Slashdot Mirror
Creationists Violating Copyright
The_Rook writes "The Discovery Institute, more a lawyer mill than a scientific institution, copied Harvard University's BioVisions video 'The Inner Life of the Cell,' stripped out Harvard's copyright notice, credits, and narration, inserted their own creationist-friendly narration, and renamed the video 'The Cell As an Automated City.' The new title subtly suggests that a cell is designed rather than evolved."
Harvard was created so that they would be able to copy it. You know part of a bigger plan.
It's a good thing they're a lawyer mill. Because Harvard's going to sue the shit out of them.
Now, I'm not going to say all Creationists are dumb. I've met a few who aren't. But what in the hell were these guys thinking? "Oooo... let's use their video. They'll never catch on, and even if they do, what are they going to do about it?"
Dumbasses.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
(C)Copyright 4000BC God
All rights reserved
Reproduction other than by the means provided for in your licence agreement is prohibited
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Doesn't it make more sense to believe that Harvard stripped out the creastionist commentary from the video and slapped on a copyright notice? It would be far too complex to edit a Harvard video to add commentary, thus I must go with this simpler explanation and blame Harvard.
God created everything.
Trev - used to be interesting. Honest.
They ignore common sense, who could have guessed they would ignore other peoples copyright?...
...the film was originally intelligently designed. Then it evolved.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Fuck the creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches, ...
every time I think of them, my trigger finger itches,
They want to have their bullshit...taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass!
What to choose, what to choose...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
What's worse than peddling religion in the name of science? Doing it badly! Come on, at least believe strongly enough in your own message to articulate it clearly.
The difference is, that the average downloader is not changing the words a little then claiming the work as their own. Those people are called "rap artists".
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I have used this video in my intro biology class, telling them it is an absolutely marvelous video and that by the time they graduate they will understand the complex processes depicted. I have spoken through it, thereby adding my own narration. Does this mean I am going to get sued too? In finding this video for my class I noticed many versions out there on youtube and other video sites, ones which had the copyright notice absent already, so does this mean I would get sued for showing those instead of the original? It's not like they posted the video on a site representing it as their own, it was part of a powerpoint presentation and I really doubt there is solid grounds to show they did anything wrong. Just because they are pushing their own agenda which the poster disagrees with does not mean they are any worse than other people making up a powerpoint presentation and not citing every graphic and video they find on the web.
We know that, we just find it amusing that the same institute preaching that Evolution causes immorality is the one that is blatently stealing another's work [er infringing that is] it would be ironic if it were not preceded by earlier nonsense on their account.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Isn't it better that they removed the logo?
Otherwise it might appear to some person watching that the ramblings were actually created by harvard.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
To call the Discovery Institute's use of the Harvard video merely "copyright violation" overlooks the more fundamental problem, because the DI did not just copy and redistribute the content without permission, but in fact (a) distorted and misrepresented the meaning of the content via overdubbed narration, and (b) knowingly misrepresented the authorship of the content. The former is fraud (though perhaps not in a legal context), and the second is plagiarism (which does satisfy the legal definition).
Violation of copyright is really only the superficial issue, and only addresses the ownership of the original work.
The creationist/intelligent design cabal is successful because since the time of Darwin, they have understood that their views cannot be defended through legitimate scientific inquiry, and can never be by definition. Therefore, they attack evolution by natural selection by appealing to and exploiting public passions, fears, and ignorance, and cloaking themselves in psuedoscientific legitimacy. They hope to insinuate themselves into rational discourse by invoking a false sense of objectivity and open-mindedness, appealing to the public to "hear both sides," which is merely a sophistic tactic to put their position on equal footing with decades of confirmed and verified scientific theory.
In the end, what I truly don't understand is why the creationists are so hell-bent on disproving evolution. History has shown us time and time again that when religion fights science, religion ends up with egg on its face. (Galileo and his support of Copernican heliocentrism comes to mind.) If I were devoutly religious, the last thing I would want is to try to prove God's existence, because then such a proof would obviate the need for faith in the first place. Such a desire to enshrine one's belief in the language of science seems horribly misplaced at best, and ultimately, is a far greater detriment and threat to religion than science. Meanwhile, the scientists can only follow the path that nature reveals.
