Home » Intelligent Design » XVIVO Employs CSI Against Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

XVIVO Employs CSI Against Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ironically, in David Bolinski’s letter backing down on the lawsuit threat to Premise Media (for lack of standing I’m sure as Harvard owns the video not XVIVO) he employs CSI (complex specified information) to back his accusation that Premise ripped off the video from Harvard:

Given the vast number of structures to be removed, and given the structures remaining “on camera”, whose positioning and relationships, both aesthetic and functional, needed to remain true to the function and beauty of molecular biology, it is inconceivable, mathematically, that the animator hired by EXPELLED’s producers, independently and randomly came up with the same identical actin filament mesh XVIVO depicted in one scene, which had never before been rendered anywhere in 3D!

Check it out. Bolinski first establishes complexity of the video:

the vast number of structures

Then he gives the specification:

the same identical actin filament mesh XVIVO depicted

He then goes on to use the Explanatory Filter by identifying probabilistic resources:

EXPELLED’s producers, independently and randomly came up with

He then evaluates the probabilistic resources:

inconceivable, mathematically

And reaches a design inference:

‘Expelled’ ripped off Harvard’s ‘Inner Life of the Cell’ animation

Congratulations David. You successfully used CSI and the Explanatory Filter to reach a design inference. You made the point very well that it is mathematically inconceivable that random processes create complex specified information. You’re an IDist whether you realize it or not.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

19 Responses to XVIVO Employs CSI Against Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

  1. This is definitely not a case of plagiarism.

    Check out AtBC’s comparisons of the two cells.

    They don’t have a leg to stand on.

  2. DaveScott, this is a great post. Maybe you should compile a book of case studies in design detection with all this free material they’re providing.

  3. So they DO think ID is a science. Lol.

  4. You don’t think that since it was Dembski who previously ripped off this same work that perhaps he was intentionally showing that Dembski’s own theory proves it was ripped off? Personally I thought that was a brilliant angle.

  5. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed this.

  6. Todd: I thought that may be the case as well, but I certainly wouldn’t classify it as “brilliant”; far from it, in fact.

  7. ftk

    Plagiarism and copyright infringement are different things. The plagiarism is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by Bolinski using CSI and the Explantory Filter. He just didn’t realize he was using it.

    Let me amend that. Plagiarism would require that Premise deny that their version was inspired by Harvard’s original. That hasn’t happened as far as I know. What is proven by Bolinski is that Premise’s version was inspired by the Harvard original. Ripped-off isn’t a legal term, by the way.

  8. DaveScot

    You successfully used CSI and the Explanatory Filter to reach a design inference.

    The Explanatory Filter documentation I’ve been reading appeares to indicate that a mathmatical treatment is the only way to reach such a determination? As this has not been filed under “Humour” DaveScot, is this simply the EF’s equivilent of pseudo-code? Is there a formal mathmatical treatment of this issue on the cards perhaps? What units is information measured in in any case? I’ve always wondered about that.

    FTK/DaveScot

    Plagiarism and copyright infringement are different things.

    Yes, of course, but the moral issue is are either of them acceptable when you are making a film that purports to stand on the higer moral ground?

    What is proven by Bolinski is that Premise’s version was inspired by the Harvard original.

    I suspect that this is not the tack to take in court! Premise can logically (it appears to me) only claim it was inspired by the actual biological items it depicts, to mention “it was inspired by the Harvard original” in court means (IANAL) they might as well give in on day one and pay the piper his fee.

  9. David Bolinsky
    addresses
    his diatribe:

    To the anti-ID community which is giving XVIVO support in our ideological battle against the microcephalic apostates of “Intelligent Design”:

    Apostate” is defined as:

    One who has abandoned one’s religious faith, a political party, one’s principles, or a cause.

    Bolinsky begins by a clear call to arms to the “anti-ID community” for a religious battle. I.e., by those who seek to enforce their dogmatic religious beliefs that there is no Intelligent Designer – a position that cannot be proven either by logic or by science.

