About that cell video in Expelled

| 80 Comments

I was wrong — it’s not the Harvard multimedia video. It’s an independently generated copy. I grabbed a few images from the DVD I got at my truncated visit to the Expelled screening, and here, for instance, is the segment that shows that striking kinesin motor protein towing a vesicle down a microtubule. This is the version in the Expelled movie:

ex_motor

Now here’s an equivalent frame from the actual Harvard video.

hm_motor

Now I’m embarrassed to have mistaken one for the other, since the Expelled version is of much lower resolution and quality. However, do notice that they both have roughly the same layout and the same elements in view; this is a remarkable, umm, coincidence, since these are highly edited, selected renderings, with many molecules omitted … and curiously, they’ve both left out the same things.

Another curious coincidence: you’ve heard of the concept of plagiarized errors, the idea that the real tell-tale of a copy is when it’s the mistakes that are duplicated, in addition to the accuracies. In this case, I previously criticized the Harvard video for a shortcut. That kinesin molecule is illustrated showing a stately march, step by step, straight down the microtubule. Observations of kinesin show it’s more complex, jittering back and forth and advancing stochastically. That’s a simplification in the Harvard video that is also present in Expelled‘s version.

It’s clear that what they did was brainlessly copy what they saw in the original. I don’t know whether this is actionable anymore — that they slapped together a look-alike video to cover their butts makes the issue much more complicated.

80 Comments

I think it’s still plagerism. If a cartoon uses the Peanuts comic characters without any input or permission from the estate of the late Charles Schultz, it’s still wrong to do. Even if it’s an original story written by someone else those characters appear in.

I have had a lot of amusement the last three days, PZ, reading the various accounts of your Expulsion from Expelled.

There is no question in my mind that the producers of this craporolla did plagiarize Harvard. The question is whether Harvard could win in court? With so many Americans creationist, and so many years of Republican far-right appointments to the Federal courts, I no longer expect any rational rulings. Dover was as total a surprise to me as it was to the Discovery Institute.

Oh no. The producers of the film might now try to arrest PZ for stealing one of their DVDs. I can’t wait to see the PR that generates. Honestly, I wouldn’t put it past them.

What would really be cool is a series on the science channel or something that featured these animations. I would love to see all the cellular processes rendered to such exquisite detail – you could not avoid the mechanical nature of it all. I wish they would show the pieces acting a little more chaotically, though. At that scale Brownian motion would jostle everything - and watching fibers do a random walk up there little highway would be better than showing a deterministic walking machine.

Dale Husband:

I think it’s still plagerism. If a cartoon uses the Peanuts comic characters without any input or permission from the estate of the late Charles Schultz, it’s still wrong to do. Even if it’s an original story written by someone else those characters appear in.

Morally, I’d agree.

Legally, you (or really, the Harvard folks) would have to sit down with a copyright lawyer to figure that out. IANAL, but I do know there’s significantly different rules for different situations and media. Software, music, written word etc. all have their own sets of standards and precedents.

PZ Myers lied for Darwin (again):

Now I’m embarrassed to have mistaken one for the other, since the Expelled version is of much lower resolution and quality.

You do realize, don’t you, that a DVD is at most 480p. This is a limitation of the format.

You do realize, don’t you, that a DVD is at most 480p. This is a limitation of the format.

The relevance being? Geez William…

I think it’s still plagerism.

PZ Myers said he was wrong. Therefore, it is NOT plagiarism.

PvM:

You do realize, don’t you, that a DVD is at most 480p. This is a limitation of the format.

The relevance being? Geez William…

Resolution

Wow! FL and William Wallace are being even dumber than usual! Like I didn’t even think that was possible! I stand corrected. LOL.

Re FL’s comment:

PZ Myers said he was wrong. Therefore, it is NOT plagiarism.

Cheez, didn’t you read the entire post before sticking your mouth around your foot?

PZ: It’s clear that what they did was brainlessly copy what they saw in the original. I don’t know whether this is actionable anymore — that they slapped together a look-alike video to cover their butts makes the issue much more complicated.

Saying the issue is “more complicated” is not the same as saying there is NO issue.

