Ive been itching to get my hands on a copy of Billy 'One book a decade' Dembskis new book, 'Design of Life', just to see how many of my predictions came true. Problem is, it doesnt appear anyone has this book, except for DI sycophants and a few of the Usual Suspects. Amazon doesnt have it in stock, Barnes and Noble doesnt even have it listed, local libraries have no idea what Im talking about.
But its okay. I have the best readers on the internet, and someone sent me the answer to exactly what I was really wondering:
1. 'Someone' with the DI contacted Harvard and asked for a copy of 'Inner Life'. Harvard said no. Dembski used a butchered copy of it in his presentations anyway.**Spoiler** No. :(
2. 'Someone' with the DI contacted Harvard and asked to use stills from 'Inner Life' in a 'publication'. Harvard said no. Would DI have the balls to use them anyway? Is the publication 'Design'?
But there are similarities between a page in 'Design', and Dembskis use of Harvards animation which clearly show where stills from Harvards animation were slotted for use, and clearly shows that Dembski knew prior to his presentation at OU that Harvard wanted nothing to do with the Discovery Institute but Dembski used their animation anyway.
Lets compare a page from 'Design' with a still from Dembskis OU presentation- just prior to Harvards animation:
And then lets zoom in on the picture in 'Design':
Caption: Figure 8.1 This image, from a computer animation in Unlocking the Mystery of Life (www.illustramedia.com), illustrates information processing inside the cell (i.e., the transcription of DNA into mRNA). The animation shows why it is entirely appropriate to compare the cell with an automated city.
Dembskis new title for 'Inner Life of a Cell'? 'The Cell as an Automated City.'
Its obvious to even the most casual observer that 'Design of Life' is the publication DI wanted to use stills from Harvards animation in, but they acknowledged Harvards unwillingness to contribute to Creationism and did not use the stills.
Unless Figure 8.1 was changed within the past month, Dembski knew at the time of his presentation at OU Harvard wanted nothing to do with Creationism, but subsequently played dumb "Aw gosh golly I just found it on the intranets and thought it was neato! I didnt mean nuthin by it!"
This reminds me of my very first encounter with a Creationist. His name was Brad Harrub. Some low-level con artist, got snukered by an April Fools joke in Discover magazine, had this fishing reel he presented as part of his 'Evidences of Creation!'
When it was pointed out to him that the 'fossil fishing reel' was an obvious fraud (you could see the saw marks in the rock, for petes sake), he removed all references to the reel in his online/print media. Yet when I attended a presentation of his a year and a half later, he presented the 'fossil fishing reel' as EVIDENCES OF CREATION!
So what happened? Print media can be traced. If DI had used stills from Harvards animation in print, they would have been royally screwed. So they used 'Inner Life' in presentations instead. Harrub presented information he knew to be fraudulent in his presentation. Who attends these presentations? Average Joe Creationists that have no idea the material is stolen/fraudulent. Dembski was so confident that I would never get video proof of him using the animation, he pretended it never happened for two months.
Professional Creationists are snake-oil salesmen and con artists. They know they are lying, they know they are stealing, they just think theyre 'too good' to get caught.