…and this is a 
The sleaze is growing
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 17, 2008 12:02 AM, by PZ Myers
This is just getting weirder and weirder. What kind of dummies are behind Expelled, anyway? First they lied about the premise of their movie to get interviews; then they copied Harvard/XVIVO's cell animations; then they
Anyway, no matter how the lawyers dance, one thing is clear: the makers of Expelled have been paragons of ethical dubiety, doing their best to skirt the edges of the law and sneak as much doubtful, dishonestly obtained content into their little propaganda movie as they can. I guess they had to skimp on the budget for the actual content of the movie to scrape together a very large advertising budget — it's as if their movie is a metaphor for all of Intelligent Design creationism.
Comments
This just in:
Premise Media threatens John Lennon with lawsuit. Not his estate...John Lennon.
Posted by: J | April 17, 2008 12:07 AM
I'm starting to wonder how these people manage not to choke to death on their own saliva. Did they have any expectation that they weren't gonna get busted pulling this crap? If so...I dunno, it just scares me that I drive on the same roads as these people.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 17, 2008 12:07 AM
Maybe Dembski is right, and the producers of Expelled purposely infringed copyright in order to generate publicity.
Posted by: NP | April 17, 2008 12:12 AM
I have absoloutly no idea how to produce and/or distribute a film, but even I am well aware of the existance of copyrights and the need to ask permission to use other people's work.
It is almost as if the producers have an overwhelming desire to fulfill their pathetic little prosection complex.
Posted by: Autumn | April 17, 2008 12:15 AM
It's brilliant actually. If they fail they can claim it is because of a vast Atheist conspiracy rather than their lack of ethics. "We told you so!!!" Big Science beats the little guy down with unfair tactics!!! It will fuel the paranoia that keeps the conspiracy nuts fed.
Pigs...singing... I can only say it so often.
Posted by: jsn | April 17, 2008 12:16 AM
Obviously, that should have been "persecution" complex, but with them seeming to beg to be sued, maybe I was right the first time.
"Prosecution Fetish" may have been the correct term.
Posted by: Autumn | April 17, 2008 12:17 AM
Prediction: The movie will be pulled from theaters shortly. A week or two later, some of those chain emails will begin circulating about how "anti-Christian" Big Media is, taking all of these copyright violations and lies and turning it into "See how much we're hated by everyone? Nope, no way at all to catch a break, the Super-Scary Rest of Reality is just that threatened/afraid/in Satan's service!"
...only add a few spelling errors, more exclamation marks, crazy font colors, and probably some untraceable "eyewitness" account of PZ devouring fresh-baptized babies while guzzling sacramental wine. That oughta make sure everyone knows it's good and accurate.
Posted by: Corncob | April 17, 2008 12:17 AM
Didn't you hear? Come the tribulation, we're going to have the roads all to ourselves, so the only real problem will be dodging the empties.
Unless, of course, they're wrong about that as well...
Posted by: William | April 17, 2008 12:20 AM
PZ,
I'm beginning to worry that you are neglecting your Trophy Wife (tm).
Posted by: Jsn | April 17, 2008 12:20 AM
They chose music from John Lennon? What? I just can't imagine(Pun intended) what they were trying to do. Lennon is famous for his songs denouncing religion.
Has anyone here seen this film yet?
Posted by: Amplexus | April 17, 2008 12:20 AM
From the folks who have seen it, I am to understand "Imagine" is used for a montage of Nazi and Stalinist atrocities, showing what happens when there is no religion.
Posted by: UprightAlice | April 17, 2008 12:25 AM
As the Pope said when examining the Vatican's washroom, Holy Crap! As a film industry pro myself, I can tell you: Doing a cheapass knockoff of the XVIVO animation is one thing...but you do not gank music. Music rights, as anyone who saw how the industry flattened Napster back in the day and continues to go after file sharers with the big guns a-blazin', are protected more fanatically than the Sheik of Araby's harem. If Mathis and his gang of idiots really did use this music in their film without permission, they can expect no fucking mercy. Yoko's lawyers especially will swoop down like a squadron of Stuka bombers. Expelled might have to change its name to There Will Be Blood II: Creationist Boogaloo.
Posted by: Martin | April 17, 2008 12:26 AM
Is the movie industry always this rife with sneakiness and dishonesty?
Oh, hell yes.