Re PZ’s first three words in this post, those reminded me of this great observation by the guy that DID get in to see the movie, one Richard Dawkins:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said–with passion–“My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.” We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that. In practice, not all scientists would. But all scientists pay lip service to it as an ideal–unlike, say, politicians who would probably condemn it as flip-flopping. The memory of the incident I have described still brings a lump to my throat.

PZ, ya got class. I am clapping for you. When did Dembski or Johnson or Behe or Wells ever own up to one of their ubiquitous errors? Thanks for demonstrating how real scientists deal with new information.

Dave

FL:

I think it’s still plagerism.

PZ Myers said he was wrong. Therefore, it is NOT plagiarism.

1. PZ may be an authority - but AFAIK, not on copyright law.

2. It is plagiarism, or do you claim the makers of the plagiat had not seen, did not imitate the Harvard video?

3. It remains to be seen whether there is anything that could or should be done about this obvious and pathetic case of plagiarism.

4. How come nothing ever comes out of the ID research laboratories? ROFL.

William Wallace:

PvM:

You do realize, don’t you, that a DVD is at most 480p. This is a limitation of the format.

The relevance being? Geez William…

Resolution

William, your point was perfectly clear the first time you said it. Remember you REALLY have to dumb things down here for the Darwinists to understand it. Remember that shun math and quantitative analysis.

“Your honor, I concede that my novel bears close resemblance to “Gone with the Wind”, but its title is “Gone with the Breeze”, the heroine’s name is Scarlett O’Malley, and after all, you can’t copyright the burning of Atlanta, can you?”

The similarity of the 2 videos is matched by the similarity of styles of preen and jacob. DNFTT(s).

If all they did was re-make it, then it is still covered by copyright law. At best it’s a derivative work i.e.

A work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.

From http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/sco[…]l#derivative.

So yup, they could still be in hot water.

Interesting — apparently the promoters of “Expelled” have closed all further advance screenings of the film:

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfru[…]in_tempe.php

Must be the work of those nefarious evilutionists. Perhaps they’ll screen it for the public at the Immanuel Velikovsky Memorial Theatre in downtown Seattle (it’s at 208 Columbia Street).

PZ said “Now I’m embarrassed to have mistaken one for the other, since the Expelled version is of much lower resolution and quality.”

This is a comparison between 2 videos, you can’t just say “well this one is at 480p because it’s on DVD and therefore the resolution is lower.” You have to actually know what the other video is at to make the claim that it’s because of DVD. The original on the web, those are typically LESS than 480p to reduce. Watching the videos on the site PZ links to, the High Speed video appears to be at 480p, it certainly isn’t any version of HD. The Slow Speed version appears to be at 320x240, significantly less than 480p.

3D Rendering quality has WAY more to it than just the final resolution of the images.

It remains to be seen whether there is anything that could or should be done about this obvious and pathetic case of plagiarism.

Well, since it’s such an “obvious and pathetic case of plagiarism”, you should take it to court. If things don’t quite pan out, you and Dave Thomas can always split the court costs.

FL

I wish they would show the pieces acting a little more chaotically, though.

Yeah. I’ve seen a part of Unlocking the mysteries of life in which the ribosomes make an appearance. All of the correct tRNAs drop into place right when they’re needed, no jostling around. This is not in agreement with existing experimental data, such as rare codon usage choking down protein synthesis.

A clear example of Descent with Modification

preen


Remember you REALLY have to dumb things down here for the Darwinists to understand it. Remember that shun math and quantitative analysis.

Whoops, you got that one backwards. It’s the IDiots/creos who start out dumb. The rest of us have to limit ourselves to eighth-grade level postings. I don’t think there are any “Darwinists” posting here.

jacob/jacob2/preen/telo all post from the same IP addresses, and no one else does. This is a Rule 6 violation. jacob/jacob2/preen/telo, you are no longer welcome to use the comment entry privilege here at PT or AtBC. Please use another forum for your comments.

telo:

No one here accepts Darwin’s theory? Are they Lamarkists?

Could it be that the theory of evolution has progressed in the last 150 years? Who would have thought that scientists could build upon existing knowledge and alter their explanations as new data comes in? The reason why only creationists call evolution “Darwinism” is that scientists are aware of the advances made in the science of evolution since Darwin’s time. For example, Darwin did not know about Mendelian genetics or DNA.