Actually, no. You won't find ANY supporter of the "information wants to be free" idea arguing that taking somebody's work, striping the copyright, modifying parts of it and selling it as your own product should be somehow acceptable. Quite the opposite is the case: information DOES want to be free, but the COPYRIGHTS have nothing to do with it. Check tha recent law suits of BusyBox authors, or the numerous suits on behalf of the author of the netfilter software for example.
But I suppose you already know that and you were only trolling, correct?
I am sure that most anti-evolution parents would want their child to grow up to marry a good looking person of the opposite sex with lots of money and no history of disease in the family.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Your post isn't going to be modded down because the rest of us are bigoted (or even merely biased) against your viewpoint, but because it fails to address the reality of the situation. (1) The Discovery Institute did not secure permission to use the video. (2) The video was shown with the copyright removed. (3) The substance of the video was changed by overdubbed narration that implied that the video depicted evidence of intelligent design in biochemical mechanisms. (4) Through the removal of copyright information and failure to refer to the actual source, the DI plagiarized the video by presenting it as its own original work rather than a derivative work. This action is not covered under fair use.
I would also like to point out that complaining that your post will be modded down is not somehow a sort of magical incantation to prevent it from actually being modded down. That sort of reverse psychology does not work, especially when you fail to have any legitimate points.
You keep using the word 'parody'. It's not a parody. And it's one thing to borrow someone else's data... quite another thing to borrow their artistic representation of it.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
That's why I said good scientists. A PhD doing those things is actually just being a good politician. If you consider that their job is really to keep the money flowing into their department, then they ARE doing a good job. The problem is really that we've allowed a system to form where those types of people have a place.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
If you're a creationist, everyone in here is a troll. What, with the science-voodoo and all.
My UID is prime. Hah!
I truly want to apologize for the criminal stupidity that perpetrated this.
No, I don't work for DI or have any association with that particular group. I've been down this road before on Slashdot, but it bears repeating: I am a religious person. But I am not a "Christian", in fact, I am scored by Christians for the most part. I don't particularly believe in "intelligent design", because it doesn't make sense to me. I prefer to see God as a scientist rather than a "Creator". Anyone who has studied any kind of religion in college (most people at my old community college took comparative religion for an easy humanities credit) will realize that the Bible is full of allegories and euphemisms. Who are we to say that Adam and Eve were the first creations of God? Maybe they were the end result of an experiment being run by God; the first to understand, so to speak, what they are and their place in the natural order of Earth.
To think that we sprung up out of the ground is preposterous to me. Fundamentalist Christians will point to the Bible saying "God created Adam from the dust of the earth" as proof of intelligent design. Is it at all possible that "the dust of the earth" is the primordial ooze scientists refer to? Could, as Robin Williams said, the passage "God said 'Let there be light'" be a euphemism for the Big Bang?
I do believe in science as well; we have made some amazing advancements in the last 20 years. I am excited to read of a new scientific breakthrough or a new understanding of something that seemed miraculous not 10 years ago. Now, if you will all excuse me, I'm going to go back to reading. Putting something as ethereal as my religious beliefs into words is not nearly as easy as it might seem. And thank you for reading what to most would probably seem to be a psychotic episode put into words.
"Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
Rap Artists.
I fail to understand why the parent is Modded 5. Have we at Slashdot become bigots? When a rock cover re-contextualizes a piece of music and gives it a new meaning, it is considered great (assuming you know, its not just some hero worshiping schlock.) When Jimi Hendrix covered "All Along The Watchtower" he took a previously good song and created a new (and in many people's opinion more powerful) piece of art. Even more radical was his cover of the American National Anthem, itself a 'cover' of an old drinking ditty. Art is made from the parts of other art, building on or refuting previous works to create new and more vibrant works much in the same way that science builds and refutes older science. Bookingkeeping the credits on art have not been necessary before, why now? Why is "All Along the Watchtower" more legitmate then "Planet Rock"? Please stop applying this shit-poor double-standard to techno/dance/disco/rap/hiphop/pop... Please stop telling people "Yeah, I like everything but country and rap". Please stop mentioning "Rap Artists" in that tone on Slashdot ever again- You shame us all. In the words of the great Afrika Bambaataa "Guys who say 'I'm just a hip-hop dj' don't know jack crap what hip-hop is."