This is penny-ante shit though; the stuff I've come to expect from the smaller independent companies. The big ones are too smart to waste money on potential lawsuits when they can simply get alternate music of the proper rights for a hell of a lot cheaper.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | April 17, 2008 12:26 AM
But.. I thot that beleeving in god makes U all MORAL an stuff!?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | April 17, 2008 12:29 AM
Tyler DiPietro:
A Molly just for that!
By the way, there seem to be some contradictory statements in the air about licensing that Killers song, so I doubt we've heard the last of this.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 17, 2008 12:34 AM
They have the audacity to sue the very people they stole material from?
You have to love, however, that their name is 'Premise'. It shows you exactly the sort of reasoning they employ; They base everything off of a premise, and reality is apparently relative beyond that, extending even to ownership and production of materials which they take, and so on...
Posted by: Trombone | April 17, 2008 12:35 AM
I'm confused by this, because the movers and shakers in the music business have made it very clear in this post-Napster world that they will aggressively go after anyone who reproduces their music without permission. The Expelled people would have to be living in a pretty deep cave to be unaware of this.
Posted by: ndt | April 17, 2008 12:35 AM
So, they either:
1. Copied stuff thinking that a few superficial alterations would be enough to avoid copyright infringement
2. Copied stuff knowing it was copyright infringement but hoping no one would notice
3. Copied stuff knowing it was copyright infringement and wanted to be caught in order to generate publicity
If 1, they are stupid. If 2, they are dishonest. If 3, they are both.
Posted by: amphiox | April 17, 2008 12:36 AM
According to the Dawkins.net article they did license the Killers song
Posted by: Quidam | April 17, 2008 12:42 AM
I am beginning to wonder if they haven't done this stuff intentionally so that their movie will never actually be seen in the "real" production run for the theaters, thus allowing them to claim that it was a vast conspiracy to prevent its showing, and not their dishonesty that led to it never being shown... Nah, that would take intelligence, and at this point... Forrest Gump could beat them at fracking one card monty, while they where looking at a cheat sheet with the correct card written on it.
Posted by: Kagehi | April 17, 2008 12:46 AM
Uh oh. They're messing with the RIAA--they're dead meat! They go after kids and grandparents.
Posted by: jeh | April 17, 2008 12:48 AM
"THEY" probably did it on purpose.
"OH, WOE IS US. EVERYONE IS SUING US BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO JESUS." (sic)
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | April 17, 2008 12:53 AM
One wonders whether the venues in which this propaganda film plans to open would have any liability in view of the plaigerism and copyright violations. Since they stand to profit by the showing of the film (ostensibly) might they not be considered accomplices after the fact? After all, if the film becomes 'popular' as a result of its controversial ethics then are not the theaters also benefiting from the illegal use of copyrighted material and are they not therefore liable for both direct damages (any revenues they obtain) and incidental damages?
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make inquiries to those venues as to what their potential liability might be once they have been informed that the film has dubious credentials.
Just saying...
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | April 17, 2008 12:55 AM
"...no matter how the lawyers dance..."
Dammit PZ, you've just seared a recurring animation directly into my brain.
Dee ba dee ba dee ba dee doo, dee ba dee dey do...
Will we get to see it on ytmnd?
Posted by: LH | April 17, 2008 1:04 AM
U.S. copyright law specifies a fine of up to $150,000 per willful infringement.
In other words, if you show a film containing one willful infringement to 400 people, especially if you charge these people for the viewing, you could conceivably have 400 instances of copyright infringement.
The amount of liability can quickly skyrocket. If these guys truly did use music without obtaining a license, there are probably two possible outcomes:
1. A court injunction could be sought by the copyright owner(s) to prevent screening of the film.
2. The film could be allowed to proceed with release based on a settlement agreement with the copyright owners. Such an agreement is not likely to be cheap, and could conceivably run into the tens of millions of dollars or higher as the copyright owners have all the leverage.
Since the film is scheduled to premiere this week, at least 700 or more release prints have already been struck and sent to theaters. This could put the producers in quite a bind as they probably don't have budget to edit and re-strike all those prints. If they pulled the release it would be a nightmare for them (broken contracts, etc.)
I doubt that their e&o (errors & omissions) insurance would cover something so boneheaded as willful copyright infringement. Given the highly commercial nature of filmmaking, I also doubt that a judge would see the infringement as accidental or inadvertent. And certainly a fair use defense would be out of the question.
Posted by: semi | April 17, 2008 1:12 AM
This kind of crap is normal in the movie industry.
Look at the lawsuit over revenues for LOTR to see what the bigger production outfits get up to.
Posted by: Vagrant | April 17, 2008 1:14 AM
So, someone on the extreme right does a propaganda piece akin to Mike Moore's extreme left propaganda piece, and everyone goes nuts?
Posted by: Rob | April 17, 2008 1:22 AM
Rob- Way to miss the point completely.
Posted by: Rick R | April 17, 2008 1:23 AM
Posted by: Bill | April 17, 2008 1:26 AM
@ #22... First time I've ever seen the word "jesus" verbed. Awesome. Am so stealing that.
Posted by: SteveC | April 17, 2008 1:28 AM
Do you know how much of the songs they use? Because you are allowed to use up to 15 seconds of a song under the fair use clause...
Posted by: Salty Valty | April 17, 2008 1:31 AM
Imagine there's no Ben Stein.
Livin' in the world.
No ID crap before us.
Below us no bullshit.
Imagine all the scientists.
Living life in peace.
You hoo hoo
May think I'm a songwriter.
I'd bet you're the only one.
Imagine there's no Ben Stein.
Livin' for today.
(I completely apolgize for this. Do I get the Head Ass award?)
Posted by: MikeM | April 17, 2008 1:36 AM
"Apologize"
MikeM, here's the preview key. Learn it; use it; love it.
Posted by: MikeM | April 17, 2008 1:39 AM
But wait - weren't they the ones complaining about the nefarious atheists who were trying to "steal" copies of their movie?
Posted by: craig | April 17, 2008 1:45 AM
"("What else would you expect them to say?" asked Mark Mathis, the film's associate producer. "They're absolutely infuriated when anyone dares question their philosophy.") "
Uh, Mr. Mathis? We're talking about music here.
Can anyone possibly see them as anything other than irritating crybaby wankers now?
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 17, 2008 1:46 AM
Actually, Rey Fox, that aside was Mathis's response to the "outraged bloggers ... [who] characterized [the film] as 'creationist propaganda.'"
Posted by: Skemono | April 17, 2008 1:56 AM
Quick, order your FREE! "Age of the Planet Earth" from Dr. Dino. Makes a great coaster for your favorite alcoholic beverage. If you overindulge, you can put it in the player and see if it makes sense.
http://www.drdino.com/expelledoffer/?gclid=CP-z7ZOy4ZICFQ8qIgodtAwQ6Q
Posted by: jesustweak | April 17, 2008 1:56 AM
Perhaps the movie is *intended* to not-quite open at all, or the version that opens publically will be missing the songs and clips, while the "private screening" version with all the [stolen] bells and whistles stays in "church-hall-only" screening mode.
Posted by: marc buhler | April 17, 2008 1:58 AM
BAH!
Still a wanker, of course.
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 17, 2008 2:04 AM
#17
>Do you know how much of the songs they use? Because you are allowed to use up to 15 seconds of a song under the fair use clause...
This statement is incorrect for several reasons.
1. There is no "amount" of a song you can use for "Fair Use." If you read the US Copyright law, you won't find any specification of 15 seconds.
2. "Fair Use" would probably not apply in the case of "Expelled" because there are strict limitations on what qualifies as Fair Use - usually it's for scholarly criticism or review, or parody, or a news report, etc. The fact that this is a commercial film and the music is not the focus of the content of the film would tend to rule out Fair Use.
3. Fair Use is a defense or exception to copyright infringement. Only a judge, based on copyright guidelines, can determine Fair Use. For example, a two-second audio sample used in a Hip-Hop song without permission is probably not Fair Use and would probably be considered infringement.
Posted by: semi | April 17, 2008 2:09 AM
1) There is no 15 second rule. Fair use is determined by number of factors, which are deliberately nonspecific. Samplers are often limited to 15 seconds, but that's just convention. If the purpose is to preview the song than that's reasonable, but this wasn't. They wanted to ram home the point that 'no religion too' leads to communist China.
2) Premise said they used 25 seconds of Imagine, which given that it's a 3 minute song means they stole 15% of the song. Assuming they are telling the truth. Given their pitiful truth record they could be playing it for hours.