    Bolinsky launches his salvo by an ad hominem attack labeling his opponents: “microcephalic apostates”. He appears to be under the delusion that those seeking to develop a theory of Intelligent Design had necessarily previously supported materialistic naturalism.

    Per the issue of plagiarism, Law.com defines plagiarism as:

    n. taking the writings or literary concepts (a plot, characters, words) of another and selling and/or publishing them as one’s own product. Quotes which are brief or are acknowledged as quotes do not constitute plagiarism. The actual author can bring a lawsuit for appropriation of his/her work against the plagiarist and recover the profits. Normally plagiarism is not a crime, but it can be used as the basis of a fraud charge or copyright infringement if prior creation can be proved.

    Bolinsky claims:

    . . . with Harvard’s and XVIVO’s credits stripped out and the copyright notice removed (which is in itself a felony) and a creationist voice-over pasted on over our music . . .

    William Dembski addresses the copyright issue in his 27 November 2007 blog:
    News Release: Harvard’s XVIVO Video

    . . . used the video a handful of times, including at a talk in Oklahoma this September. In consequence, some biologist(s) in the audience contacted the makers of the video, falsely suggesting to them and on the web:

    (1) That I myself had modified the video and given it a new soundtrack.
    (2) That I had stripped it of its copyright information.
    (3) That I had retitled it “The Cell as an Automated City.”

    Each of these allegations is false. . .

    Nolo.com defines “libel” as:

    An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person’s reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).

    Bolinsky may not have searched out the facts. Otherwise, he is continuing to publish a series of falsehoods. If so, this would in itself constitute a libel.

  10. Richard

    A precise mathematical treatment is probably intractible but I’m not a math egghead so that is better answered by mathematicians and physicists. The real problem is specification which is dependent on context. How do you mathematically define purpose? We know a machine that’s serving an identifiable purpose when we see one but how do we recognize it mathematically?

    The pseudo-code works fine in the meantime with tractible cases such as this one. I presume you have no doubt that it worked in this case, right?

    “the moral issue is are either of them acceptable when you are making a film that purports to stand on the higher moral ground”

    The moral issue is also whether an educational video that is freely plastered all over the internet should be refused to a documentary film maker just because the context is objectionable in the documentary. Harvard is afraid of the public judging Harvard’s reasons and ethics should they try to sue the science out of Expelled. Premise isn’t afraid of the public judging of Premise’s ethics in the matter. That’s why you aren’t going to see Harvard sue. They have a bit more at stake in way public opinion than a two-man LLC like XVIVO. Harvard would probably lose the dispute as documentary film makers are hardly ever sued for copyright infringement and in the handful of cases where it happened the complainant loses more often than not. So they end up paying the litigation expense both parties while at the same time, by their actions, legitimize even more the main point of the movie about academic censorship.

  11. Davescot,
    Yes, it worked. But then why the need to bother with the maths at all?
    Also I thought the EF was a design detector, not a plagiarism detector?

    As both animations are designed….

  12. Richard

    But then why the need to bother with the maths at all?

    Indeed. You don’t need to bother IMO.

    Also I thought the EF was a design detector, not a plagiarism detector?

    Plagiarism is a purposeful act of design by an intelligent agent.

    As both animations are designed….

    Whether the original structure is designed or not makes no difference. Do you doubt that the original video was inspired by the observation of living cells? Are the living cells designed or not? Doesn’t matter. Do we need to know whether or not the mountains of Rushmore were designed or not in order to reach a design inference for the faces carved into them? No. Only the difference in specified complexity between the old and new patterns need be examined.

    I suspect that this is not the tack to take in court! Premise can logically (it appears to me) only claim it was inspired by the actual biological items it depicts, to mention “it was inspired by the Harvard original” in court means (IANAL) they might as well give in on day one and pay the piper his fee.

