Evolution and Creationism, side by side...

[headscratcher4]

http://www.duelity.net/

Thought that some might find this presentation interesting....

[drkitten]

http://www.duelity.net/

Thought that some might find this presentation interesting....

Only in the T'ai Chi sense of "interesting,"... in other words, complete and irrevocable crap that makes everyone within earshot substantially stupider.

If that's a "presentation," then the loose fan belt on my car is a "violin concerto."

[Lanzy]

Stupid, not "interesting" couldn't watch it.

[rocketdodger]

It is fascinating actually.

I couldn't tell which was which at first....

[rocketdodger]

Only in the T'ai Chi sense of "interesting,"... in other words, complete and irrevocable crap that makes everyone within earshot substantially stupider.

If that's a "presentation," then the loose fan belt on my car is a "violin concerto."

Why? I think it illustrates how biased we can be when facts are presented in a manner we don't care for. Facts are facts, right? Then why does this animation work like it does...

[drkitten]

Facts are facts, right?

Which is part of the problem with this video. It gets the facts wrong.

From a deconstructionist point of view, it is perhaps an amusing conceit to try to tell the scientific story in a religious fashion and vice versa, but it's been done before, often, and better. From a production quality standpoint, I expect better of my second year students. From a factual accuracy standpoint, I expect better from my fifth-grade niece.

And from a philosophical standpoint, it pegs the wrong-o-meter. Given that one of the central "themes" of evolution is the absence of teleological explanation, any attempt to present a teleological description of evolution is bound to failure. And the interpretation of God is simply old-fashioned blasphemy.

I would like to be able to say anything positive about that site. The closest that I can come is that the soundtrack doesn't suck as badly as the rest of it.

[Normal Dude]

If that's a "presentation," then the loose fan belt on my car is a "violin concerto."

I have to steal that for my sig.

[rocketdodger]

From a deconstructionist point of view, it is perhaps an amusing conceit to try to tell the scientific story in a religious fashion and vice versa, but it's been done before, often, and better. From a production quality standpoint, I expect better of my second year students. From a factual accuracy standpoint, I expect better from my fifth-grade niece.

Oh, well thats what I meant. This is the first thing like that I have ever seen.

[Wowbagger]

I just gotta say: That was cool!

[bokonon]

From a production quality standpoint, I expect better of my second year students.
Wow, drkitten, you're harsh. I thought the animation was impressive, the sound effects were good, and the narration was clear and well-timed. I thought the writing could have been better, but overall, I thought the production values were very good for a student effort.

[NobbyNobbs]

Neat graphics. Strange presentation.


I got all the way through "creationism" before I realize that my sound was all the way down. It's much better without.

[NobbyNobbs]

Neat graphics. Strange presentation.


I got all the way through "creationism" before I realize that my sound was all the way down. It's much better without.


ETA: Shouldn't it be "duality", rather than "duelity"? Or is this a British thing?

[Irony]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/very_pretty_but_fundamentally.php
^
|
What he said.

[Hawk one]

I think - but can absolutely not say for sure - "duelity" is sort of made up on for the specific site, to be used as a pun

The graphics sort of reminded me about those animations you get in Civilization 4 when you've built a wonder. I loved those animations. Some of the art was rather simple, of course, but all in all, fairly impressive for someone doing this in their spare time... I don't see that many people would even get close to that level when making something like that for no (apparent) reason except that they wanted to.

Apart from that, it was... Sort of weird. It takes a while to figure out the purpouse, and frankly, I just don't see this particular approach working well for whatever it tries to accomplish.

[T'ai Chi]

Pretty nice!

[bruto]

It must be full of truth and wisdom, because it even came up with the complete flower of life! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92769) Mystical, man. :cool:

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8029/floweroflifesb7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/%5BURL=http://imageshack.us%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8029/floweroflifesb7.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5B/URL%5D)

[ArmillarySphere]

I agree on the weird part. Some reactions:

The C view: Most of this is trying so hard to be all "sciency" that it gets silly. I've heard less gobbledygook and buzzwords at sales meetings - it's essentially word salad. No explanations given, it's just dressing it up, but it makes even less sense told this way. I'm not sure anyone would be convinced by this gibberish.

The E view: Oh man, save us from fake Olde Englishe! What is it with people and abusing Shakespearean grammar? Even so, it's a pretty moving story, and while all the meat is left out, it makes a whole lot more sense than the other one.

[Darat]

Have to say I liked the animation and artwork and that's all I can say. Oh and found it funny that Adam and Eve had fig leaves prior to eating the er apple?!

[Yiab]

So... they try to make evolution look bad by talking about it in religious terms and try to make creationism look good by talking about it in science-y sounding language.
How is this supposed to make anybody think more positively of religion?

[Wowbagger]

I guess I just loved the irony of the approach.

To me, it seemed ridiculous to talk about Creationism in a scientific manner, as if it was making fun of Intelligent Design's approach.

And, talking about Evolution in a religious-eque way evoked a fun alternative to portraying the model.

But, then again, maybe I was naive. Most of y'all seem object to most of it, for reasons I now find valid enough. Oh well.

[Acleron]

They are trying to take the piss out of both sides. The sciency bits are mostly wrong but what do you expect from art students and the limited time they had for their presentation?

It doesn't add to the debate between real science and id/creationists, but in parts it raised a smile. Influenced I think by Tom Holt and the ultra skeptic and much lamented Douglas Adams.