Oh certainly I dont want to eat them. Im a vegetarian. But I still enjoy the smell.
So, like, remember last fall when Billy D finally had to fess up to stealing 'Inner Life'? Remember how the Discovery Institute hung him out to dry, even though they obviously played a part in that fiasco?
Well, I really wondered how the DI would respond to EXPELLED getting caught doing the same goddamn thing. Would the DI pull a Dover and run away screaming, letting Premise fend for itself? Or was the DI inseparably entangled with the Frankenstein 'Inner Life', completely unable to distance itself from its making, and be forced to take responsibility for their actions?
Hum hum hum.
Honestly, I thought they would bail. Make EXPELLED pick a fall guy (like Kevin Miller, or their computer animator) and wash their hands of EXPELLED. Pull a Dover and pretend they didnt have anything to do with it.
But it was clear to me from the beginning that DI had a hand in this. Quote Kevin Miller:
But as far as I'm concerned, no one has copyrighted any cellular processes--at least not yet. I'm sure Craig Venter would like to.Thats stupid enough to be DI 'lawyer' advice. Well, Kevin, you cant copyright Mus musculus either, but Id really like to see you draw a yellow pair of shorts on Mickey Mouse, put him in EXPELLED, and see what Disney has to say.
But Jonathan Wells, 'ol Papa-TARD himself, has come to the defense of Premise, clinching the DI-Frankenstein connection:
Expelled does NOT use the Harvard animation. The producers paid a professional to create a new animation that is more accurate than the Harvard one (based on current knowledge of cellular processes). Any similarities between the Expelled animation and the Harvard one are due to the fact that both animations depict many of the same processes.'A professional.' Now, it took a team of Harvard PIs/students and professional bioanimators 14 months to make 'Inner Life'. Premise hired a dude (one dude) to make a nearly identical version in <3 months. And its funny how Wells story doesnt match an earlier defense from Kevin:
We created the animation in conjunction with an animation studio and several cell biologists.'A dude'. 'An animation studio.' 'Several cell biologists.'
How nebulous of you, Creationists.
And notice how fast Wells jumps to defend the quality of the animation (its BETTER than Harvards!). Thats some fine lulz. Wells, if you werent a functionally retarded Creationist and were actually a 'biologist' you could have picked out a hand full of errors in 'Inner Life' that just so happened to show up in Frankenstein 'Inner Life'. Not just because 'they are the same cellular processes'-- you copied things that are wrong or artistic renditions.
Why dont you, Wells, identify, lets say '3' things in 'Inner Life' that you know are wrong and tell me why you (excuse me, I mean 'the dude') chose to mirror those errors in *your* animation? Im not talking complicated things. Im not talking advanced biochemistry/microscopy/whatever.
Im talking basic, Cell Bio 200, wrongs.
Think of it as practice for your court date.
Ready... Set... GO!
(No cheating from the audience, this is a Q for DI/EXPELLITES only).