    There is no way Premise can claim that. There’s a clear, unambiguous design inference that doesn’t require a rocket scientist to evaluate. Bolinski’s claim is bulletproof. The Explanatory Filter is designed to reject false positives and it works. The problem is that being inspired by a copyrighted work in the production of a new work is not the same as an actionable copyright infringement. Premise has nothing to worry about. It’s their business to know what’s a winnable copyright infringement claim and what isn’t.

  13. Also I thought the EF was a design detector, not a plagiarism detector?

    Plagarism charges involve two similar objects (text, video, etc) and claim whether or not the similarity was intentional (designed) or accidental (not-designed). You can probably now see how the EF is relevant in such cases.

    And I would say yes, what XVIVO did was a psuedo-code version of the EF (which is obviously not as robust as a fully quantified application of it.) They implicitly agree that ID reasoning works, since they attempt to use it to prove their point.

  14. leo: straw man arguments are so awesome. They require no effort on the part of their lazy purveyors, they fit nicely in any tacklebox, they are made of space age polymers, and dogs just love em’.

  15. Leo:

    I’m on my way out after a prolonged blog visit to UD [Dr Dembski, Denyse, DS et al, thanks . . .], but could not but notice your comment; so a brief pause.

    You forgot step 1: red herring distractors to draw attention away from the track of truth towards the oil of ad hominem-soaked strawman.

    Then, on igniting it, the noxious clouds of confusion, polarisation and hostility will cause “everyone” to forget the original issue. Poisoning the atmosphere — and the climate of popular thought and discourse. [In short, you need to think seriously about the long-term consequences of the evo mat habitual resort to uncivil, polarising arguments and public relations.]

    But, Premise Media seems to have an answer, from the linked relase:

    “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,” . . . .

    “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.”

    And now, it looks like we have in hand a serious counter-suit; for willful defamation.

    GEM of TKI

  16. Karios,

    And now, it looks like we have in hand a serious counter-suit; for willful defamation.

    And if you are wrong about that could it be that you are also wrong about some of the unrebutted points on the thelogy thread? Is it even possible for you to ever be wrong KF? :)

    Onlookers please note, you need to think seriously about the long-term consequences of the design non-mat habitual resort to uncommon words, polarising arguments and public relations and using overlong quotes.

  17. Also Karios you said this

    I am saying that just as it is statistically possible for 2 LOT to be violated

    Link

    So KF, still think it’s possible to violate SLOT, statistically or otherwise? That’s just classic. Onlookers, please note the refusal to accept even basic physical premises.

  18. RF:

    I see you are cross-threading comments, and in so doing misrepresenting me in the teeth of easily accessible facts. T%hat speaks to a telling want of basic respect, civility and responsibility on your part, sir.

    This pattern, which I had to take on this morning from here on, is becoming even more obviously malignantly trollish behaviour, RF.

    Liable to get you banned, for cause.

    I spoke above to the reported counter-suit by Premise, as is headlined here.

    On 2 LOT, you will see that I speak of the CLASSIC FORM of the law. The statistical mechanical form specified that there is a natural trend towards clusters of microstates with higher statistical weights. By overwhelming improbability, the high fluctuation states typified by all the O2 molecules in the room in which you sit rushing off to one end, are strictly possible but overwhelmingly improbable to the point that we reliably don’t expect to see them. FYI, Einstein’s explanation of Brownian motion relies of such fluctuations for sufficiently small objects in a fluid [which act as giant molecules].

    All, duly discussed here in my always linked, appendix 1.

    So, your claim “Onlookers, please note the refusal to accept even basic physical premises.” is a slanderous misrepresentation in the teeth of easily accessible facts.

    Cho man, do betta dan dat!

    GEM of TKI

  19. Leo Stoch is no longer with us and since he was being an asshat about it now his past comments are no longer with us either.

Leave a Reply