Justin Roberts
Besides, any argument that can be used to prove daft punk sucks, is most obviously shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4
Your post is misleading, because the controversy over intelligent design, and the problem that scientists have with it, is not that it is true or false. The creationists/ID proponents would like people to frame it in such a context, because it pits scientists against dogmatic faith in a supernatural creator. I will only say this once, because it is so obvious that it is a wonder that it needs to be said at all:
The problem is that the theory of Intelligent Design* is not science.
Note that this statement does not say anything about the truth of ID. It merely states that ID as a proposed explanation of the origin of life does not satisfy fundamental criteria necessary to be called science. I cannot tell you whether ID is true or false, because I DO NOT KNOW. But I can tell you that it isn't a scientific theory. Why its proponents seem so desperate to enshrine it as science and somehow believe that shrouding it in the mantle of science would increase its legitimacy, I cannot understand. I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the universe had a divine creator, as I am also willing to entertain the notion of a supernatural origin of life, as are many scientists. But as scientists, none of us can rationally place those notions in a scientific framework.
*Note that I use the phrase "Intelligent Design" here in its broadest context--that the origin of life is supernatural, rather than in its specific statements that strive to demonstrate this claim (e.g., the argument of irreducible complexity).
No. This is something completely different.
It would be right if we found the video without any narrative buried deep in the remainings of an ancient civilisation or something else. Then both narratives would be part of a discourse how to interpret the video. Then the video would be the raw scientific data, and both narratives had their rightful purpose.
Here it is different. The video is in no way raw data. It was choosen, cut, mounted together to help explaining something. In this case the narrative is the core of the video, and the pictures are merely there to illustrate. As someone who routinely draws comics as a hobby I always was playing with the possibilitiy to erase all words in a comic strip and then fill in something else which narrates a completely different story. Misinterpretation of a sequence of pictures is thus no "scientific discourse", it is always possible. At most it shows that the pictures alone are not enough to make the case for what Harvard wanted to explain with the video (but Harvard added the narrative anyway because the knew it was not enough). If the Institute wanted to show that, they might have a case, albeit a weak one.
But in this case it is just making a derivative work of someone else's work without a) getting a permission and b) without attributing it correctly. This is purely a copyright case, nothing else.
If their beliefs are so fragile that they can be undone by a movie, I think they have some deeper problems to contend with. If they are truly comfortable with their beliefs they should welcome criticism because they know their ideas will be able to stand on their own merit, the only reason to be this protective is if they're fearful of people taking a critical look at their religion and realizing they don't agree. What scares them is free thought. It has for centuries.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
> Scientists borrow representations from one another all the time
Yes, with citing the correct source. Without it, it is plagiarism, which can easily mean the end of a scientific career.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
And what you decry is a vital part of freedom, in my view.
In the film "Bowling for Columbine", Michael Moore chopped up (and spliced in) copywritten videos of Charlton Heston speaking a set of words he actually uttered months apart.
This was a distortion, a misrepresentation and, yes I suppose it could be said to be propaganda. It also made the point that a lot of people believe the NRA is too cold and uncaring about things like school shootings.
He won an academy award for that film.
Whether one is pro or anti Moore's arguments, surely we could agree that what he did should be constitutionally protected?
And yet he did exactly what you decry.
I'm not sure that what the DI did meets that test though. They apparently reproduced nearly the entire film, stripping out the narration. Unless we accept, as one commenter above argues, that the narration was the core of the copy written material, I don't think their actions pass muster.
But I think that's because it's reproducing too much of the copy written material and not putting in enough of their own.
If you don't agree with me, think about it like this. If you "chop up and re-arrange and 'misrepresent', what I've just said to argue against me, then you would, by your arguments, be breaking the law. This post, after all, is copyright and owned by me. It says so right at the very bottom of this page!
