *cue burning irony*
btw, this might be a nice moment to mention the last edition of Thunderf00ts epic creationism videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
Shorter Planet Killer:
"Blah blah blah blah ignorance blah blah blah projection blah blah blah strawman blah blah blah misrepresentation blah blah blah conflation blah blah blah illogic blah blah blah blah."
He's like a soot-covered wall in a handball court. He's heard all the responses to all his claims and questions, and they just bounce right off, soiling the hands of anyone patient enough to bat the next one back.
It's not about "atheists" pushing evolution as a world-view. It's about scientists... oh, why bother? The bottom line is: The reason people push back against evolution is because it conflicts with a particularly medieval aspect of their world-view. That's one of the many very simple facts he'll never accept.
Michael (Comment #145):
This isn't a law of nature. "Pasteur's Law", as this is sometimes known, is a rule of thumb with a fairly limited scope. All it entails is that living organisms do not arise spontaneously, fully-formed and over short timescales. That still leaves plenty of room for abiogenesis. In any case, this "law" is also a falsifiable hypothesis, subject to empirical disproof. It's not something written in stone - it's a provisional empirical finding.
Futhermore, this isn't in any way an alternative to the theory of evolution, since the theory is concerned in the first instance with how populations of organisms change over time. The theory would still be valid whether life arose through natural processes or was poofed into existence by magic.
Where on earth did you get the idea that these constitute "alternative views" to evolution? Or is this meant to be a riff on the old "evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" canard?
Well, even to people living in the 6th Century BC, it's fairly obvious that the universe exhibits certain predictable patterns of regularity. It's not a particularly profound insight. Mind you, as an aside, to put the passage you cite in context:
It doesn't actually have much to say about the laws of nature, other than as a rhetorical device by which God swears an oath. And the "fixed laws" that the passage seems to have in mind are fairly superficial regularities like the alternation of day and night. No profound insights into the working of the universe here, and certainly nothing in the same league as the discoveries of science.
Mind you, I'm not sure if this addresses your point, because I'm not really sure what your point actually is. The reason that ID is religious is nature is not because it cites scripture (which it doesn't), but because it makes claims that are religious in content and religious in inspiration and motivation. And it isn't scientific because those claims are either untestable, or (when specific enough to test) turn out to be false or irrelevant.
Kseniya,as I said before,its futile to debate or argue or reason with those zombies,their brains do not have the abilty to actually compute what you are telling them....I actually think that this is a great field for research,the cognitive dissonance or compartmentilization that occurs in a manipulated creo zombie brain,or how people that know the physics of buiding an atomic bomb or the intricacies of DNA can believe in sky fairies or virgin birth or the like....
Michael's ongoing "point" can be summarized thus: "My sig links to a creationist site that spouts the usual creationist lies about radiometric dating and junk like that." Pretty basic stuff, really.
He's a pleasant enough fellow, though. I'm not sure why I'm so inclined to pick on him. Maybe it's that "low-hanging fruit" thing... or maybe it's his casual approach to undermining public education, and his willful deafness when it comes to arguments and evidence that contradict his ongoing point that sometimes rub me the wrong way.
I was going to say "calm down, there is no way American will shoot itself in the foot and destroy science by making scientists into scapegoats for every ill they can think of", but then again, that's exactly what the Nazis did when they blamed everything on the Jews. Jews were a misunderstood minority that were having a beneficial effect on Germany. The Nazis painted them as scapegoats, and the rest is history. However, the expulsion of Jews had a beneficial effect on the countries they ended up in, and if scientists have to flee a burgeoning fundy ideology, places like Europe will benefit.
People like Dembski will then take on the role of Lysenko, another nut-job with delusions of grandeur.
What I find irritating is that the moderate Christians are being so silent over this, when, in time, they would end up becoming the enemy of dystopian Fuckedupistan. I hope that in the future, the moderates wont be saying:
In America, they came first for the scientists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a scientist;
And then they came for the atheists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an atheist;
And then they came for the Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists/Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
No, that's string theory.
No, you're both wrong, the FSM (sauce be upon him) is holding them up with his Noodly Appendage.
NC at 152. I meant 153 (planet killer). Apologies. It was late over here.
2 hours ago some spaghetti was put in a saucepan in my kitchen and boiled alive. Can't someone take a stand for it?
Repent and follow the FSM before its too late, Ben Stein. The Bible is a lie.
Reading evo posts is so funny I have stopped my re-read of James Thurber temporarily. It is unreal how uninformed and ignorant evos are outside their little narrow field of pseusoscience called evolution...as distinguished from biology which was and is practiced with great reward apart from any darwinian influences.
First bluffing from XVIVO has resulterd in a venue of the Expelled people's choice, put the weenies on defense, and illustrated the stupidity of the wirehead community in yet another arena.
Hint: "You have written a novel infringing Hemingway because it has short sentences and they all have nouns and verbs and such just like his" is not grounds for a lawsuit.
How any part of science succumbed to the influence of this group of wirehead, evo wackjobs is a mystery for the ages.
April 18th ..The Great Awakening in America
Oh, for jeebers sake, it takes Ceiling Cat to perform string theory.
Ah.
Thanks.
Check the headlines: in terms of geopolitics, the US has already disproved that claim (except that, having blown away most of our feet, we are now aiming higher...).
#197 MH wrote,
I'm reminded of the purge of intellectuals under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (a colleague of mine survived it). I'm not saying that could happen in the USA, but the war on science is nothing to be complacent about.
Nice work! Expelled is now 5th on google search.
My bad about the State... someone else said Connecticut first...!
"How any part of science succumbed to the influence of this group of wirehead, evo wackjobs is a mystery for the ages."
Wirehead? That's a new one. I can only guess as to what you're referring, but I'd venture a guess toward those steeped in information technology.
Yeah, this group of evo wackjobs has never done anything beneficial for the world. Genetically-modified food, cancer therapies, medical remedies of all sorts, have nothing to do with TRUE science, i.e. "pi is exactly equal to 3" Bible.
Google.
Type in Pharyngula, the sponsored link:
PZ Myers Interview
Come see PZ Myers in the movie
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
www.expelledthemovie.com
You are being used, PZ.
This also comes up for Pharyngula:
The Origins of Life
Exposing widespread suppression
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
www.expelledthemovie.com
The stupid, how it burns.
I noticed something interesting on youtube today. I'm subscribed to the tag "expelled", and in the past 15 hours a user named getexpelled uploaded 6 30-odd seconds long videos promoting the movie. The user's profile and the video description are filled with keywords like "Expelled movie Religion Richard Dawkins Sternberg Intelligent Design", etc, but also "Creationism" and "Creation".
Looks like the Expelled Exposed website has them worried.
Wow, such sober fact-based analysis on this thread:)
I'm actually looking forward to spending 8 bucks and seeing Expelled. I see no reason to flagellate like little bitches, worrying, whining, blogging about it. Really, the more I read work from you scientists, the more I understand how poorly America is doing in science vis a vis the rest of the world.
You people are embittered losers! Have fun during your 10 years of college.
And I present to everyone else, a typical American moron.
But, please, don't be too cruel to him, he's just trying to hide the fact that he's jealous because the extent of his education was a 20-year old training video explaining how to flip burger patties, and salt french fries.
You done showed them what-for, Booby!
I don't know what it says about keith that the least of his problems is that he finds James Thurber funny.
On topic, I'm worried about Expelled from the point of view that it may draw the same faction of the critical-thinking-impaired who think Rush Limbaugh is cute, funny, and harmless. (I've met people like that, my parents among them. *shakes head*)
Shorter Bobby:
How DARE people who spend their lives studying a particular topic have the temerity to claim they know more about it than people who haven't?!?!?!
Actually Bobby #213, America produces more science than any other country in the world, which is why it is one of the most innovative. But don't worry, after it's been ideologically cleansed by the Fundamentalists, it will be doing as poorly as you suggest. Other countries will then become the main innovators; China, for instance, which is currently putting colossal amounts of money into science. How do you feel about China being more technologically advanced than the US?