As for the resolution issue, I think the problem is that the creationists’ video has much less detail. Look at the microtubule - on the Harvard video, it has three-dimensional texture, while it looks smooth on the creationists’ screencap.

“I was wrong.…”

Three little words that make science so much better than ID.…

Thank you administration.

Admin:

jacob/jacob2/preen/telo all post from the same IP addresses, and no one else does. This is a Rule 6 violation. jacob/jacob2/preen/telo, you are no longer welcome to use the comment entry privilege here at PT or AtBC. Please use another forum for your comments.

I know what PT means (Panda’s Thumb), but what is AtBC? Also, may I see the rules so I may know what NOT to do? If changing your screen name is a violation, I wasn’t aware of that until now!

AtBC = After the Bar Closes, a forum on AntiEvolution.org.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bi[…]?act=SF;f=14

Dale Husband:

If changing your screen name is a violation, I wasn’t aware of that until now!

It’s not the act of changing per se that attracts unfavorable attention, it’s doing it in a deliberate attempt to evade policy enforcement, or to engage in sock puppetry of one sort or another.

Thomas S. Howard:

Hey, john.williams: something must be wrong with the censoring because I just read your post. You should email the admins tout de suite.

Wont last. My posts will be deleted soon. Actually when a person comes here and presents a good case about the weaknesses of Darwinism. whish they are gone.

I think this is why people are upset about this repression of free thought. Not even weaknesses of the theory can be talked about.

For instance why were the Haekels in bio texts for decades. It was till the internet came along and there was more free acess to info that people realized they were fake. The pressure from creationists forced those lies out of the text books.

I do not think the Darwinists will be able to really suppress the truth on these issues because of the internet. Sure they can suppress free exchange of ideas on this site but not the internet in general.

“I am a passionate Darwinist” Richard Dawkins

So don’t tell me only creationists use the word. such bull.

Actually when a person comes here and presents a good case about the weaknesses of Darwinism. whish they are gone.

Who are you thinking of here? You mean Jacob who, as far as I know (and I stopped reading his posts out of boredom), had some sort of problem with whale blowholes or Keith Eaton or Polegreaser with their ignorant rants? Surely not William Wallace who, from his comments about biology and mathematics, has probably never looked through a biology journal in his life. How about pointing us to a site that offers a good case about the ‘weaknesses of Darwinism’ because I do not believe there is such a thing (let me guess - AIG).

Even if you succeed in finding any weakness in the theory of evolution you will not have made any progress in finding evidence for your favorite theory, whatever that might be.

Oh.…my.…God! John Williams is RIGHT! Haeckel’s embryos. I never realized (puts face in hands, choking back sobs and tears). Oh my God. Evolution is ALL WRONG. Some drawings made by a 19th century naturalist were exaggerated, and his hypothesis was wrong! So wrong! Now I realize the waste, the utter waste, of those thousands upon thousands upon thousands of studies testing thousands of hypotheses about evolution. All paleontology – worthless! All genetics – worthless. Population biology – worthless. All because (choke, sob) something that was proven wrong at least as early as 1894 was misrepresented and twisted by Jonathan Wells, then repeated uncritically by someone on a blog. (Uncontrollable sobbing). Dear Lord, if only I had listened to my Biology and Comparative Anatomy teachers as an undergraduate who taught that it was wrong. And to think, (choke, sob), those teachers actually thought it was right, even though they taught it was wrong, all because Jonathan Wells says so, and John Williams repeated it here. The shame. The shame. (sob, choke).

Yet this site is ‘fixed’ to keep out opposing view so what is the difference?

Pardon me for breaking my DNFTT rule, but the irony is mind boggling:

The above quote appeared in the very next comment - and 2 hours later, so “gota” could not possibly have missed it - where I invite William Wallace to provide details on his opposing view.

Additional irony is that Wallace has been evading my questions for weeks.

Haeckel? Really? You’re gonna go with that one? Umm, you do realize that “graphics in introductory level textbooks” != “theory of evolution”, right? Well, since you’re a troll, I say the answer is yes and you’re just going for the annoyance factor. In which case, good job.