Regards,
-Holmwood
Discovery Institute didn't do so. They took a prefabricated sequence of pictures. They didn't change their order. Their narrative might be their own and probably is entitled to its own copyright. But everything else violates Harvard's copyright to the collage of pictures.
Perhaps some kind of DRM on harvard's videos is in order ?
Are slashdot writers truly this hypocritical ? If nobody gets to enforce copyright (especially not riaa) then why does slashdot get to ?
Yes, it is possible to create your own Work of Art based on another work. No one argues against that. I never claimed that DI's creation shouldn't be protected by the same copyright laws that protect Harvard's creation. If the Discovery Institute cries foul after you took their version of Harvard's video, stripped everything except the narrative and made new pictures that fit the narrative, but show something completely different, then the Discovery Institute might well go after you for copyright violation, if you don't ask their permission and don't give credits.
Considering that current law states that copyright is valid until 70 years after the author's death, that copyright will expire in 2036.
Well, since Jesus is God, Jesus died when crucified at some time around the year 30, and the copyright law doesn't state that copyrights are reinstated on resurrection, the copyright has expired long ago.Of course, since there's this other person who also died in 1966, the copyright period will probably be extended before it expires.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Speak for yourself. I, personally, am delighted that Christians have attacked The Golden Compass. For the first time I can remember, they've actually a picked a film that's anti-religion to attack as anti-religious.
ID arguments fall apart under their own theory. Their theory basically states that some things in nature are too complex to have come about randomly, therefore someone must have designed them. It's notable that this is a logical argument, not a scientific one. There is no testable statement here. The only valid test would be to put an empty jar in a room and wait for "the designer" to place a new form of life in it. I haven't heard of any successful experiments of this type :).
Their current argument though would look at a tree's cells and all of the complexities that go on and say that there is no way it could have evolved. ID just says evolution is false, it doesn't try to explain anything itself. Take just the leaf of a tree though. If you just look at it, you would say someone designed it, placed everything exactly where it was and made this beautiful design. If you know anything about biology, or if you just watch a leaf grow from spring to summer, you will see that it wasn't placed there, it grew out of the tree. ID proponents would say that is hogwash. There's no way that a seed could turn into a tree. Just look at them, the seed is so small and the tree is a complex structure with many types of cells. Someone had to design each leaf and place it there, there's no way a single seed could become a whole tree with all the different leaves.
ID proponents don't claim this that I know of because they can see it happen. Everyone can observe a tree growing and we know that it ends up the way it is because of a natural process that begins with the DNA encoded in the seed and that is modified by the environment the tree grows in. They can't 'see' evolution occur so they dismiss it in favor of something written in a book thousands of years ago with no proof that most of the world's population doesn't even believe. In reality, we've observed DNA mutations and even speciation events. They can't comprehend the size of the Earth and the billions of years that it has existed, so they claim evolutionists just "throw billions of years at the problem" to explain it.
My favorite is when an atheist in a debate claimed that our large brain size was proof of evolution because prior to modern medicine, 20% of women died in childbirth due to the size of the babies' heads. The "true believers" claimed this was proof that natural selection was false because it caused the woman to die. If a larger brain gave even a 10% advantage to survival though, it would prove to be a total benefit to the species, and we can see now it has worked since we've become the dominant species on the planet due largely to our intelligence. If you look at it from a designer's perspective though, there is no plausible reason not to just make the woman's hips a little wider. From an evolutionist's perspective, the change just hasn't happened yet. Now of course there is little selective pressure since we have modern medicine and C-Sections available.
Dear Slashdot community,
The Discovery Institute would like to thank you for raising the visibility of our organization and our fight for justice. For many years we have fought to enable creation theory in the classroom alongside evolutionary theory. Your efforts have assisted us greatly in getting the word out on our issues. It is important to acknowledge that for too long, Christians have lacked legal representation. Now our law firm 'The Discovery Institute' fights for them in the courtroom. We would like for everyone to think of us as like the MPAA/RIAA, but motivated instead by "heavenly profits".
