Anatomy of a Plagiarist

Last night I was doing one of my periodic checks of Technorati to see who might be interested in what I have to say.  One of the links shown was from a blog called "Anaerobic Funk-H2O" (sounds a little like Engrish to me) in a piece about "intelligent design."

Great, I thought, someone must have liked what I said about the topic on Aug. 2 and was quoting me.

Well, "Anaerobic Funk-H2O" must have liked it so much that they plagiarized me, almost word-for word (the screen capture is from last night, altered only to produce a smaller JPEG image).  I don't know why Technorati showed a link to my site, because there was none at the piece I went to.  But it was clear Anaerobic is too lazy to "exercise" their own blogging talents:

The Malcontent (Aug. 2): "Intelligent design," of course, is the religious right's code word for "creationism."  Now, what troubles The Malcontent most, and the point about which we're hoping for elaboration, is the word "alongside."  It is one thing to present theological concepts in religious schools or as part of religious-studies courses.  It is another thing entirely to teach them "alongside" time-tested scientific theory.

AF-H2O (Aug. 6): "Intelligent design," is the religious right's code word for "creationism." What troubles me the most is the part where he said he wanted intelligent design taught right alongside evolution. I think it's one thing to present theological concepts as part of religious-studies courses, but it's another thing entirely to give it the same weight as 150 years of proven scientific theory.

Me: Proponents of "intelligent design," of course, will argue that they are not garden-variety creationists.  They will tell you that their "theory," in essence, is an add-on to evolution, to help explain how evolution itself came about.  The have even set up fancy websites and "institutes" to peddle their bullshit.

AF-H2O: Proponents of intelligent design will argue that they are not true creationists. They say their theory is an add-on to evolution, another theory to help explain how evolution itself came about. The have set up fancy websites and "institutes" to peddle their bullshit.

Me: The problem is that creationism is antithetical to science itself.  It is generally accepted that for something to be "scientific," it must adhere to the scientific method, which includes: observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, and analysis (including debate or peer review).

AF-H2O: The problem is that creationism goes against science itself. For something to be scientific it must adhere to the scientific method, which includes: observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, analysis and debate. You cannot and never will be able to peer-review faith.

Me: The problem with their ideas, of course, is that the complete lack of scientific evidence for divine forces guiding the evolution of species disquaifies them to be taught "alongside" anything remotely scientific.  Again, the antithesis of science.  Creationism/intelligent design relies totally upon faith and/or belief in the supernatural.  Suggesting that it be taught in school "alongside" evolution would be no different, for instance, than if I were to argue that we should teach that the Earth came about on the back of a giant turtle.  [Here AF-H2O used the picture of the turtle from the link I provided to the creation myth, rather than my more facetious Yertle the Turtle.]

AF-H2O: The complete lack of scientific evidence for "Godly" forces guiding evolution disquaifies it to be taught alongside anything scientific. creationism/intelligent design relies totally upon faith and/or belief in the supernatural. Suggesting that it be taught in school along with evolution would be no different, for instance, than if I were to argue that we should teach that the Earth came about on the back of a giant turtle, as the Onondaga Tribe believe.

See?  They even did sloppy work editing their cut 'n' paste job (even leaving intact my misspelling of "disqualifies.")

Now, I have not thought to post a copyright notice on this website because I doubt any blogger minds having his/her words echoed by others, so long as proper credit is given, and I had thought there was something of "honor among thieves" when it came to basic blogging courtesies.  But I will have to reevaluate that.  Imitation is indeed a sincere form of flattery; outright theft is not.

Last night I added a comment to the pilfered post asking why they had plagiarized this site.  No response.  But perhaps the ultimate admission of guilt lies in the fact that AF-H2O's site no longer seems to be up and running.

Comments

[Roy]

I am sooooo with you on this matter! Many times I have found my "stuff" on other's computers. I have even seen my picutures being used. And not just regular pictures, like pictures of me as their profile pics!!! Luckily, I have friends out there who point me in their direction. But I am a big advocate of giving credit where credit is due!

[JB]

First off, great article. I'm probably going to link to it in my next column.

However, I wanted to point out a slight inaccuracy in it. You see, the lack of a copyright symbol does not change anything. As per the Berne convention of 1978, no symbol needs to be displayed in order to copyright a piece. Copyright is applied automatically the second you put an idea in tangible form.

This means that you own doodles on napkins, notes you take in class or words you put in a blog. Anything you "fix" is copyrighted unless you say so otherwise.

If you want to allow reuse of your work, I strongly recommend getting a Creative Commons License (http://www.creativecommons.org). They let you set your rules and have pre-made licenses you can use for free. It's a great deal.

Beyond that, good catch and I'm glad that things worked out well for you.

Oh, and now the plagiarist site is up again, but with an apology and "retirement" notice.

Congrats on your bust!

JB