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
I don't need to say anymore, these days have been foretold since the time of the Roman empire.
Ten years of "college"? If only! Took me, like, 14. And those were non-consecutive.
But you know what? I did have fun. Lots of it.
More important: I learned a lot. Think about it, Bobby. Learning.
Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, right?
From the Premise Media v. XVIVO complaint, paragraph 54:
"In addition, the fact that XVIVO makes available the Inner Life Video on its website with the 'lead in' that 'A full length version of "The Inner Life of a Cell" is now available for educational use' (emphasis added) creates an implied nonexclusive license for Premise Media to precisely do what XVIVO now complains Premise Media is doing, arguendo, i.e., make 'educational use' of that video, via a Documentary Film."
I am not an intellectual property attorney, but, it seems to me, it takes brass balls to make this argument, even as a backup (which is what Premise is doing).
I mean, "educational use"? You must be kidding.
Oops, I'm sorry. Did I say these days? We've been saying it's these days for, gosh, centuries now.
Next week, fer shursies.
Yes of course. All civilizations fall, mostly from within.
This time, religious fanatics with brains the size of walnuts are trying to destroy the USA and bring back the Dark Ages. They are making impressive progress.
Also, if you actually look at the facts, it would appear that the Expelled film is made by a pack of liars.
You're assuming that the purpose of the argument is to convince a judge, as opposed to their own supporters. When they lose, they'll just whine about biased, activist judges persecuting them. Again.
And in other newsflashes, the Pacific Ocean has been discovered to be wet, the Grand Canyon is assumed to be very deep, and live rattlesnakes don't appreciate being used as sex toys.
It doesn't surprise me that Premise would make a frivolous argument, but its attorneys (Locke Lord, a part of "Big Law") have an ethical obligation not to do so. Most attorneys take that seriously.
I'm pretty sure Europe and lots of asia already is more technologically advanced that here...
We don't even have true broadband in this country.
keri, I selected this one 'specially for you, from 2 Kings:
You're welcome. You can thank me later.
Never mind the fact that, of all countries richer than Turkey, the USA is the only one that has a measurable number of creationists.
-----------
Keri, you have confused atheism with dystheism.
-----------
Hugh, you have confused atheism with science, and religion with creationism.
"We are not surprised that opponents of our film are attempting to interfere with its important message. As the movie documents, similar tactics are being used across the country against many of the researchers, scientists, and professors who want to engage in free debate within science but have inadequate resources to challenge the Establishment. However, we do have the platform to confront the thought police, and we will work tirelessly to open the doors of free speech and inquiry, said Executive Producer and Premise Chairman Logan Craft."
Kilgore: "Smell that? You smell that?"
Lance: "What?"
Kilgore: "Martyr, son. Nothing in the world smells like that."
[kneels]
Kilgore: "I love the smell of martyr in the morning."
Lol
Actually, we're not doing that badly. Science education is under attack from the benighted folk you apparently don't feel the need to criticize, but even then US students are holding their own relative to students from our peer nations.
What an interesting analysis. I am neither bitter, nor a loser. (More information avaiable on request.) I don't expect to be in school for another six or seven years. I believe that goes for most of us here. What you see is frustration over the relentless march towards intellectual mediocrity and ignorance led by the willfully obtuse and the shamelessly dishonest.
And yet you blithely skip over malignancies such as this and this while concluding that those who care about the future of science education are "embittered."
How interesting.
#153
Oh my FSM, I could ask you the same thing: what if the bible is wrong...come on: 6000 year old Earth, created in six days?...talking snakes, flying to heaven (oh they're all so common and observable, not!)
Or do you like the parts about incest where daughters get fathers drunk and then screwed them? (Genesis,19:32 Come, let us make our father (Lot) drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.) So you wanna worship the lineage from that crap? Wake the "F" up, dude!
Let me ask you this: do you have arms and a vertebrae...please make some simple observations about yourself (homo sapien) and "compare" those observations to other specie. Sheesh, can't you can figure that out?
If we had wings like angels or we observed people flying to heaven, I'd be with you, brother...but absent those, sorry...evolution it is!
Oy vey, you have some real over-educated, under-achieving morons on this blog, Dr. Myers.
Dawkins has already admitted that the question: Is there a God or not, can be addressed by scientific means, and, therefore, can be formulated as a scientific hypothesis.
My truthful answer is, I don't know.
But, I don't exclude, a priori, God from the equation.
This thread contains the biggest collection of geeks and losers the modern world has ever seen. God (assuming He exists), I hope somebody cancels all your NIH grants. What a useless and worthess group of intellectual parasites. No wonder why you inhabit the make-believe world of blogging with imaginary friends. Total societal misfits. You all would be much better off digging ditches for a paycheck. At least it would be honest enterprise.
Going to see Expelled on opening night. Will let you know how it plays!
But, I don't exclude, a priori, God from the equation.
A posteriori, that makes you an idiot.
I didn't know Keith read anything not written in crayon.
Keith's mom:
Are you sure that your son has been taking his meds? His writing sounds like he's been hiding them under his tongue and spitting them out when you aren't looking. Also, if you let him out on April 18, you might want to make sure he's appropriately supervised...
#222 Do you have the text of the full complaint?
humm
"This thread contains the biggest collection of geeks and losers the modern world has ever seen. God (assuming He exists), I hope somebody cancels all your NIH grants. What a useless and worthess group of intellectual parasites. No wonder why you inhabit the make-believe world of blogging with imaginary friends. Total societal misfits. You all would be much better off digging ditches for a paycheck. At least it would be honest enterprise."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "The Death of America, Personified." Let's just see how many Tomahawk missiles or F-22 Raptors you have at your disposal when you've chased away all those "societal misfits."
Join Bobby's glorious People's Ditch-Diggers Movement today, and overthrow the Bourgeoise rocket-scientists!
Dear Bobby,
I am appropriately insulted. I will trade my degree for a shovel, effective immediately.
Thank you for allowing me to see what a loser I am. You have opened my eyes. I only wish I could have written this using a crayon.
Now you don't have to come to this blog any more. Wouldn't want to be associated with losers, geeks and morons, now would you? Check out UCD.
Mr. Grant:
"Admitted?" You may have missed the point.
Join the club. :-)
Why not? Which equation, exactly? Do you include God in "the equation" by default? Doesn't lex parsimoniae demand that you exclude any unnecessary variables and assumptions from the hypothesis? If you've inserted God into "the equation," how have you justified the necessity to do so?
We don't exclude God a priori either, moron.
The difference between you and any scientist, including theistic scientists, is that God is not included (in science) a priori, just as no unknown and unobserved "causes" are not included a priori. That's the only way to do science.
Since you're against science, as are all IDiots (at least in effect), you insist on anti-science measures, like making room for pure fantasy in serious science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I see Bobby's life as one of continued confusion and disappointment. Never able to understand what is happening to him nor to better his position in life because of his high school mentality where education is "nerdy" and "geeky". Forever doomed to be a rung on life's ladder where those with the drive to better themselves and their society use him as a step to move up.
keep it up bobby, I'm sure the night manager position at the 7-11 is coming your way.
Do you also refrain from excluding Zeus, Shiva and Osiris? Does your metaphorical equation include a term for Ptah? I wouldn't want to leave out the quadratic factor of Aphrodite — after all, she's sexy.
Frankly, I'm scared. How can the producers of "Expelled" possibly lose the lawsuit? Ben Stein graduated NUMBER ONE from his class in YALE LAW SCHOOL! He's gonna strike the evilutionist XVIVO defendents like lightning striking a mud puddle!
Bobby apparently would prefer to live life akin to what the Khmer Rouge had, in that being smart, being bilingual, or even wearing glasses were all crimes punishable by death.
I have a .pdf of it. I'd be happy to e-mail to you.