Plagiarism is not the same thing as copyright infringement. As I noted in a post I wrote on my blog a while back, the latter is copying without proper authorization, the former is copying without proper attribution. It’s possible to plagiarize without infringing copyright– for example, ideas themselves are generally not copyrightable, but lifting wholesale a set of ideas from someone else without crediting them can still be plagiarism even if it’s not copyright infringement.

One thing to note in this instance is that, when it comes to academic integrity, plagiarism is often considered a worse offense than copyright infringement. (A scholar who mistakenly makes an over-reaching judgment of what constitutes fair use can be punished but still seen as legitimate; one who lifts someone else’s work without acknowledging it, even though they easily could, is often judged to be, well, expelled from the scholarly community.)

If we’re talking about the scientific and academic credibility of “intelligent design” proponents, the question of plagiarism may well be the more salient one, and the question of copyright infringement a distraction. Note that I don’t know whether they’ve plagiarized in this case– I haven’t seen their DVD, and they may have properly acknowledged Harvard’s animation as the inspiration or basis of their own. But I’d suggest that that’s the more relevant question to address, and not so much a legal battle over whether their animation was fair use or not.

john.williams:

Wont last. My posts will be deleted soon. Actually when a person comes here and presents a good case about the weaknesses of Darwinism. whish they are gone.

I think this is why people are upset about this repression of free thought. Not even weaknesses of the theory can be talked about.

For instance why were the Haekels in bio texts for decades. It was till the internet came along and there was more free acess to info that people realized they were fake. The pressure from creationists forced those lies out of the text books.

I do not think the Darwinists will be able to really suppress the truth on these issues because of the internet. Sure they can suppress free exchange of ideas on this site but not the internet in general.

You assume too much and you believe whatever talking points the Creationist leaders say about us and about evolution. Haeckel’s embryo drawings were controversial from the beginning and while they appeared in many high school textbooks, most biologists didn’t consider Haeckel’s hypothesis of embryos reenacting evolution to be absolutely true. The reality is more complex than either Haeckel or his Creationist critics make it out to be, but I guess that’s too hard for you to grasp, eh?

Actually when a person comes here and presents a good case about the weaknesses of Darwinism. whish they are gone.

Since none of the so-called “weaknesses of Darwinism” are “good case”s, there are no examples for you to cite.

John Williams:

“I am a passionate Darwinist” Richard Dawkins

So don’t tell me only creationists use the word. such bull.

You’re right, Richard Dawkins is a passionate Darwinist. But let’s see what else he has to say:

My own view, frequently expressed (for example in the The Selfish Gene and especially in the title chapter of A Devil’s Chaplain) is that there are two reasons why we need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian).Link.

gota said: The posters complain that the producers ‘fixed’ the interviews and ‘fixed’ the invitations. Yet this site is ‘fixed’ to keep out opposing view so what is the difference?

What a lark, Jacob. Your endless rants and discussion derailings are available on previous threads for all to see. PT never banned any of your comments in the several *months* I’ve been reading them, so clearly your complaint is without merit. The reason you were banned is because you violated a very simple rule - do not post under multiple aliases. Heck, even the move to put you on the bathroom wall had zero to do with *WHAT* you said and everything to do with *HOW* you said it. You don’t see William Wallace getting banned from PT because of what he has written. So quit your obviously absurd martyrdom whining.

john.williams said: People here criticize the movie producer for censoring who can see his move yet censorship is here is quite OK.

See comment to your alias “Gota”, Jacob. You clearly have no grounds for complaining.