Sincerely,
Fun. D. Mental
Esquire
Director of Outreach
The Discovery Institute
* disclaimer - I love the potential for satire in this situation but I think darwinian evolution is a seriously flawed theory *
It's like in the Simpsons episode where Xena explains the continuity goofs in Xena, "Whenever you see a continuity mistake, a wizard did it".
Now replace wizard with God and you're set.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Get the DI version. This time give it a narration about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, and name it something like "Free Sex Money" so that everybody downloads it. Credit it to the Descovery Instantoot to make it obvious (at least to DI) where it was taken from. Add a text file to the torrent saying what was done and why.
Since it's making fun of an existing work (whether stolen or not) it's a parody, and so protected as free speech from both Harvard and DI.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I would actually go as far as to say that Science is largely built by people using the representations of others.
If one scientist reads about a scientific experiment of another scientist. The scientist decides to try the experiment. The scientist sits down and repeats the experiment and carefully writes down each step he takes in the experiment. When he is done, he has a notebook full of information and test results that are surprisingly similar to the first scientist.
So, we now have the case where scientist A has a notebook that says I did this and got these results. Scientist B has a notebook says I did this and got these results. The two notebooks are surprisingly similar.
Is Scientist B a copyright violating plagiarist?
There is one very subtle point to be made. Yes, there is an argument that Scientist B should cite Scientist A. However, this is countered by the idea that nature is the source of the information. Scientists may intentionally distance themselves the original experiment to make sure that information from the first experiment does not affect the second experiment; in which case it is easy to accidentally lose the citation.
Science was built by people repeating the same experiments over, over and over again. When they repeat the same experiments, they come up with the same results. If we had a lawsuit every time one scientist repeated an experiment of another simply because the notes on the experiment came out similar, then science would halt dead in its tracks.
Lets say Scientist A and Scientist B had different theories about what caused a result set. In that case the two scientists would have different narratives for the existing data. They then would put together a third experiment to test different predictions.
It sounds likely that this Discovery group is engaged in crap science. There really is no experiment which can ever prove of disprove the disagreement between evolutionists and creationists. The fact that creationists can stick their narrative on the works of other scientists proves this point.
We may hate creationists with every fiber of our being. They may be a thorn in our sides. But do we really want courts controlling the natural give and take that exists in the scientific community because we hate creationists? Do we really want science to be driven by our hatred of a group that is on the fringe?
However if your contribution in the lab was as a tech running the experiments that people like the author of TFA designed, I could easily see why you wouldn't catch that link. So your bad there... but hey, awesome job showing yourself to be an ignorant tool who thinks he can argue vaccine science because he once had a summer job washing glassware and running the autoclave in a lab near folks who understand it. Just because the lab where you worked did research that doesn't mean you did.
And it shows.
Painful childbirth was eve's punishment for eating the apple, I love pointing this out to pregnant Christians when they discuss epidurals. I once pointed it out to a Christian obstetrician, that was priceless.
Try it sometime, you'll see a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance Christians undergo when faced with some of the less savory aspects of The Bible. They've got prepared excuses for things like creation, but not childbirth pain.
"It's SUPPOSED to hurt, and you're SUPPOSED to suffer. Epidurals are in direct defiance of god's wishes and you'll burn in hell."
In fact...most of my arguing with Christians works this way these days. I've long given up trying to educate them - it's futile. Now I just point out flaws in their "Christian" behavior. A good one is to point out the bit where they're not supposed to own cars or TV sets, that they have to give everything they own to the poor and let god provide for their basic needs (Matthew 19:21).
No sig today...
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You can be both quite easily. Darwin, Galileo, Einstein, Copernicus, and Tesla would all disagree with your supposition that observation and faith are mutually exclusive. I'm sure there are plenty of other giants I missed, but you get the idea.
Protector of Capitalist views,
Meorah
Let he who has never violated copyright cast the first post.
Oh, too late.