Unintended double negative (#243):
Should be:
Course, you have to understand the stupid, like Bobby. The IDiots, who want to include God a priori, project that we exclude God a priori, both through ignorance and dishonesty (the two work hand in hand for most of them). And if you're ignorant and stupid as Bobby is, you just believe the first person you hear. You can bet that the first person Bobby listens to is not a scientist, thus he falls for any moronic lie.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Bobby #235 "What a useless and worthess group of intellectual parasites. No wonder why you inhabit the make-believe world of blogging with imaginary friends."
Bobby, you're projecting again.
Did a Google search on "Expelled" and saw that "World Net Daily" had a highly ranked page on the film. I navigated over there and they had an ad for a t-shirt reading:
"I'd Rather be Water-Boarding"
And they say we're the ones who enabled totalitarians!
Argh, I hate these people. Over a year ago, I gave up associating with anybody to the right of Nancy Pelosi, unless they are a blood relative, and I am much happier as a result.
Ben Stein hasn't practiced law in decades... and I doubt he has any background in copyright law.
No one is worried that Premise Media will win.
#222
So they are admitting to using the Harvard/XVIVO animation?
But what about this:
"Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film."?
I gave up associating with anybody to the right of Dennis Kucinich, unless they are a blood relative, and I am much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much happier as a result.
Before anyone else wastes their time on this torrent: It's just a trailer (or trailers), repeated over and over so it looks like the full movie at first glance.
These people (ID proponents) are so frustrating! If they're not careful, they'll actually start converting atheists to theism: after all, how could anyone that evil exist unless they were dispatched by Satan Himself?
America isn't doing badly in science... yet. And, to the extent that the dominance of the US is declining, it's your fault. About half of the scientists and engineers in the US are immigrants. The reason is that ignorant fucktards like you, who think it's cool to be stupid, have poisoned highschool science education in the US so badly that your own corporations and universities have to go overseas to find enough good sci/eng candidates.
Guess what'll happen when you succeed in installing your Christian Taliban in Washington, and it looks like you will: all the Europeans, Indians, and Chinese, who by then will all but run your science and technology industry, will go home, and the wealthy Americans who own the country will invest overseas. The flight of capital and half the sci/eng workforce will leave the US in a downward spiral of religiosity, ignorance, and ineffective government, leading inexorably toward poverty and civil unrest.
The only thing you'll have left are a huge military and nuclear arsenal, which you'll use to go and steal whatever resources you want. Your current Christian President has already indicated his willingness to do that, and it's gonna be a lot worse when you have a Phelps in the Whitehouse. This is what scares the shit out of sane people in the US and the rest of the planet.
God save America? Bah! Somebody needs to save America from your "God".
Don't you see? The creationists are finally doing research!
That is, if you agree with the saying that "stealing from one source is plagiarism - stealing from many sources is research".
The Creationists have been doing that for decades.
Hence scientists regarding them so poorly in the first place.
Kseniya: You lost Bobby at "equation".
The simple reason as to why God typically isn't in the equation is that there's no reason for him to be. God is so (deliberately) vaguely defined that anything could be attributed to him for any reason at all.
To understand our frustration, try to imagine that one of the trees in front of your house was knocked over by a drunk driver in the night, who managed to have the wherewithal to back up and speed away before you woke up. You look at the tree and wonder what could have knocked it over? It was kind of windy last night, maybe. You look around and you think you see a skid mark on the sidewalk next to the tree. So you start figuring things out, but all the while the bratty neighbor kid is dancing around you with a book in his hand yelling "CLIFFORD THE BIG RED DOG DID IT! CLIFFORD THE BIG RED DOG DID IT!"
After listening to the session that some Scientific American editors had with Mark Mathis, I'm wondering who the science adviser was for EXPELLED?
Would somebody more articulate than me respond to the comment left at:
http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/stonereport/archive/2008/04…
#253
I should have made it clearer that the "educational use" argument is one of Premise's "alternative" arguments. They're saying, "we didn't copy Inner Life, but even if we did, it's not actionable because it was for an 'educational use.'"
There's nothing unusual or objectionable about having alternative arguments (even contradictory ones). Lawyers do it all the time.
My only objection was that this particular alternative argument seems frivolous to me. Expelled is clearly, above all else, a commercial enterprise. It seems ludicrous to argue, even as a fallback position, that it's some kind of "educational" project.
I was reading an old review of Dembski's so-called science, and found that he'd invented this:
Way to assume your conclusion! Didn't anyone ever tell him that a law is something that's observed over and over, like work = heat? Apparently he's making up his own "natural laws" now. Attributes are not defined. I suppose they indicate a magic deficiency or some other question-begging property, e.g. "necessary for life because... they're necessary for life or life could come from (gasp) chemistry." You know, for someone who's supposed to be a mathematician he appears to have no grasp at all of stochastic processes.
#262 - that's the Creationist style all right: "Evolution didn't happen but if it does, Goddidit!" They can't seem to make up their little lack of minds.
Now imagine the kid has been doing this for decades.
Now imagine that you call your insurance company and are told they won't cover the damage because CLIFFORD THE BIG RED DOG DID IT!
Now imagine the police and courts agree....
The rot these people have injected into American society must be reversed.
Am I the only one here amused by Premise Media's use of the word "counter-site" as a verb?
I was reading an old review of Dembski's so-called science, and found that he'd invented this:
So I guess the other aspect of the Wedge is bringing back vitalism.
Kseniya's Law of Biocombustion: Neither sunlight nor convex pieces of glass possess the attributes of scorched ants, and therefore cannot be the cause of scorched ants.
Meanwhile, back on Pharyngula:
Rey FTW!
Why does everyone think I am a Christian? There are more beliefs out there than the major world religions offer. Berlinski isn't a Christian either, from what I can tell.
We know ID is science, because ID is falsifiable. We know ID is falsifiable because any empirical evidence which confirms unguided Darwinian evolution (if there is any, and Dawkins thinks there is) automatically falsifies ID.
I don't have anything against atheists. In fact prefer atheist women to Christian women, because it's much harder to get laid by Christian women (you know they have all those rules about sex before marriage etc.) Atheist women on the other hand have no such barriers, and it is easy sailing!
So what about this ERV chick, then? Pretty cute, no?
Hugh (#227)
Are you sure your name isn't Hugh Jampton?
(gah... I meant #270)
You know ID is science because it has a glaringly obvious fallacy (false dilemma) right in the middle.
Now do you know why we call you IDiots?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#270 Hugh,
If ID is science, why hasn't a single peer-reviewed scientific research paper presented data testing any ID-related hypothesis? There are over 17 million papers indexed at the National Library of Medicine's public database, surely they could have come up with one paper? Is ID simply not science, or it suppressed by a global conspiracy?
#262 (WayBeyondSoccerMom)
I sent a brief response off to them. I did not read every word, but the original post looked quite reasonable.
Mr Slaman:
That kind of sexist, demeaning talk will get you banned for being a repulsive pig.
That's your only warning.
Seen recently on the Expelled website: http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/
"Editor's Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.- The Producers of "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed""
Because you talk exactly like the typical fundamentalist bigot who gets all of his crib cards from Christian Creationists, and who doesn't seem to care that Creationists and other fundamentalists seek to drag this country back to a time where the leading causes of death were starvation, mass stupidity, diarrhea, and most importantly, speaking one's mind.
Then do what no other Intelligent Design proponent has ever been able to do, and demonstrate how Intelligent Design is science.
By making such a crude and insulting inference that, because atheist women do not have someone hovering over them to tell them that God thinks that sexual intercourse is sin, that they are remorseless, promiscuous sluts, you make it clear that you are not only a religiously motivated anti-intellectual snot, but you are also an appalling bigot who should never be trusted near children, animals, or women.
Also, by using "I don't have anything against atheists" to segue into calling them promiscuous sluts also shows that you are an appalling hypocrite with abysmal social skills, if any at all.
Thanks to all of you (including Richard Simons) who left comments at the canada.com website, where it reviewed Expelled. Y'all did a great job in setting the record straight with the original commenter, Peter Wadeck.
http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/stonereport/archive/2008/04…
I don't understand the claims that the Expelled producers are making about the internet search ratings for Expelled. Can someone help me figure out what Expelled is supposed to return on a search? I searched for Expelled on Google, Expelled on Yahoo and I found valuable resources about Expelled.
The Huffington Post and The Wall Street Journal are now reporting that Yoko Ono is not amused with the inclusion of "Imagine". WSJ's article is in a subscription area, but Huffington's is here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/yoko-ono-sells-out-john-l_b_9…
Using unlicensed music, even in the private showings, has to be a serious copyright violation. Pissing off Yoko and The Killers does not seem like a good idea to me.
Mr. Slaman,
What exactly is falsifiable about ID? How does one distinguish facilitated events/macroevolution from events that don't require external intervention?
When I asked this to an ID advocate (desiring that ID be taught in OH's curriculum), I was told that events could be shown to nonfacilitated if they were "probable enough". However, lottery winners (or sequences of lottery winners, since the referred changes are composites of multiple mutations) are low probability events which happen regularly - though the chance of a particular person (or series of people) winning is really low, enough tickets are bought that someone is likely to win, so that a low probability event (a particular person winning) occurs frequently, and its composite also occurs frequently because any of the events that could occur is improbable. If this is inaccurate, please explain, but if it isn't, then probability doesn't distinguish between events that require a designer and ones that don't.
ID could have come up with falsifiable hypotheses (it doesn't cost money to think after all) and people get respect for that alone. One might figure that if ID had an intellectual core, the millions of dollars its advocates have poured into might have encouraged someone to find it (not the evidence, which could conceivably cost far more to find, but just the testable hypothesis of the theory). Why would ID advocates spend lots of money on bad agitprop when they could say, "Here's our test. Give us some money and we can see if we pass or fail." and get far more credibility for doing so?
Slaman: ERV has many many friends here (ongoing edit: and I see PZ has warned you about the type of comment you made in your last post). Trolling is one thing but that sexist comment was way out of line. I doubt ERV needs us to defend her (she is rather adept at slicing and dicing assholes), she has earned much respect for her efforts and does get her share of fanboys (mostly in good humour of course). You have not earned any respect and your comment crosses a clear line with its overtone.
UprightAlice (#281):
I was able to get the full WSJ story by going through Google News.
"We know ID is falsifiable because any empirical evidence which confirms unguided Darwinian evolution (if there is any, and Dawkins thinks there is) automatically falsifies ID."
There is already plenty of empirical evidence that confirms "unguided Darwinian evolution" in a wide variety of specific cases. (And by "Darwinian" I suppose you mean only the mechanisms proposed by Darwin and none of the other parts of evolutionary theory that have been developed in the 150 years since)
None of this evidence can falsify ID. It is support for evolutionary theory, but it can never prove that there is no biological mechanism somewhere out there that we haven't discovered yet that wasn't deliberately designed by some intelligent agency at some point in time.
Any intelligent agency, provided with sufficient time, energy and motivation, can accomplish anything allowable by the laws of nature, and a supernatural intelligent agency would not even be restricted by that. Evidence can be found to falsify a hypothesis that a certain type of intelligent agency with certain abilities, limitations, and motivations was involved in some observed phenomenon (such as forensic evidence showing that a certain human being was not involved in the a suspected crime), but that can't demonstrate that some other intelligent agency with other attributes was not involved in some other phenomenon.
Also, the discovery of evidence supporting intelligent design would not necessarily falsify evolution. If we human beings offed ourselves at some point and 300 million years later some species of intelligent cephalopod replaced us, it is possible that they might be able to discover evidence of our prior existence on this planet and evidence that we had done some intelligent manipulation of biology in our time, but this evidence would in no way show that undirected evolution had not also occurred.
In short, a real scientific theory is not falsified by evidence in favor of some other theory. It is only falsified by evidence that contradicts a prediction that it makes. So called ID "theory" does not make predictions. In fact it appears to have been constructed in such a way as to deliberately avoid making testable predictions.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...
Appearently they used the John Lennon song "Imagine" in the movie. Folks originally assumed that Premise licensed it. Opps... Yoko Ono's lawyer says that they didn't.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_…
I may regret this but I have put the complaint against XVIVO here.
It is a 1.4MB pdf.
#25 :"Its like a street thug tries to steal your iPod. You punch him, and he sues you for his hospital bills."
I would think it's more like this:
A street thug steals your iPod, and then sues you for reporting the theft to the police.
"Why does everyone think I am a Christian?"
Because you fit the pattern so well. Why else would anyone have any problem with the scientific consensus on the diversity of life throughout the history of the Earth? Only because of the fear that evolution somehow robs humans of their special status of having been specially created by some all-powerful father figure that loves them very much.
"None of this evidence can falsify ID. It is support for evolutionary theory, but it can never prove that there is no biological mechanism somewhere out there that we haven't discovered yet that wasn't deliberately designed by some intelligent agency at some point in time."
Unguided evolution is the negation of the intelligent design hypothesis. Together, they exhaust "logical space", as it were. Hence, any empirical evidence which confirms unguided evolution automatically falsifies intelligent design. This is a simple point of logic.
As for the claim that "it can never prove that there is no biological mechanism somewhere out there that we haven't discovered yet that wasn't deliberately designed by some intelligent agency at some point in time", this is like someone arguing that unguided evolution is unfalsifiable on the grounds that evidence can never prove that there is no unguided mechanism out there that we haven't discovered yet and tat could make unguided evolution work.
I'm amazed I have to explain these simple things to people.
"Why else would anyone have any problem with the scientific consensus on the diversity of life throughout the history of the Earth?"
That scientific consensus may well be an illusion: are you sure that scientists do not just avoid stating their true doubts about evolution out of fear of the consequences that "Expelled" documents?
Hugh Jampton #292: "That scientific consensus may well be an illusion: are you sure that scientists do not just avoid stating their true doubts about evolution out of fear of the consequences that "Expelled" documents?"
Firstly, are you suggesting that there is a water-tight conspiracy which involves millions of scientists world-wide? Seriously?? And you evidence of this is....?
Secondly, what consequences? No-one in the Expelled film was expelled. You should really read the info at ExpelledExposed if you want to stop looking like an ignorant fool. You are being used by Christian Fundamentalists, who are demonstratedly lying. Wake up!
Also, Hugh, is the fact that none of the World's physicists openly deny the reality of the theory of gravity, proof to you that there is a global conspiracy against people who believe in intelligent falling? Are most of the World's physicists proponents of I.F., who don't speak out for fear of... what, exactly? Do you want that 'controversy' taught in schools?
The suggestion that ID is being repressed is just as much a conspiracy theory as the moon-landing hoax, or that Jews are conspiring to take over the world.
Seen any black helicopters, recently?
Hugh: your "logic" is not like our Earth logic.
Another thing worth doing is searching for 'expelled' and clicking on the link. Search engines notice things like "Oh, people searching for this all seem to want to click the 7th ranked item first".
Oh dear ... The Wall Street Journal reports that Yoko Ono is not pleased at having John Lennon's Imagine used in Stein's excremental propaganda screed.
This could be fun.
Especially as Yoko Ono can afford the best lawyers in the business. These people as it happens. Who, it would appear, have what might be termed 'global reach'. They have a client base that spans the entire planet. They presumably have the expertise to deal with copyright infringement issues across national borders. In other words, this law firm is the ICBM-armed superpower of the business, brimful of awesome, fuck-with-us-at-your-peril legal firepower.
It'll be a nice, juicy spectacle to see them take Mathis et al apart and hoover every last dime out of their wallets.
Never mind the fact that, of all countries richer than Turkey, the USA is the only one that has a measurable number of creationists.
-----------
Keri, you have confused atheism with dystheism.
-----------
Hugh, you have confused atheism with science, and religion with creationism.