Oh dear God, here we go again. Atheists have no morals. Give me a break. I know plenty of atheists (I am not one myself, though). Most of them are kind, generous and fair – among the more moral people that I know. On the other hand, I know some real sleaze balls and pricks who profess to be fundamentalist Christians. Witness, for example, the copiously demonstrated fact that so many YECs lie for Jesus. Shall we once again (heaves tired sigh) provide a list of the loud-mouthed hypocrites who scream about “Christian” morality while indulging themselves in the worst way (Ted Haggard, Jim and Tammy Baker etc…)? Your proposition is that morality comes from a belief in God. What a complete crock. Morality and ethics are taught and culturally transmitted. Which morality from the Bible do you adhere to – slavery, murder, genocide, polygyny? Care to choose? Oh wait, you are selective in that morality, eh? And what determines which morals you select from your source, hmmmmm? Of course, you completely ignore the fact that non-Christian cultures have morality too, and that other Christian cultures have different morals. The bottom line is that I couldn’t give a damn about whether Richard Dawkins is an atheist. Bully for him. I don’t really care what you are either. At issue here is the sleazy tactics and propaganda of this film and its makers. The degree to which they loudly profess Christian morality only makes the hypocrisy of their tactics that much worse.

mplavcan: Oh dear God, here we go again. Atheists have no morals. Give me a break. I know plenty of atheists (I am not one myself, though). Most of them are kind, generous and fair – among the more moral people that I know. On the other hand, I know some real sleaze balls and pricks who profess to be fundamentalist Christians. Witness, for example, the copiously demonstrated fact that so many YECs lie for Jesus. Shall we once again (heaves tired sigh) provide a list of the loud-mouthed hypocrites who scream about “Christian” morality while indulging themselves in the worst way (Ted Haggard, Jim and Tammy Baker etc…)? Your proposition is that morality comes from a belief in God. What a complete crock. Morality and ethics are taught and culturally transmitted. Which morality from the Bible do you adhere to – slavery, murder, genocide, polygyny? Care to choose? Oh wait, you are selective in that morality, eh? And what determines which morals you select from your source, hmmmmm? Of course, you completely ignore the fact that non-Christian cultures have morality too, and that other Christian cultures have different morals. The bottom line is that I couldn’t give a damn about whether Richard Dawkins is an atheist. Bully for him. I don’t really care what you are either. At issue here is the sleazy tactics and propaganda of this film and its makers. The degree to which they loudly profess Christian morality only makes the hypocrisy of their tactics that much worse.

Quite so. I will go a step further and point out that being good because one *wants* to and/or because doing so *makes sense* and *feels right* is far better than being good because there’s some fear that not being good will eternally condemn someone. Better still is the fact that the atheist cannot operate on the assumption of some get-out-of-jail-free card a la a “savior”. The fact is, most atheists are good simply because they realize that a) being good begets good responses and b) engaging in standards of behavior wherein one helps the poor, takes care of children, helps old ladies across the street, provides a caring and comfortable environment for pets, respects strangers and neighbors alike, etc, creates a strong society. In other words, there are very practical reasons for being good that have zero association with a divine carrot and whip holder.

Jacob of the many faces and the multiforked tongue is baaack.

And still refuses to present any factual “case”.

Okay, this is just too stupid:

Mine was that many well known mainstream scientists use the term ‘Darwinism’.

You my lie all you want to, but the rest of us note that Dawkins does no such thing here but mention Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection, “Darwinian natural selection”. 4 times for good measure.

Darwinian - Darwinist, not Darwinism - Darwinist. Glad we have that established for future reference.

Jacob’s trolling

reminds me most of

“The Wagnerian Inquisition:

- EVERYBODY expects the Wagnerian Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is repetition… repetition and dullness… dullness and repetition…

Our two weapons are dullness and repetition… and ruthless inefficiency…

Our three weapons are dullness and repetition and ruthless inefficiency… and an almost fanatical devotion to the Cause…

Our four… no… Amongst our arguments… Amongst our argumentation… are such elements as dullness, repetition…

- I’ll come in again. (Exit)”

john.williams: So what is your point[?] Mine was that many well known mainstream scientists use the term ‘Darwinism’. But posters here say only creationists use the term. So my point is that the posters who say only creationists use the term are either ignorant or liars.

(My correction of punctuation.)

Actually, you are wrong, but in such a way that you inadvertantly raise an interesting point.

There is no such thing in the biology literature as “Darwinism” (note that Dawkins describes himself as a Darwinian not a Darwinist). However, Darwinian processes and mechanisms form a very important component of modern evolutionary theory (MET). Darwin’s conception of natural selection was sufficiently lucid and insightful that it has not changed in the last 149 years. However, our understanding of it, and other mechanisms associated with biological change, has changed dramatically in that time.