I agree, Gold Digger is a much better song to use as it so closely resembles the original work. However, I take issue with your statement "It required little talent to do, just a 'Best of Ray Charles' CD." I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you defending Gold Digger or are stating that this is an example of poor use of sample which is detrimental to Hip-hop as a whole. If you mean the latter I have to cry foul on that logic. Let's imagine that you very much like Gold Digger and in your opinion find it to be a great work of Hip-hop. Your use of talent in your post is ambiguous to me: a talented minimalist composer can create great works out of very little music. This could be considered talent and therefore means that, Kanye, using a single looped sample (so extra drumbeats added, but mostly unchanged), has displayed much talent in using that one sample and his own rapping to create a song you find to be very good. However if talent means skill in playing music, or in the case of hip-hop many samples cooperating from many sources, then Kanye is no good. This opens up a terrific line of reasoning in which: The Beatles will always be greater then Fats Domino, Zepplin over the Clash, Dragonforce over everybody else. It specifically leads to the conclusion that Maximal music > Minimalism. This puts the whole of modern pop (itself very minimal relative to other genres like jazz and classical) in a very poor state.
That sort of response elevates dialog everywhere.
Now, take a deep breath. You evidently didn't read the post -- mine or the one above it. I'll try and refrain from casting sneering aspersions on your intelligence, but I certainly will raise an eyebrow at your limited reading comprehension.
That OP (above my OP) made an argument that people who aren't having valid debate (in his view) aren't entitled to the defense of fair use in copyright. To cite again, since you must have missed it even though I quoted it right at the top of my post:
My argument was very simply that freedom depends on people being able to do precisely that. (I also noted that I don't think the DI passes as they didn't engage in fair use as I see it).
I cited the Moore example: by sneakily chopping up entirely separate speeches of Heston's and splicing them together (with a cut in between the two sentences to obscure the fact that Heston was wearing a different tie in the second).
It surely would be a bad thing to declare that Moore is "violating freedom" and deserves some judicial sanctions for that, would it not?
Now, in your continuing effort to entirely miss the point, you say:
"Depends... Did the viewers understood it was taken from two different footages?"
This utterly irrelevant to the argument above, and shows an appalling degree of cluelessness, but ok, I'll bite. No, the viewers did not understand this. You know, I know, and the GP knows because we've read about it. I didn't notice the first time I saw the film because of the clever cutting of scenes.
And you're still entirely missing the point. For a sneering fellow who calls others dumb and muppets and dumb kids, you are remarkably dull-witted, aren't you?
Read what I wrote above. No, go back. Read it ten times if you have to.
The Moore response was not to justify (or attack) what DI had done. It was to comment on the item I quoted at the top of my post which was the original slashdot conversation, now repeated here, again:
Moore did exactly that: chopped up, rearranged, and misrepresented someone else's message for propaganda purposes (possibly good propaganda purposes if you happen to agree with his views). And that is indeed freedom. He has a right to take copyrighted video and do that; You and I have a right to take copyrighted words, statements and of Moores and present them to make our point.
It's called fair use and the First Amendment.
The clue to bad speech isn't to silence it by making it unprotected by fair use doctrines, it's to have good speech countering it.
Yet you failed utterly to grasp this point, and instead launched off into a set of ad hominem sneers about the intellects of those adults around you.
I agree that the Discovery Institute seems to fail, because it took an entire work and ran it in sequence. That doesn't look like fair use to me.
The analogy is exact. And I am stunned that you are not only incapable of seeing it but that you fee
These excuses are made up merely as an attempt at avoiding the arguments and scientific program they present.
Exactly *how* is ID "scientific?"
Is there evidence to suggest that an intelligent designer is required for life to form and evolve? So far, I've heard (and read) some hand-waving about "irreducible complexity," but in all instances, this has turned out to be merely, "I don't understand it, so God must've done it."
Addressing the shortcomings of our current understanding of evolution is one thing. Claiming those shortcomings indicate a failure of evolution through natural selection as theory is a bit disingenuous. To further claim that they point to a mystical "guiding intelligence" buggers credibility.
Basically, you are trading a natural complexity ("how did this evolve like this?") with a mystical one ("Who created us? And because they are certainly complex than even us, how did *they* get created?")
All you're doing is moving the layer of complexity back a level, and declaring that level off-limits to science. And you're doing this with no real reason. Not only is it *more* complex than *any* "irreducible complexity," but it completely misses the point about what science *is*.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.