Posted by: Quidam | April 17, 2008 2:18 AM
maybe they got all of the proper video and music rights from the proper people for the movie 'crossroads'........and now there is just some innocent confusion
LOL
Posted by: CleveDan | April 17, 2008 2:42 AM
Get over it, people. Their use of the song is protected under fair use. In a movie that deals with Darwinist suppression tactics, don't you think they had some inkling that this kind of accusation was going to be made?
Posted by: Hugh Slaman | April 17, 2008 2:47 AM
Which part of "fair use", Hugh?
Posted by: Q | April 17, 2008 2:51 AM
I would like to see Yoko sue these dweebs and win, but it's not clear to me that the use of a snippet of Imagine wouldn't be fair use, if the intention is to criticize and satirize.
I'm not saying the movie is scholarly, or critical in the sense of actual "critical thinking" but it does sound like their intention is to satirize and criticize the sentiment of the song, among other things. (And my understanding is that "fair use" does not require that the satire or criticism be good---bad parodies or criticisms of good art are still protected.)
I would hope that if the shoe was on the other foot, we could use hunks of theist songs with appropriate imagery to reveal their wacky and unpleasant signficance, even if the artists didn't approve. (As they generally wouldn't.)
Posted by: Paul W. | April 17, 2008 2:54 AM
What Paul W. said.
This movie is coming out, and, given that it is a call to arms, will surely influence the culture wars over evolution.
There is no point in all you Dawinists fantasising that this issue will have any impact on the film. The damage to the atheist and materialist worldview will be done by this film, like it or not.
Posted by: Hugh Slaman | April 17, 2008 2:59 AM
Seems to be a symptom of propaganda movies... Geert Wilders' Fitna movie also breaks several copyrights. The ironic part is that Wilders went to law school! Although he never finished his studies; figures... I guess he missed the course on copyrights! :-D
Posted by: Fedor | April 17, 2008 3:02 AM
There may not be a 15-second rule, but there is a 5-second rule.
Pay attention, now: If you accidentally drop a song on the floor, you can still listen to it if you a) pick it up within 5 seconds and b) blow on it.
There is definitely, definitely a 5-second rule. </rainman>
Posted by: Kseniya | April 17, 2008 3:07 AM
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
Posted by: Moggie | April 17, 2008 3:07 AM
Why, the "use" part of course. The "fair" part can screw itself.
Posted by: andyo | April 17, 2008 3:09 AM
My bet is, they did it on purpose knowing "full well" they will draw the publicity and in case they are threatened with lawsuits they will be able to point and say "See, they try to suppress us. We told you so" ...
Posted by: Chris | April 17, 2008 3:16 AM
I actually wrote them a new theme song for free but that ungrateful lot refused to use it.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Sigmund | April 17, 2008 3:24 AM
Hugh gakked:
I believe you've recently forfeited the right to criticise anyone for "fantasising", Mr. Jampton.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 17, 2008 3:26 AM
For those of you who are surprised by the choice of John Lennon's music as soundtrack to the film: Some years ago I saw a documentary from a congregation of evangelical christians were they were singing Imagine with a couple of choice words altered:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And ONE religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
I can't remember what they did to the first verse regarding heaven and hell.
Posted by: Yssi | April 17, 2008 3:29 AM
Kseniya,
You wrote
"I believe you've recently forfeited the right to criticise anyone for "fantasising", Mr. Jampton."
My name is "Slaman".
And why exactly can I not criticise Darwinists for their unrealistic fantasises about seeing "Expelled" get into trouble?
Posted by: Hugh Slaman | April 17, 2008 3:37 AM
If they are trying to jesus their way of life with this movie, how come they lucifer the music?
I dog a rat.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | April 17, 2008 4:08 AM
D'oh-ver! More specifically, do you remember Dembski and the Vice? We do.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | April 17, 2008 4:11 AM
Vise. [Dembski has many vices, but no Vice. Fortunately.]
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | April 17, 2008 4:13 AM
Hugh Slaman:
Yoko Ono's a Darwinist? I thought she was Japanese...