(gah... I meant #270)
Hugh:
Wrong again.
As so many others have pointed out, they're lying about being victimized. And second, who's enforcing these consequences so perfectly in a god-like manner. I suppose next you're going to tell us that the Illuminati is suppressing all the mechanical engineers from saying the World Trade Center was taken down by a space laser.
And, of course, by focusing on this crazy tinfoil hat scenario, you try to distract everyone from the fact that there are no good arguments in favor of ID or against evolution.
Or did the space reptile aliens delete that information from Creationist comments in real time on every blog I've ever visited?
Hugh Slaman wrote:
For an idea of what I think ID ought to be like, see "The Design Matrix" by Mike Gene. He is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, or with Demsbki. See www.idthink.net He is way more interesting, sophisticated, and creative on these issues than, say, Dawkins or Myers. Unfortunately, he has to hide behind a pseudonym like "Mike Gene" because of...well because of the kinds of things "Expelled" will show us.
Wrong. That's not why 'Mike Gene" uses a pseudonym. Here is what Mike Gene wrote, explaining why 'he' (IIRC, 'he' is actually a 'she')uses a pseudonym
http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/about-the-author/
"Why use a pseudonym? I do not make any appeals to personal qualifications, training, or expertise. The reason being is that if I have no qualifications or relevant training, this may cause some to dismiss or overlook a good argument for this reason alone. On the other hand, if I do have qualifications and relevant training, this may cause some to embrace a bad argument for this reason alone. I would rather let the arguments stand on their own."
When Metallica issues a take-down notice for all their music I'm sharing through bit torrent, can I claim I'm being persecuted by Big Music?
"are you sure that scientists do not just avoid stating their true doubts about evolution out of fear of the consequences that "Expelled" documents?"
Why would I believe that?
While bullying tactics may work against some individuals who are trying to explore the origins of life, it will not work against us. We certainly will not allow a small group of self-appointed gatekeepers to infringe our rights of free speech and our obligation to expose them for what they are -- namely, intellectual thugs unwilling to accept any dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy.
I didn't read through all three hundo comments, but like PZ said, I didn't anyone was restricting them from producing their movie. We are creating the other side of the debate, not blocking people from seeing the movie or the producers from putting their information out into the marketplace of ideas. It's just that their idea is dumb, so we dispute it.
I went to graduate school for a couple of years (in philosophy), and I can vouch for the oppressive atmosphere that prevails there when it comes to even taking seriously the possibility that some design arguments work. The stories in "Expelled" are thus completely believable to me. I was working on arguments from design long before I heard of the Discovery Institute, but when I tried to develop my ideas I found such a lot of hostility and nastiness in return that I was stunned. I honestly had no idea I would get that kind of reaction to what was (in my case), nothing more than an honest attmept to expand on thoughts that I found beautiful and fascinating (I was never a Christian or had a religious agenda). So if I am inclined to find the "Expelled" stories plausible, it is only because it fully accords with my own limited experience of academia.
Last year I had a chance to see an excellent talk by Gonzalez on his version of the design argument. I had dinner with him and other members of the audience afterwards, I heard from him first-hand what was going on in his department, and I could find no reason to doubt what he was telling me. There are indeed determined attempts to supppress ID research: whether through mockery, creating a hostile work environment, unjust denial of tenure (as in Gionzale' case), or expulsion. There is just no doubt about it.
Steven @ 300,
I agree that this is the reason Mike gives offocially, but it is not that convincing if it is his sole reason. Academics all over the world sign their real names to their work when it comes to controversial matters. And the fact that Mike is highly qualified in biology is just too obvious from his writings for his adoption of a pseudonym to make a difference.
Mark my words, if not for this culture war, Mike would have no need whatsoever to adopt an internet identity.
#304. Hugh you are very obviously wilfully stupid. Have you bothered to read anything about why Gonzalez was not awarded (please note the term awarded as opposed to given) tenure? It is blatantly obvious that you have not, otherwise you wouldn't bother to continue to post your ignorance and idiocy for the entire world to see in the internet.
Have you wondered why "when I tried to develop my ideas I found such a lot of hostility and nastiness in return that I was stunned. I honestly had no idea I would get that kind of reaction to what was (in my case), nothing more than an honest attmept to expand on thoughts that I found beautiful and fascinating" scientists didn't fully embrace that which you found beautiful and fascinating? Was it, perhaps, because it wasn't science? Was it perhaps because it required supernatural intervention? Was it perhaps because your thoughts had already been studied and found not worthy of continued study? Or (and I suspect that this last is true given the 'intellect' displayed in your posts in this thread) was it perhaps because you were talking out of your arse?
The reason I suspect its the last is because you would seem to only have 2 brain cells, and you're using one of them to instruct the in and out of breathing.
Regarding the stories in Expelled, have you read the below (the people listed under "The 'Expelled'")? If so, do you think these explanations are not valid? If you found that the explanations WERE valid and that Expelled had misled its audience, would that change your opinion of the movie?
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Mikewot @ #304,
Thank you for your kind and gracious remarks.
I was not in a science department, but in a philosophy department. It was a philosophy department where I was by far the most knowledgeable person of all the people there about design arguments, because I was the only person who bothered to study them. There was not even a regular philosophy of religion course taught there, so uninterested were people in religious issues. One faculty member there said that he was so unconcerned about religion that he couldn't even be called an atheist. Everyone there assumed Hume and Kant had ended the disucssion about design arguments, and they were blissfully unaware of the immense amount of work carried out by contemporary analytical theists in articulating these arguments in a way that avoided the classical objections of Hime and Kant.
The hostile reactions I got there were not based on knowledge, but on ignorance of the contemporary developments in philosophy of religion, (and a general phobia of all things reminiscent of religion). It is these same developments that led Antony Flew to embrace a kind of deism. I would not put myself on his level, but his journey is similar to mine.
Regards,
Hugh
kmarissa,
I have studied the materials concerning Gonzalez. I think it is clear that this stellar researcher in astronomy would have got tenure had it not been for his ID leanings.
When you say "there," you mean in your own department? Or from people in the sciences? Or some of both?
Hugh, does that mean that you think he would have gotten tenure despite his sharp decline in publishing rate, poor performance bringing in grants compared with colleagues, lack of any graduate students completing their doctoral work, etc., had it not been for the ID issue? Especially considering that the tenure rate had been only 66% in the last decade to begin with?
Or are you arguing that these facts as presented on the cited website are incorrect?
You're right Hugh. If he had been doing science and research and not writing about ID he might have gotten tenure.
But no one wants to give grants to someone who's not doing useful research.
Re #308 Hugh Jampton. Enlighten us then, O great one. Explain how these wondrous philosophers have refuted the works of Hime (who he?) and Kant.
I went to graduate school for a couple of years (in philosophy), and I can vouch for the oppressive atmosphere that prevails there when it comes to even taking seriously the possibility that some design arguments work.
It's not oppression, you cretin, it's contempt for stupidity. Imagine, among intellectuals!
You were laughed out of the room because you're a moron. It's okay, actually it's great, that institutions of higher learning don't let stupid fucking morons hang around and waste everybody's time.
No design arguments "work." Unless "works" means "pays Bill Dembski's salary," or "fools the already deluded." Since I guess Bill Dembski wasn't your advisor, and your fellow students weren't deluded morons, you got (most of) what you deserved.
If only it were that simple. Perhaps "his ID leanings" were the primary cause of "his sharp decline in publishing rate, poor performance bringing in grants compared with colleagues, lack of any graduate students completing their doctoral work, etc." I'm not in a position to know the truth about that.
Also, Hugh, correct me if I'm wrong, but your own explorations of the philosphical and theological implications of the design inference, though interesting, does not appear to qualify as scientific - why should Gonzalez's? Is it not meaningful (so someone other than a conspiracy theorist) that even Gonzalez's supportive colleagues deplored his attempts to legitimize pseudoscience from within a science department of their university?
Steve @ #312,
I think the 68 peer-reviewed publications Gonzalezx had to his credit by the time of tenure review are enough to disprove the false charge that he was not doing useful research. About 20 or so of these were published after Gonzalez came to Iowa State. And these do not include the 25 or so that were invited publications.
Gonzalez had more than enough publications in peer-reviewed journals to justify tenure: the official department guidelines only specify 15 as the standard requirement.
Gonzalez' ID research is closely tied to his fascinating work on habitability of planets, which is nationally recognized. As he made clear in the talk of his which I saw, the quest to either strengthen or weaken his ID argument has led him to numerous new research projects in astrophysics, some of which are raised as questions in "The Privileged Planet", and any of which would be suitable for a Phd. So his work has bene scientifically fruitful, and it is only those who are blinded by ideological bigotry against ID or theism who could fail to see this. This unfortunately is what cost him the tenure decision.
Hugh,
Really? My condolences.
CJO,
I can assure you I am not stupid under any meaningful criterion. In my philosophy department, I was able to refute and rebut any and all objections brought against my ideas. What I cannot refute, however, is childish sneering: that has no place in serious discussion to begin with, and is nothing more than an intimidation tactic. The existence of such intimidation tactics, on the part of those who know little about design arguments to begin with, is something i can confirm from my own experience.
Thank you for your time,
Hugh
Again, this was discussed in the link I cited. Specifically:
and
There is also a graph.
Again, do you argue that the numbers as presented are incorrect? Or do you admit that his rate of publication had sharply declined but argue that his prior publications should have been sufficient?
About 20 or so of these were published after Gonzalez came to Iowa State.
look again.
what area were those publications in?
His primary field of study?
...or something "else".
Gonzalez concedes the issue, if you actually would take the time to read what he has had to say about the issue himself.
His contention was that he felt there was nothing stated explicitly by the department saying he couldn't spend time "pursuing other avenues of research".
In fact, I'd bet you could track down his exact words on the issue as having been posted either here, or on Panda's Thumb.
However, even as dumb as YOU are, surely you can see that if you are hired to do work in astronomy, and you end up publishing work on say... bee keeping, that isn't exactly going to be tenure worthy material.
You morons don't seem to get that tenure is a PRIVILEGE at a university, not a RIGHT.
It was never an issue of free speech. A researcher at a university is HIRED to perform very specific job functions. Failure to pursue those functions with due diligence NEVER results in an offer of tenure, for what should be obvious reasons to anyone who has an even a basic knowledge of how tenure works.
So his work has bene scientifically fruitful
no, it has not. Those "publications" you refer to as evidence of "fruitfulness" are nothing more than philosophical masturbations; there are no experiments, no new data, nothing.
Hugh, congratulations on being entirely duped by the Disinformation Institute.
Bye bye Hugh. We hardly new ye.
The philosophy students are always the worst, or is that the engineering students?
Well, actually, by calling you stupid, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But you're right, I may have to take seriously the notion that you're a lying fucking scumbag.
There's a lot of both about these days. So hard to tell sometimes, and the sets overlap quite a bit.
This coming from the same person who thinks that it's easier to seduce atheists because they don't have their morality dictated to them.
You don't sound intelligent: you sound unctuous, and you sound like you don't know what you're talking about concerning the theory of evolution.
When you, or any other Intelligent Design proponent ever bothers to demonstrate to the scientific community exactly how Intelligent Design "theory" really is a science, we will take you seriously.
But given as how no Intelligent Design proponent, yourself and the Discovery Institute included, has not even the desire to do this (or even do science), none of us are going to hold our collective breath.
has not even the desire to do this (or even do science), none of us are going to hold our collective breath.
I usually think of not holding in another kind of air in response to this nonsense myself.
You people are embittered losers! Have fun during your 10 years of college.
uh huh.
and in ten years you'll be asking us:
"You want fries with that?"
Unguided evolution is the negation of the intelligent design hypothesis.
I have to say, Hugh has managed to put into writing a damn near perfect example of pure projection.
I'm keeping that one for my files.
It is these same developments that led Antony Flew to embrace a kind of deism
uh, you mean the same Flew who after his embracing of "religion" in 2004, soon after (2005) denounced the fine-tuning argument as nothing more than pure pseudoscience?
THAT Flew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
damn, man, is there ANYTHING you get right when you post?
I would not put myself on his level, but his journey is similar to mine.
If you're on the "same journey" as Flew, shall we expect you to be supporting the obvious fact that ID is at best pseudoscience next year?
Hugh, you're a demented fuckwit. Don't EVEN claim you have a position at a philosophy dept. at a university. Not even emeritus status would give you leeway to be so wrong, so often, and so obviously. Lies don't do you, or your delusions, any practical service.
"What I find irritating is that the moderate Christians are being so silent over this, when, in time, they would end up becoming the enemy of dystopian Fuckedupistan."
We're trying, really we are. Problem is, we're open-minded people and regard faith as a highly personal matter. As a result, we tend to shy away from confidently shouting people down for believing wrongly. It goes against the grain, you see. I mean, I acknowledge that my faith may be wrong; what right do I then have to criticize another religious person for their quirks of faith? But this is a mistake on our part, because some "quirks of faith" can be very dangerous.
"Expelled!" sounds like a pretty pathetic movie. But it is symptomatic of something that scares me as both a Christian and a skeptic -- the attitude that no one should be permitted to question a religious authority. That attitude today mostly causes embarrassment for sensible Christians, but a few centuries ago that attitude was killing people by the thousands. (Still is. Islamic terrorists are driven by the same thing -- the idea that one must not question the religious authority, and that questioning the authority is an insult which cannot be tolerated lest the faith be diminished. They believe they are saving the world, and that's terrifying to me.)
The moderate majority is often drowned out by the vocal minorities on the opposite ends of a spectrum. And bad things happen as a result. It is time we stopped being silent. We fear alienating fellow congregants, but isn't the truth important? We must not make the mistake of the fundamentalists and decide that what we think is the truth is so important it justifies all means. No. We must evangelize, in the old sense of the word. Tell the story. Again and again. Ironically, some will try to silence us for doing so, all while complaining about how the scientific establishment silences them. But those of us passionate about science need to share that passion. That's true whether you're religious or not, of course, but I think right now it is especially important for the religious scientists to do so. The scientifically illiterate sometimes feel intimidated by science, for a variety of reasons, and in a religious setting this can make them think science is out to get them. We religious moderates are in the perfect position to address this problem.
Fortunately, some of us are already doing it. But if any others are reading this blog, get to it! It's important.
I mean, I acknowledge that my faith may be wrong; what right do I then have to criticize another religious person for their quirks of faith?
HA!
and they accuse liberal atheists of "moral relativism".
NOW we know where the relativism really comes from.
;)
We fear alienating fellow congregants, but isn't the truth important?
there is no Truth(tm). That said, TELLING the truth (as in avoiding lies) is to be highly recommended.
when those of us who see no need for deities, see people like Falwell and Robertson being held in the highest esteem in this country, its quite easy to conclude that if there really is an 85% majority of those who define themselves as "xian" in this country, there are a lot of people to blame.
[QUOTE]Steven @ 300,
I agree that this is the reason Mike gives offocially, but it is not that convincing if it is his sole reason. [/QUOTE]
To you. My standards are perhaps higher, as I actually got my PhD in biology.
[QUOTE]Academics all over the world sign their real names to their work when it comes to controversial matters. And the fact that Mike is highly qualified in biology is just too obvious from his writings for his adoption of a pseudonym to make a difference.
Mark my words, if not for this culture war, Mike would have no need whatsoever to adopt an internet identity.[/QUOTE]
Why should I 'mark you words'? I'd rather have evidence.
Why would Gene NOT give 'fear of oppression' as a reason
for using a pseudo, if that's the real reason? If he did, he'd be even more of a star of the ID movement than he is already. And more still if he actually was 'oppressed' as a result.
No, if 'Mike Gene' is really a biologist -- you know, years of training, a degree, a postdoc, research and papers in peer-reviewed journals, teaching at university level, maybe a job in the biotech industry, that sort of stuff -- or even if he WAS one but no longer is -- he/she should at least admit to *that*. Has he? I've searched, and so far have found no proof of it. His work that I've read is nothing a talented autodidact could not have produced.
Ksenya #272
"Ксения (глупая украинка)"
ne ponjemaju po ruski!!!
please make me understand!
Yoeruek
Yoeruek,
Ксения (глупая украинка) = Kseniya (glupaya ukrainka) = Kseniya (stupid ukrainian grrrl)
It's just a harmless little bit of self-effacement. :-)
Kseniya,
Thanks. Just have babelfished it out before.
BTW could you recommend some "true believer" vs. "mean" (sorry for that accusation)scientist blogs? This one and the open thread seem to suffer from lack of contribution at this time. I already watch the freedom_from_evolution.html of Daytona Beach News-Journal Online. Think firemancarl does a good job over there.
Yoeruek
Hi Yoeruek. Hmmm. I'm not the best person to ask. I haven't been exposed to a wide variety of scienceblogs...
How about The Panda's Thumb?
I'm not certain I understand what you're looking for. Are you trying to avoid "believer vs. mean" - or do you seek it? If you're seeking, try some other threads here on Pharyngula... ;-)
Kseniya,
Yeah, I thought of Panda´s thumb too when asking.
To be honest I´m seeking the controverse discussion. I hope the level of speech at those blogs will be better adapted to my comprehension of english language. I fear an exclusivly scientific blog would be too complex.
Deli Yoeruk (try to figure that one out)
Finally got my hands on the filings for this case.
Summary:
0. IANAL
1. Premise says they want the judge to say they didn't infringe anything of XVIVO's.
2. They assert that Expelled "examines the scientific community's academic supression of those who ask too many questions about the origin of life."
3. They claim XVIVO is wrong when XVIVO says the "brief segment" infriges. They do not stipulate that XVIVO has any copyright to infringe.
4. They got XVIVO's letter
5. They want to judge to say XVIVO has no copyrights and further that Expelled has not infringed.
(minutia:)
6. They incorporated in Delaware but do "principal" business in Dallas. (Ed. Then why was the mailing address in N.M. ?? What's in N.M. ?? Do they have a right to file in Dallas ?? Where are the dated business addresses to support this claim ??)
7. XVIVO is some carpetbagger from CT, and you know what that means....
8. XVIVO's carpet-bagging ocassionaly reaches to TX
9. Why, Alcon (in TX) is a XVIVO client.
10. And XVIVO does business with Austin's Arthrocare
11. Why, we would even go so far as to guess that XVIVO does this business of their's actually in TX. PROVE US WRONG.
12. Further, they done gone on the Interweb, and some TX person might view their website -- WHICH PROMOTES THEIR BUSINESS.
13. XVIVO's business seems to primary consist of big words.
14. Despite XVIVO's reluctance to leave CT, they might use conference calling technology.
15. We think, if you had email and a web browse that if you used the Internet to contact XVIVO, they might return your message.
16. They also issue press releases from that website.
17. They also own a fax machine and telephone which can be reached from TX, and they talk about it on their website.
18. Because they have a website, the TX court should have jurisdiction.
19. They let you view a low-bandwidth "full-length" version of the alleged copyrighted material for free and for "educational purposes." But that's not my point. Because they have a website, the 5th circuit TX court should consider it fair to assert jurisdiction. Let's definitely not go to the 2nd or 10th circuit.
20. We say XVIVO has taken deliberate action to invite lawsuits in TX.
21. They did this by not trying to do business in TX.
(You'll note that Premise didn't say too much about their N.M. mailing address.)
(subject matter:)
22. Please take this case, look at US Code Chapter 28 sections 1331 and 1338(a)
23. Please take this case, look at US Code Chapter 28 section 1332
24. They started this, so please take this case
25. It's proper to take this case, since XVIVO came to TX by not coming to TX
(There are 30 more paragraphs where the state more, but I don't have time to paraphrase now. I wonder if any of your readers is versed in US Federal Law.)
Starting with paragraph 26, the Expelled complaint against XVIVO promises to move into the area of Facts. So, in the interest of education, fairness and complete disclosure, I will quote 3 paragraphs verbatim:
The use of the term "documentary" is disputable since they later equate it as educational, when it is clearly the opposite of education. There is no evidence of "academic supression" and cannot be such since there is no academically-informed belief that Darwinian evolution explains biogenesis -- just speciation and the variety of life. A belief which is in-fact held by prominent members of the Discovery Institute -- whatever that means. Also, belief of adequacy is not the actual position of academia since there are actual mathematical statements of fact at the core of the "Darwinian evolution."
It is disputable that Ben Stein is a "well known actor" since Richard Dawkins, famous British movie buff, had never heard of him. Again, they brought up his Nixon speech writing -- in what venue does that make Stein look good? Stein and the producers fail to state a standard by which an idea can appropriately dominate a classroom, as as in the Dover case, there is no objective standards to call gravity appropriate and evolution not. Free speech is not at issue, as Stein has personally demonstrated. Debate is not an issue as Dawkins' encounter with the producers demonstrated. "[D]iversity of views" sounds more like that treasonous Austin talk than the talk you want to bring to a judge in Dallas. :) But it is inappropriate since the academia under consideration are not philosophers but scientists and as many have said: there is but one science. There is no Texas science and California science and French science and Morris science, but one body of knowledge and one gate for admission: factual evidential support.
It is disputable that the mentioned bills would help students in any way. Also, why is evolution singled out and not gravity?
Continuing with my paraphrase:
29. Premise makes (documentary) films
30. Expelled is Premise's original work that fights prejudice in the educational community. (Ed. I throw up a little every time I read that. Why not tell the judge he is prejudiced every time he makes a ruling on the gathered facts and failed to account for the defense theory that God framed an innocent man whose fingerprints were on the knife in the body found inside the man's private walk-in safe.)
31. PZ Myers and other "Darwinianists" tell Ben Stein about their positions on evolution (Ed. was much of that in the film? And sorry if that was misleading, but PZ wasn't personally named in the complaint.)
It was entirely at the sub-cellular level, and even mostly at the molecular level. Unlike the XVIVO animation, which I'm sure they are thinking of since it is so easy to confuse them, the Premise film features no cellular segments, like the unzipping of a capillary wall to let a white blood cell through. So they rehash William Paley again, and continue to make noise over the origin of life, even though they are looking at a depiction of a modern Eukaryote cell.
33. You can't copyright a fact of nature
34. Inner life presents animated illustrations of the interior of a living cell.
35. There's only a finite number of ways you can depict a factual thing (Ed. And only a finite number of melodies on a twelve-note scale with rational rhythyms. And only a finite number of ways to write a history reports. And only a finite number of bits in a Quicktime movie. And only a finite number of ways to arrange a few billion base pairs.)
36. XVIVO claims to have authored the animations and then they made them freely viewable on the Internet.
37. Premise paid actual money to get their animation made
38. Premise commercially made a DVD and pre-release version(s) of the film and animation to inflate ticket sales. But those are different animations than the two mentioned so far. How stupid of XVIVO to predict that they would be the same. How stupid of XVIVO to assume that they even have a valid copyright in the Inner Life animation.
39. XVIVO accused us and on the same day told people on the internet about it. But they did it just to hurt our ticket sales. (Ed. I remember it as Internet people telling XVIVO and XVIVO agreeing with people on the Internet.)
40. The video Inner Life does not identify XVIVO as the copyright holder. (Ed. Anyone see the relevance, now that the US is a Berne member?)
41. XVIVO is stupid to say in their letter that the released version of Expelled had animation which were "copied by computer-generated means" (Ed. XVIVO relies on the pre-production animation and distributed DVDs -- so Premise is trying to reframe it about their current crimes not their past crimes)
42. XVIVO wrote a scary letter asking us to remove the animation (which we already did, we put in new animation, why are they whining about the old copy when they should be cheering the new copy?)
43. Not in the DVD nor in the released film do we infringe on XVIVO's rights (because we continue to assert they have no rights)
44. The DVD that XVIVO saw was independent of the final version of the Film and both are independent of XVIVO. They got the big guns at Harvard because they didn't play whack-a-mole, well neener-neener, we already have them dancing to our tune.
45. Because XVIVO yelled at us, we had to go find us a judge.
(Enough with mere facts, lets get on to the theory of the case)
46. What we said in paragraphs 1-45 are true -- PAY ATTENTION!
47. We want the judge to say XVIVO has no copyright to protect. (Ed. And I throw up again.)
48. If XVIVO has a copyright, we want the judge to say we didn't infringe with either the DVD or the (final released version) of the Film.
49. Since scientific facts are not protectable by copyright we always figured that depictions of of scientific facts like textbook illustrations, movies or journal articles were also not protectable by copyright. (Ed. Disbarment NOW!)
50. Ours iz different. It iz brown.
51. It's different in other ways, so sue us. I mean, we made ours independently of theirs so they can't sue us.
52. Even if we deliberately copied from them, fair use.
53. Even if we deliberately copied from them, and its infringing, it's not infringing since we stole just such a tiny, tiny bit.
54. Stealing from them was appropriate since they license watching their video on their website for "educational use" and by stealing from them, hasn't everyone learned something?
55. Stealing from XVIVO is protected by the First Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution. Yee haw!
56. Therefore the judge should say we never stole or stealing was OK, or better yet, say XVIVO has no copyright to infringe.
So I'm begging you, judge, set me free, since I'm the victim here.
If you want to see the Premise suit above, you need a PACER account and a link to the courthouse and case. (Docket Reports have the filings -- but even Docket reports cost $0.08 per page to view.)
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-3:2008cv00639/cas…
Aha. I found Yoko Ono's lawsuit:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2008cv03813/cas…
0. IANAL
1. Yoko Ono lives in New York and is the widow and heir of the late John Lennon, who you might have heard of. As such she has trademark and copyright rights in "Imagine."
2. Sean Lennon is a New Yorker who also has copyright in "Imagine."
3. Julian Lennon is not a New Yorker, and has copyright in "Imagine."
4. EMI Blackwood is a CT corporation (like XVIVO) that does business in NY.
5. Premise Media Corp. is a Delaware corporation which does business in Dallas.
6. C&S (Rampant Films) is a Delaware corporation which does business in Gonzales, TX.
7. Premise Media Distribution is a Delaware corporation which does business in Dallas.
8. Rocky Mountain Pictures is a Utah corporation which does business in Salt Lake City.
9. The court should take this copyright case for sections 1331, 1332, and 1338 of US Code Title 28, and also US Code title 15, section 1125(a), and general principles. The claims we have are based on US Conde Title 17 sections 106, 201, 501, 504 and common law.
10. The court should take this case based on just that section 1332.
11. And this specific court because US Code Title 28, Section 1391(a)and(b) applies since our side is already in NYC.
12. Everyone knows John Lennon who did many well-known things.
13. As his heirs, we value his contributions to the arts.
14. Rolling Stone in 2004 rated this song "Imagine" as ranked number 3 of the Greatest Songs of all Time, and it sold well, and we believe the judge knows it.
15. "Imagine" has also been used as a trademark since 1988 and the name of biographical documentary of Lennon.
16. As a result, "Imagine" is actually indistiguishable and synonymous with Lennon and his Legacy (which we are.)
17. Yoko Ono fiercely defends both John Lennon's Legacy and "Imagine."
18. Some F-Tards on the Internet were telling untrue tales that another group of F-tards made a film for profit with our permission to use "Imagine" in it.
19. It ain't so!
20. The first group of F-Tards said we "sold out" Lennon by allegedly doing this.
21. Then, three days later the second group of F-tards publically showed this film in NYC, with "Imagine" prominently featured -- with F-ing subtitles, even.
22. This second group of F-tards had a WHOLE LOT of other music:
* All Along the Watchtower by Bob Dylan
* "Spirit in the Sky" by Norman Greenbaum
* "All These Things That I've Done" -- The Killers' song by B. Flower, D.B. Keuning, M.A. Stoermer and R. Vannucci, Jr.
* "Personal Jesus" -- The Depeche Mode song by Martin Lee Gore
23. They licensed those song, why not ours?
24. At the end of the film they listed these songs so we would know they were licensed.
25. They also listed "Imagine" but if you scrutinize it, they did not say that they got permission.
26. Other F-tards in the public may not squint as hard as we did and assume that we gave permission.
27. We believe the F-tards who make the film stole it because they knew they couldn't get it or couldn't afford it.
28. Then they didn't take steps to let the public know "Imagine" was stolen.
So we want what's ours.
29. Paragraphs 1-28 are worth repeating.
30. We are and have been in charge of "Imagine"
31. This 1971 song is still in copyright (Registration EU277294 1971, Re-registered RE-796-356, 1998)
32. They have no license, no permission, and no excuse.
33. Because of US Code Title 17, Sections 501 and 106, we're making a Federal Case out of it.
34. Because of section 504, we can say they knew better
35. And they harmed us.
36. So we have a right to insist that they stop and pay us for what they did.
37. Paragraphs 1-37 are worth repeating.
38. The Three Lennons are the owners of copyright
39. The public showing(s) for the film are copyright violations.
40. That hurts us separately everytime the film is shown.
41. So section 502 lets us ask for the court to stop them
42. Paragraphs 1-41 are worth repeating.
43. Yoko Ono is the Executrix of the Estate
44. "Imagine" is a trademark
45. They used and use "Imagine" in a way that hurts Yoko Ono's plans for the trademark
46. Thus that's a violation of US Code Title 15, Section 1125(a)
47. Unless they are stopped they are going to hurt Lennon's Estate in ways that money won't fix
48. Since money won't solve this, then we can't just sue them for money
49. So we ask the judge to stop them and punish them to at least they harm they caused us that can be measured in money or three times their ill-gotten profits -- plus attorney fees
So we beg the court:
* Tell the world they stole our song
* Stop their film and anywhere else they stole our song
* Get records of all their Film sales and profits and our damages and punish them
* Get records of all their Other sales and profits and our damages and punish them
* Freeze their accounts so that they won't fritter away what we feel is now our money
* Give us their film so we can make sure it doesn't wind up on You Tube or churchy DVDs
* Award us damages of at least the greater of $75k or 3 times their profit.
* Give us any other help you can think of, Judge.
More on Premise v. XVIVO -- May 8, 2008
Joseph Condeelis has been added to the plantiffs, claiming XVIVO has been leaving phone messages for him.
Plantiffs are trying to get a Texas judge to say that XVIVO has no protected material in the film or the DVD.
The new filing claims XVIVO "has threatened Mr. Condeelis with imminent legal action" -- and with Mr. Condeelis added as a plaintiff, he is hoping to be rewarded with a Declaration that he also didn't infringe on any of XVIVO's copyrights.
I see no filings from XVIVO, etc, yet.
Regarding Yoko Ono suing the makers of Expelled...
Premise and Yoko Ono have agreed to have until June 13 to respond to the claim that Premise, et. al. violated Yoko Ono's rights in the unsullied trademark. US Code Title 15, Section 1125(a)
But for the rest of the case, it is ON. Premise filed their response to the copyright charges. They claim they violated no copyright and that "Imagine" is in the public domain. Yoko Ono's response is due Friday.
Paraphrase:
Wait, what?
While I appreciate the recaps of the legal proceedings, I have to ask: Is the above bold-faced shenanigans (along with not knowing the applicable law, and then suddenly being experts in it, then being dumb again, and all the rest) in any way typical?
And does that sort of nonsense ever work?
And if it doesn't work, does it ever hurt?