This is kindof a fun video, comparing creationism and science. There are some interesting contrasts not actually said, but shown… I won’t give it away, but watch the settings (the scenery) for each video, and see how they compare.
They have a blog as well. I’ll have to keep my eye on it as word gets around…
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
December 12th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Do you think the use of “duel” instead of “dual” in the URL is a pun or a typo?
December 12th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Most likely a pun.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:10 am
1. Its CRETINISM, not “creationism”.
2a. Its Imbecilic Delusion, not “intelligent design”.
2b. Its Ididotic Doofism, not “intelligent design”.
3. There is no intelligence in “intelligent design” nor is there any design.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Very well done. A shocking number of people who don’t understand the point though. Always funny to see ‘rational’ people acting irrational. “HOW DARE THEY MAKE EVOLUTION LOOK BAD! CREATION IS TEH EVILS!!!!111″ Sigh, they give science a bad name.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Fweakin’ Cool!
December 12th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Hey HermesThoth!
“Its” is supposed to be It’s
Otherwise you’re saying someone owns those concepts.
As to the video, hilarious. I have a feeling the creationists will have more problems with their side than the scientists with theirs.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Very creative juxtaposition of the usu. methods of explaining each of the “theories.” I was surprised (as was Ryan) at some of the “science” folks who took the literal view of the animation and went ballistic because it dared to contrast the two sides. [Ryan: what is "111?" Does it refer to the psalm, to the Wikipedia number explanation, or what? I think I get "teh;" however, I tend to disparage (mostly silently) such references to television programs, obscure movies and the like in general discussions because they do little to clarify the topic for those of us ignorant of the references. But I guess that's how folks who miss classical literary references in books and critiques of authors and the like feel...]
WM
December 12th, 2007 at 11:06 am
“111″ is the continued smashing of the 1 key after having let go of the Shift key.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Well, the Evolution part has bichirs in it! They’ve won my heart and my mind!
December 12th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Ah Ha!!!! The light dawns. I failed to get it the first time ’cause I rarely use that symbol.
WM
December 12th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Personally I just thought the videos were cool!
December 12th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Interesting video. I didn’t know quite how to feel about it, given that they made Evolution look mythical and creationism “scientific,” but it is an interesting call to make because the current scientific theories on the creation of the universe and our origin are more deserving of the grand scale myth implies than is creationism. One is a story that spans over billions of years, driven by eldrich yet natural forces of immense ferocity that so happened to permit the gradual development of this little thing called “life,” or you can say someone bought a universe-o’matic and toasted it up in six days. If I were to choose only on mythic value, I’d take the evolutionary/big bang theory, and appreciate the added bonus that it is, to the best of our knowledge, true.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
FIVE billion years since the Big Bang? Seems they’re off by a factor of three!
Oh, and HermesThoth, the proper term is “cdesign proponentsists.”
December 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Creative work.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I would so buy a evolution bible, with those illustrations and probably written in latin. Why should Christians get all the fun?
December 12th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I really liked the reversal of roles, although I do agree with ansuzmannaz that it may make it look like creationism is scientific when it clearly is not.
That said, as anyone with any sort of experience with management knows, “six-day plans” require more praying than science. You can almost hear the hosannas when the plan only takes 42 days instead.
If you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go keep an eye on the night sky for flaming bejewelled daggers…
December 12th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Overlapping non-overlapping magisteria! Wow!
December 13th, 2007 at 4:15 am
“I won’t give it away…”
C’mon BA! Not everybody has broadband, Especially those of us who live far enough out in the boonies to enjoy dark skies. AT&T fiber optic cable is less than 3 kilometers away, so maybe sometime in 2008 I’ll be able to quit bitchin’ (and watch TV again).
December 13th, 2007 at 9:13 am
[...] reminds me, he also posted a blog yesterday pointing to a fascinating animation project: ♦ Creation vs. Reality Be sure to go to the linked site and watch the videos…there’s a certain conceit [...]
December 14th, 2007 at 5:20 am
Phil,
Im gonna go offtopic here but i need to ask you this…whats “event” in space is gonna take place between 21st och 23rd december…some kind of aligntment of the planets?
Thanks!
//D
December 14th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
The religion-reeking science story gave me the goosebumps. I really enjoyed seeing the rational story presented in such an emotive language.
While the dry version of the creationist story just reached one more level of ugly (the new ugliness brought by the gruesome mishandling of language normally reserved for science topics). I hope the site sheds a little bit of light on the bias against science.