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | April 17, 2008 4:15 AM
Yssi;
I did a Google search, and came up with a blog that linked to the following "revision" of Imagine. I am guessing it is the one you meant :)
IMAGINE
Revised by Fredi D'Alessio
Imagine there's a Heaven,
It's easy if you try,
A hell below us,
Above us Holy sky,
Imagine all the people
Living for God's way ~
Imagine there's no hatred,
It isn't hard to do,
No cause to kill or die for,
And one religion too,
Imagine all the people
Living in Christ's peace ~
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world believes as one
Imagine shared possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No deeds of greed, no hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world ~
You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one,
I hope someday you'll join us,
And the world will Love as one
( Found at http://dalessio.topcities.com/Imagine.htm )
The site has the original and the revised version side by side, and an explanation of the changes.
It is like the punchline for the joke about the pygmies chanting "NULL" around a giant stone oval: "Is nothing sacred?"
Posted by: IAmMarauder | April 17, 2008 4:27 AM
I am praying for you all...
Posted by: daniel | April 17, 2008 4:31 AM
saw expelled commercial on comedy central and my disgust came to fruition.
Posted by: PrincessTinkles | April 17, 2008 4:37 AM
I totally dig Hugh's (#43) undeclared but still clear definition of "fair use"!
It is surely the one the Wile E. Coyotes behind "Expelled" were assuming, because it is the one Xians use at all times: "fair use" means it's fair when they use it, because their cause is just!
Of course, for a Muslim lovin' Darwiniot lib'ral atheist to simply quote a passage for purposes of criticism or parody is far, far over the line of both Xian decency and the "big L" Law!
Courtesy, rules, laws, facts, etc. are there only to serve the moment's convenience, which they wish to interpret on a strictly case-by-case basis.
Posted by: Sioux Laris | April 17, 2008 4:42 AM
[i]And why exactly can I not criticise Darwinists for their unrealistic fantasises about seeing "Expelled" get into trouble?[/i]
Well, in the real world, when you're wrong, it tends to undercut your argument.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | April 17, 2008 4:44 AM
I think he meant "fair game."
Posted by: MartinM | April 17, 2008 4:47 AM
"I am praying for you all..."
Knock yourself out, Sparky.
Posted by: craig | April 17, 2008 5:00 AM
The damage to the atheist and materialist worldview will be done by this film, like it or not.
LOL
WATERLOOOOO!
you morons have SUCH a short memory.
as was suggested elsewhere....
*cough*DOVER*cough*
do try to recall all the predictions the IDiots made wrt to how the Kitzmiller trial was going to show how ID was teachable in Science class, and would spell the "death knell" for the ToE.
Hugh, do you know what delusion means?
do you know what projection is?
are you morons even capable of realizing you do nothing but project delusions?
It's so utterly pathetic.
the only thing this film is going to do for Xians, is freaking backfire.
all it will do is speed up the demise of your own religion.
...and you morons are embracing it like a fuzzy sweater.
go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot some more.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 17, 2008 5:00 AM
It's brilliant actually. If they fail they can claim it is because of a vast Atheist conspiracy rather than their lack of ethics. "We told you so!!!" Big Science beats the little guy down with unfair tactics!!! It will fuel the paranoia that keeps the conspiracy nuts fed.
Pigs...singing... I can only say it so often.
then stop saying it.
it hardly matters what form the film would take (even if it was some junior high production), or whether it's released or not.
NO MATTER WHAT, the conspiracy nuts will be fed.
that's what makes them nuts.
Frankly, for those of us who DO actually spend time trying to debunk this shit for REAL students, it would make for far less tedium having to debunk just why it was never released (really, it's a no-brainer), vs. having for the umpteenth fucking time to explain why Darwin /= Hitler.
I'd be happy if this thing never saw the light of day, simply because of the time it would save me.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 17, 2008 5:06 AM
While Hugh is a moron of the first order, he is probably correct that the use of Imagine comes under the rule of fair use--since the overlaying images are clearly intended to indicate what these is idiots think the consequences of no religion are.
If we take the three cases presented
XVIVO video: the creationists mistook the video as a faithful representation of the molecular goings on in a cell--not surprising since they think it was designed and deterministic--therefore changing the colors would be enough. Unfortunately, it is an artistic representation, which is subject to copyright.
The Killers: Rights obtained
Imagine: Intended for criticism, therefore falls under fair use.
The second one is safe. The third one is most likely all right (their criticism doesn't have to be thoughtful or thought provoking).
They are screwed on the XVIVO thing though :)
Posted by: laserboy | April 17, 2008 5:20 AM
Thanks IAmAMaurauder! Looks very similar to what I had in mind....
Posted by: Yssi | April 17, 2008 5:31 AM
"the only thing this film is going to do for Xians, is freaking backfire."
Well, that would count at least as one achievement...
Really, you are giving it too much importance.
It is much more likely that it will have no influence, neither positive nor negative. How many people will change their ideas because they have seen or read about this movie ? Some might get a bit overly excited, one way or another, but when the dust settles, it will go largely forgotten. Just a big waste of time.
Posted by: negentropyeater | April 17, 2008 5:39 AM
I raised this point on the Richard Dawkins site but will do so here as well. Isn't it likely that they use this bit of "Imagine" in order to attack its "no religion" message? I.e. they might juxtapose the words with images of some kind of Nazi hell that it's suggested the absence of religion would involve or lead to? If so, that seems legitimate to me: Lennon's song is a well-known icon of anti-religious feeling, and that kind of ironic comment on it would be a reasonable tactic for an advocate of religion to adopt (reasonable in the sense of genuinely invoking free speech values, not in the sense that the message is correct). On that scenario, I do actually think they'd have a pretty strong legal case - they could defend their use of the song by saying they play just enough of it to make a savagely ironic comment on its message. Indeed, the law should permit this sort of thing, and we should all likewise be permitted to show snippets of Expelled in a satirical way.
If it's like the above, it's a completely different situation from the way they seem to have imitated Harvard's cell film, frame by frame, for their purposes (no one has suggested that they were trying in some way to comment on the Harvard film, or even that they wanted their audience to recognise it).
Of course, I'm in the dark like almost everyone else, not having seen Expelled. I have no idea whether what I'm hypothesising above matches the reality. But if it does, then on this particular point they may be on stronger ground (both morally and legally) than y'all assume. It could explain why they have legal advice supporting their action, if that's actually the case.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | April 17, 2008 5:43 AM
I see that laserboy made the same point while I was composing my comment.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | April 17, 2008 5:46 AM
Maybe if they switch to the Andy Williams cover of Imagine, everything will be OK. It would probably play better in Branson anyway.
I always wanted to knock on Lennon's door and ask for his piano.
If he said, "Get the fook out of here!" I would have replied, "Imagine no possessions!"
Posted by: Ick of the East | April 17, 2008 5:59 AM
Re #68, 71. I've little knowledge of US copyright law, but I still think they were unwise to annoy Yoko Ono!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 17, 2008 6:00 AM
Count me as another one of those who thinks the infringement is possibly deliberate, so as to gain "controversy".
I've received spam on it twice now. (I assume they got my email from the same lovely bastards who put me on the LDS Living mailing list.) The spam keeps playing up the "controversy" and they'd talked about how enraged atheists are "crashing" screenings.
Posted by: PixelFish | April 17, 2008 6:06 AM
Fair use - huh! John Lennon stole Imagine from the creative folk at Extremely Stupid: No Intelligence Allowed. Not only did he steal it, but he stole it several decades before they wrote it! That evil Scouser clearly borrowed an atheistic time machine from the scheming scientists and used it to go forward to 2008, half inch the song, take it back and claim it as his own, oh, the immorality!
And Douglas Adams nicked that plot idea from me, to...
Oh dear, I've spilled juice on my bib, NURSSSEEE!!
Posted by: Sam C | April 17, 2008 6:08 AM
"First they lied. . . "
I always find it amusing when one who believes in a self-created universe wants to talk about morality as if it actually exists.
Posted by: Jim | April 17, 2008 6:34 AM
Sheesh, these Expelled own goals are piling up so fast you could forgive people for thinking that Mathis, Stein & co were on our side - that is if they weren't so mind-bogglingly retarded, willfully misrepresentational and flat-out dishonest.
Posted by: Hank | April 17, 2008 6:48 AM
Planet Killer- EXPELLED!
Posted by: Holbach | April 17, 2008 6:58 AM
Jim: that's fascinating. How is it relevant to anything?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 17, 2008 6:59 AM
Jim, does assuming the universe to be created by God make morality any more existent?
How does invoking God make "lying" immoral? Because God said so? Why did God have to say so? If "morality" is just people following "God's command" (for which there is no justifiable basis), then morality still remains an arbitrary proposition.
Thou shall not lie is an arbitrary thing for God to say because he/she/it does that for no apparent reason.
And if you are of the opinion that at least obedience to God will ensure some sort of moral behaviour, then think again- which God, who's interpretation? Considering that scripture has been used in the past to justify all kinds of bigotry and intolerance, I don't think a strong case can be made that "obedience to God" can ensure to make the world any better.
The basis for morality is unclear as of now. Maybe studies in primate morality and the field of neuroscience will help to shed some light on the subject.
So please stop with your self-righteous tone. The problem of morality is not solved that simply by hurling "God" everywhere there is a gap in our knowledge.
Posted by: akshay | April 17, 2008 7:02 AM
Steven -- I'm happy you're fascinated. Now try thinking about it a bit.
Posted by: Jim | April 17, 2008 7:02 AM
@Jim:
Do you always lift off the top of your skull to display your absence of brain publicly? Or was that an accident?
Posted by: laserboy | April 17, 2008 7:03 AM
> Is the movie industry always this rife with sneakiness and dishonesty
No. Quite the opposite, they're are absolutely anal about getting the legalities right.
For instance, an acquaintance of mine had a career 20 odd years ago in a minor cult band. During the 1990's one of his songs was selected for an Alicia Silverstone film. What he didn't know was that one of his former bandmates had been appropriating the royalties for the previous 15 years.
The hollywood lawyers found out during their due diligence and not only strong armed the former bandmate into properly allocating the royalties, but also into refunding the previous 15 years worth - they refused to allow the song into the film otherwise.
So now he gets a regular check from both the filmmakers and the former bandmate.
It's a nice little earner for him.
Posted by: JM | April 17, 2008 7:03 AM
Vise Strategy? Is that the one where they stick their balls in a vise and then point to the crank while shouting "C'mon you Darwinist bastards! Grab hold and spin. We DARE you!"
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | April 17, 2008 7:06 AM
PZ has given Sam C (#76) and probably a lot of other people the impression that Premise is suing XVIVO for damages based on some XVIVO wrong. As I read the earlier post, however, it was a declaratory judgment lawsuit. The Declaratory Judgment Act is mainly to allow suits that would otherwise be considered advisory because the plaintiff (sue-er) is not accually accusing the defendant (sue-ee) of anything. The one suing just wants the court to declare that what it is doing, or is about to do, is okay, so that it knows before it's too late whether it's conduct will get it successfully sued. It's actually a responsible course of conduct, not some kind of extremely hypocritical and ironic countercharge.
Posted by: pholidote | April 17, 2008 7:19 AM
I've been thinking about it, and the missing step in your logic is "morality only exists in non-self-created universes". Let us know when and if you actually have any evidence for that. It's a bit like claiming that "the rules of tiddlywinks only exist in non-self-created universes."
Possibly what you mean is that morality isn't really morality if it isn't dictated by bigfella belong sky, him angry. Again, good luck with that.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 17, 2008 7:19 AM
Disciple @#22 wrote:
"OH, WOE IS US. EVERYONE IS SUING US BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO JESUS."
If such a being as Jesus actually existed, I'm sure he *would* find them pretty damn trying.
Posted by: Donnie B. | April 17, 2008 7:20 AM
I think what Jim @77 means is that if he did not believe the sky-daddy was watching him all the time, ready to torture him for all eternity if he doesn't do as he's told, he thinks he would go around lying, stealing, raping, murdering etc.. He can't understand that many people have internalised moralities, which they try to follow (not always successfully of course) because they recognise that if they don't, this causes unnecessary suffering for others. However, let me assure you Jim - it's quite safe to let go of the sky-daddy, it's very unlikely you'll turn into a monster of evil if you do - ordinary social approval and disapproval from others are likely to prevent it, even if you're not yet grown up enough to exercise fully autonomous self-control.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 17, 2008 7:21 AM
No, no, you guys shouldn't call me self-righteous. No one looks down a longer length of nose than some of you guys. Now this will sound like a really strange question to you, but I'm just wondering what you think. You know, I'm kinda stupid and all, so it does me good to learn from those of a higher intellect.
Is it immoral when a lioness kills a defenseless wildebeest?
Posted by: Jim | April 17, 2008 7:32 AM
@Nick Gotts:
Oh, I thought he was just a dribbling moron pushing keys at random...
Posted by: laserboy | April 17, 2008 7:33 AM
"OH, WOE IS US. EVERYONE IS SUING US BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO JESUS." (sic)
That was beautiful.
Well, I'm glad to know that the artists do not actually support this