Creationists, such as our persistent troll here, frequently use the term “Darwinism” when what they mean is MET. This is a deliberate rhetorical ploy, aimed at propping up the lie that “Darwinism” is a religion. In fact, calling MET “Darwinism” makes as much sense as calling quantum electrodynamics “Maxwellism”. MET has moved on a long way since Darwin’s time. Thus, the term “Darwinist” may have had a real meaning back in the 1860s or 1870s, but now no longer does.

I am sure that some scientists have actually started using the creationists ploy against them, i.e. adopting the term “Darwinist” as a positive thing, or, in other words, using it to indicate a person that considers evidence over authority.

john.williams said,

Why would an atheist care about the poor?

Because he decided it was a good and right thing to do?

Why do Christians care about the poor? Is it only because they’ve been told to? So, john.williams/gota/jacob, if you weren’t told to, you wouldn’t care about the poor? Says more about you than about atheists, I’d say.

Interesting admission, Cowardheart.

You object to banning a commenter for multiple violations of a published rule, a commenter whose sole reason for living is to spread lies and derail discussion.

But you have no problem whatsoever with hiring uniformed goons to throw a scientist out of a movie theater, when said scientist followed all sign-in procedures and was not being disruptive. In fact, you celebrate this expulsion, and will go to any lengths to justify it, even repeating ridiculous lies.

But this couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the lying sockpuppeting troll stroked your ego, could it Cowardheart?

William Wallace:

Admin expelled preen:

jacob/jacob2/preen/telo all post from the same IP addresses, and no one else does. This is a Rule 6 violation. jacob/jacob2/preen/telo, you are no longer welcome to use the comment entry privilege here at PT or AtBC. Please use another forum for your comments.

Hey, I say give Jacob one more chance, in light of Harold’s comments.

William Wallace

Thank you for pointing out one of the many glaring non-stochastic motions in the Harvard video. When I first saw it, I really like it, but was disappointed that, with the available computing and high-res imaging powers, no one is bothering to insert one of the most important aspects of motion on the molecular level…the random jiggles and wiggles from molecular collisions…the brownian ratchet which drives so many processes. No wonder so many folks swallow ID arguments, hook, line, and sinker, when presented with a vision of the micro-world that leaves out such an important aspect of life processes (on both micro and macro levels).…randomness! Not only the kinesin steps are overly coordinated and smooth, but the unfolding of surface receptor proteins…looking more like flowers blooming than a representation of molecules in motion. The makers of such videos need to listen to Richard Feynman’s classic lecture “Atoms in Motion”.

I personally can’t wait to see how bad the “Expelled” rip off really is (and how bad the movie is, in general). But then again, I’m a glutton for punishment, having recently seen “Cloverfield” in a theater.

gota:

The posters complain that the producers ‘fixed’ the interviews and ‘fixed’ the invitations. Yet this site is ‘fixed’ to keep out opposing view so what is the difference?

The difference is that Panda’s Thumb hasn’t made a whole movie based on the argument that certain ideas and people who bring them up have been “expelled” from science discussions, and states that those ideas should be allowed as free speech or as part of a “balanced” discussion. So, when PT removes some comments it’s simply policy, when the people from Expelled do it it’s hypocrisy worth pointing out.

Furthermore, the PR blog of Expelled claims that that they do not “resort to the kind of editing that make Moore movies something other than documentaries.”(source) When, in fact, the evolutionists they interviewed disagree. (See Richard Dawkins’ take on the film, for example.) The Expelled PR blog also claims that Stein “gives certain interview subjects all the time and all the rope they need to hang themselves, unedited.” When, in fact, they pressured interview subjects to give quotes that they could twist, and edited out the ones harmful to their intended message. (See Michael Shermer’s Scientific American article, for example.)

No, the Expelled crew are dishonest as the day is long, and pointing out their hypocrisy has no bearing on the ability of PT to moderate its own comments. This bit of plagiarism is just the icing on the poisonous cake that is aptly titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on March 23, 2008 9:01 PM.

A homage to PZ was the previous entry in this blog.

Richard Dawkins: Lying for Jesus? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter