DUELITY
Hello guys!
Thanks for watching our short animated film “Duelity” and stopping by this discussion blog.
We hope you enjoyed watching it and we would love to hear what you thought of it.
So please feel free to comment!
Thanks a lot!
Boca & Ryan
December 10, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hey Boca,
I donno if you remember me, I studied with Rita, Lucas and Cesar at Mackenzie.
The girl that was going to Canada as well, but just disappeared and moved to the middle east. =]
Remember!!?
Well since the blog is in english I’m writing in english as well.
Well basic to say that i LOVED the animation, congratulation to both. =]
So how are you?? How is everything? Back to Brazil or still in Canada??
Take care and hope to see you soon.
Cris
*keep the good work. ;]
December 11, 2007 at 3:24 am
Looks terrific guys! Congratulations once again on a groundbreaking piece of work. It’s great to be able to see it both side-by-side and individually for the first time.
December 11, 2007 at 10:14 am
Came to Your site via Motionographer. I have seen the solo-Films at first and then got the enlightment by watching them side by side. Wow! this is REALLY cool! I like the concept, the idea as well as the style an the animation! I really love it! Keep going!
Greetz from Germany, simon
December 11, 2007 at 11:15 am
Yeah. That’s totally a masterpiece. Good concept, nice ideas.
Congrutulations, keep it.
December 11, 2007 at 2:45 pm
truly incredible
December 11, 2007 at 2:59 pm
The bigger question is not how but why? But I thoroughly enjoyed the narrative and the style. Quite a challenge you took up there. And you pulled it off magnificently. Congratulations!
December 11, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Brilliant, came to you thru Computerlove blog and found your animations, loved the work and loved the reversed takes on creationism from a scientific “powerpoint” and evolution thru dogma.
Absolutely brilliant.
December 11, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Led here by Motionographer. Fantastic bit of motion graphics and editing. Well done.
December 11, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Great works individually and WOW combined they are even better.
Keep it up.
December 11, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I was very impressed. ^^ As an agnostic, or similar, I find that the way the Christian view was represented in a scientific sense and the Scientific sense represented in an archaeic way to be quite the eye opener. I especially liked the way the subtle gaps in each peace game together in the mixed piece without obviously being gaps.
December 11, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Hi Guys,
Great piece of work… Genius! (or is that Genesis?) - I love how you’ve switched the expected presentations between the two.
It’s pretty hard work breaking through the trance-like spell of deranged religious minds, but it’s great to see people trying.
Keep it up!
Ben
p.s. Please email me, and I’ll send you a link to my film which I think you may enjoy.
December 11, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Very well done!
December 11, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Truly genius, I have to agree with others. Creative, relevant, perfectly run, there is not a single remark one can make on this masterpiece. Can’t wait to see what you come up with next!
December 11, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Possibly one of the most innovative videos I have seen in a long time. Amazing job, keep up the good work!
December 11, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Great animations, but isn’t there more biological evidence that suggest evolution than evidence that god created the world in 6 days and eve from adams rib?
December 11, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Just fantastic … very funny and a great insight into both viewpoints. The evolution portion had sort of a Dune feeling to it. Great job.
December 11, 2007 at 10:45 pm
It was very well-made, but I get the feeling that evolution is being made fun of, while the creationist version is being exalted. I’m not sure whether or not this is only my bias, as an atheist.
Either way, congratulations on having such a well-done animation– AS WELL as a well-made website. Kudos.
December 11, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Tremendous, should be required viewing for anyone still somehow enthralled by the “theory” of creationism.
December 12, 2007 at 12:22 am
Very very well done guys, i loved the way you overlapped the scripts. Congratulations!!!
December 12, 2007 at 12:29 am
Finding this through Stumbleupon, I was very impressed for the entire project. My favorite part was referring to the sun as a time management program. Keep up the good work!
December 12, 2007 at 12:35 am
Wow… beautiful. Well, conceived and flawlessly executed. I love it!
December 12, 2007 at 12:37 am
Amazing.
December 12, 2007 at 1:03 am
Amazing! I loved the concept and the execution. Also, as others have said, the way you presented both sides opposite to how we are used to seeing them was brilliant as well as eye opening.
Both pieces work perfectly individually as well as side by side. I think that was the part that impressed me the most!
The way both sides were presented accurately, without obvious bias or presuppositions was quite refreshing as well.
December 12, 2007 at 1:54 am
What a load of horse shit. Just because it’s pretty doesn’t make the message any more palatable. The site seems to want it both ways but science and religion just don’t mix, no matter how many fingers of god or Einsteins you put in the mix.
Bleh…
December 12, 2007 at 3:02 am
The excellent work in this animation is truely and finally proof of the existance of God and the divine origins of Mankind - how else could BOTH NARRATORS REACH EXACTLY THE SAME CONCLUSION?
December 12, 2007 at 5:46 am
Congrats guys.
Next up, front page of TIME magazine!
December 12, 2007 at 7:24 am
Am is suppose to w00t that? god was all over the evolution story in both frame and speech.
December 12, 2007 at 8:23 am
Congratulations on the excellent animation! Really impressive.
The message, however, is deeply misguiding. Comparing a creation myth to scientific theories elevates the myth and degrades the science. It is deeply misguiding and plainly wrong. They are just two different and unrelated things that do not match together, not even like apples and oranges.
December 12, 2007 at 8:23 am
HEY GUYS!!!
Thanks so much for watching and for the amazing feedback, good or bad!!!
That’s what keeps us going!!!
You guys rock!
cheers!
Boca
December 12, 2007 at 8:29 am
This just an amazing animation. Congratulations with it and many thanks for creating it.
December 12, 2007 at 8:58 am
Haha, great. I like reading what other people think of it. I didn’t think it was making creationism look scientific. I thought it was mocking it, installing the zodiac as a timekeeping whatever, haha! I thought it was a bit slow until I realised they’re supposed to be watched together.
December 12, 2007 at 9:26 am
Loved it!
From the other side of things, great that you didn’t go into the wacko ‘creationism’ science and pulled off the creation story the way it was meant to be told.
Creative and beautiful
December 12, 2007 at 10:56 am
Pretty neat. Nifty.
I’ve always thought of (biological) evolution as one of God’s more automated subsystems. As overwhelmingly conditioned as we all are to causality (outside of Quantum Mechanics, I guess) I’d sure like to know where God came from. How’d it all start? How is it something exists rather than nothing?
December 12, 2007 at 11:15 am
[...] gleich beide Filme parallel anzuschauen oder sie sich direkt als Quicktime herunterzuladen. Im Blog kann zudem Kommentiert Gratuliert [...]
December 12, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Although the movie looks neat, I do not like the movie and the concept at all. It seems that the format is more important than the message. The movie pushes so hard to make a nice style, that it is actually becoming a very biased movie. A total waste of time of both the creator and the viewer.
December 12, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Although the movie looks neat, I do not like the movie and the concept at all. It seems that the format is more important than the message. The movie pushes so hard to make a nice style, that it is actually becoming a very biased movie. A total waste of time of both the creator and the viewer.
December 12, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Nice job! Very well done. For me, very timely as well as I just finished reading Michael Dowd’s recent book “Thank God for Evolution” where he attempts (and succeeds fairly well at) bringing science and spirituality together on the issue of evolution. Since man became self-aware, we have been trying to answer the question as to how and why we are here. Early stages of man’s consciousness led to using mythical stories to answer those questions. Later stages of man’s consciousness led to our using science and rationality to answer the same questions. As we continue to evolve in our consciousness, we need to be able to see how both paths have served us and how bringing the two together moves us to the next level in our growth. It’s not “either/or”….it’s “transcend and include.” To think that the truth only lies on one side of the screen is to actually deny the possiblity of even greater levels of awareness and to place limits on both God (however you define that term) and our ability to further evolve.
December 12, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Great animation, but the content is terrible. To explain evolution in the manner the animation does is appalling. It doesn’t not go into any detail into the mechanisms of evolution, but rather it just explains “smaller creature begot larger creatures.” First of all, evolution doesn’t always make life larger. Secondly, this general explanation of evolution is just about as good as me telling someone how atomic bombs work by only saying that they work by exploding, which is a totally unexceptable statement. As others have previously posted, this animation elevates creation theory and degrades evolution.
December 12, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Phrasing the theory of evolution in a religious narrative was pretty cool, interesting to see how it can be presented in other ways.
The creationism section was pretty funny, because the scientific language (actually, the language more computer science-y than the plain vanilla kind) exposed the endemic absurdity of the whole idea. “The time management program,” etc. Hilarious.
Anyway, thanks for the animation!
December 12, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I’m curious as to how so many ‘intelligent’ (i’m defining intelligent here as people who advocate evolution) people can miss the entire point of this project. The idea here is to show the two competing ideas from the opposing viewpoint. It is not to elevate one over the other, but rather to show a juxtaposition between the message and the manner in which it is delivered, ie: a ’scientific’ explanation of religion, and a ‘religious’ explanation of science. What does the inability to pick up on the themes here say about such ‘intelligent’ people?
(disclaimer before I go down in flames, I do understand how evolution works and yes, the universe is older than 6k years old
)
Anyways, I loved it. Great job guys!
December 12, 2007 at 5:34 pm
It is great to hear so many different viewpoints.
Thanks so much for all of your comments!!! Keep it coming… I love reading them.
December 12, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hmmm- I quite enjoyed it myself. Some of the commenters seem to be unaware of sarcasm, and while I am sarcasm-impaired, your video uses it well enough that I could get it. At least I *think* I did:
The ’scientific’ presentation of creationism along with the ‘religious’ presentation of the scientific theories of both evolution and the big bang parody the way creation ’scientists’ are framing the debate - making modern biology and astronomy into caricatures to further the creationists claims while presenting ‘creation science’ or ‘intelligent design’ as a sober scientific theory, when it really comes off as management-speak - bullshit parading as analysis. I found it interesting that the religious view of scientific theory still came across as more believable than GOD’s method of creation (but I am biased, so perhaps it’s just me).
As for those commenters who dislike the film, how about giving some *reasons* - examples of bias, etc. Hans didn’t like the film, but I can’t understand *why* as “It seems that the format is more important than the message. The movie pushes so hard to make a nice style, that it is actually becoming a very biased movie.” Doesn’t actually *say* anything. At the least, are you a creationist or scientist? (Oh - me? I’m on the science side, just in case it wasn’t already obvious).
cheers-
December 12, 2007 at 5:58 pm
it seemed a bit biased towards creationism. making evolution seem outdated like some crazy threory
December 12, 2007 at 5:58 pm
it was great though!
December 12, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Interesting comments.
I can see how both the religious and the scientific audiences can easily find fault with how their side was presented.
As art, however, I think this film succeeds. It gives the viewer the freedom to interpret and think how the presentation compares and contrasts to their world view.
I particularly liked how the two films, viewed side by side, interacted with each other visually (the comet near the middle, and the apple near the end).
While the film (to me) does not favor one side or the other, I can imagine the film being shown in a beginner philosophy class to spurn discussion.
December 12, 2007 at 6:10 pm
This is a great piece of short movie history!
@Christiaan: That’s the whole point, presenting a religious dogma in a rational-scientific way and a scientific theory in a dogmatic-historical-religous style.
Just great!
December 12, 2007 at 6:15 pm
wow! great!
December 12, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I think the main problem may be that the context is not clear; for people that think that the left side is supposed to represent a creationist view of the universe, and the right side is supposed to represent a scientific view of the universe, the result is a highly problematic piece of creationist propaganda.
With the left viewed as an “intelligent design” view of creationism, and the right viewed as a creatonist view of science, it becomes a fascinating and artistically compelling critique of both the human tendency to rationalize irrational beliefs (and hide that rationalization) a-la-”intelligent design”, and the human tendency to oversimplify until you are left with a straw man, such as is done with the “science is just another form of religion” crowd.
Or I could be completely off-base about the intent of the authors, which illuminates the fact that the problem with treating ambiguity as a problem here is that art, by its nature, tends to illuminate more the nature of the observer than that of the observed. It’s not an educational film, and I’m not sure it’s fair to hold it to the same standards as one.
December 12, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Amazing. Truly incredible.
You are “the guys”. Very intelligent the hi-tech interface in creationism, and old church style in evolution.
Thanks by the show.
Lawrence Lagerlof
December 12, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Damn, this is terrific!
Congratulations from México guys!!!
December 12, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Provocative video. The visuals made me think of early Terry Gilliam (in his Monty Python days), and interestingly it raises ultimate questions in a way that is also reminiscent of the MP days. I had some really profound thoughts to write after viewing the film, but that apple I just ate is starting to make me very sleepy.
December 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I too am surprised (but not *that* surprised) that several of those making comments have complained about degrading the scientific explanation of evolution. Clearly, this is not intended as either religious doctrine or a scientific textbook. The intent, it seems to me, is not to minimize or degrade the tenets of either the left or the right side of the conflict or even to really discuss that conflict itself. Rather, the authors exemplify the connection that our minds form between an idea and a particular form of language.
For instance, a dedicated “scientific” apparently (from several comments above) finds his understanding demeaned by the obvious ambiguity present in the right side. However, someone equally ardent as a “religious” could find the cold and scientific tone of the left side insulting to his understanding of a compassionate God.
As neither of the above, I had a lot of fun watching the movie and watching it all again to catch more of the details that highlight this bold juxtaposition. Original art work should make people a little uncomfortable and make them question why they believe or what they know. Fantastic art work, fantastic writing, and a wonderful idea! This is the quality of work that makes surfing the internet worthwhile. Thank you!
@Doug: Exactly what I said! Monty Python all over the place!
December 12, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I loved it too. I think the key concept is not the two ideas per se, but that the language in how we communicate ideas influences how we understand/ comprehend them.
In this case, presenting creationism in “scientific” language surely gives it the aura of scientific fact–the very route Intelligent Designers are trying to take. Presenting evolution in “religious” language makes it feel mystical and one must have “faith” in it’s reality.
Great stuff!
December 12, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I liked the movie. I thought the animation was great and the story telling was amusing. As others have pointed out, the science in the evolution section was pretty simplistic. However, as this movie is clearly meant as something to be enjoyed and not as a thorough discussion of either creationism or evolution that’s pretty much beside the point. So basically, good job.
December 12, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Excellent animation, but more importantly, great commentary.
Other commentators, please: the movie is not an educational film meant to teach you about creationism or evolution. It’s an educational film meant to teach you about dogma and propaganda. If it makes you think, it serves its purpose - unfortunately, some of you appear too dense to recognize irony even when it jumps up and bites you in the ass.
December 12, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Edit to clarify:
Excellent animation, but more importantly, great commentary on current debate and controversial dichotomies in general.
December 12, 2007 at 8:43 pm
great, the idea, the animation, the humor.
thank you very much for sharing it with us!
December 12, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I loved the animation visuals but I have disagreements with the content. The contrasting styles of animation are terrific and very well done. The science side is weak on accuracy, though, which robs the piece of much of its punch. I felt you did a decent job of showing the creationist side with god in his lab, but wonder what the old boy’s arm is doing in the science side as the earth forms. Why did you state that life arrived from some other celestial body rather than say we don’t know how it arose (after all, how did bacteria come about on that other celestial body?)?
In the end, I found it beautiful but deeply flawed.
December 12, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I really like it since it provokes (as we can see in the commentary) and makes people (including me) think. Exactly what great art should do in my opinion. Even more I appreciate the idea to integrate a platform for the discussion directly into your artpiece. That gives additional value to it. Art 2.0 or so.
Greatings from Germany!
December 12, 2007 at 9:38 pm
The fact that some of the commenters did not appreciate or notice the facetiousness of the video may reflect upon those individuals. Or it may point to the videos somewhat ambiguous aim.
Personally, I think the idea is great, but the execution could use some sharpening. I believe that the video’s critical tone towards both sides should be made quite clear.
December 12, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Hi!
I like your creativity in coming up with this piece, and I enjoyed the concept very much. I did find it was hard to appreciate parts of the stories though.
It seemed that both “technical” and “flowery” words and images were sometimes inserted carelessly into the narrative, which was jarring and made it much harder to appreciate the work on a deeper level. In spite of this, it still obviously strikes a nerve with many people, which is the true purpose of art isn’t it?
Please don’t take offense, I only offer this as constructive criticism and I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future!
December 12, 2007 at 10:04 pm
This is a truly creative work.
December 12, 2007 at 10:06 pm
mindblowing that you managed to make both sides seem equally valid.
beautifully animated, well done for that.
December 12, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I hope you’ll also be doing:
geocentrism as science and heliocentrism as a religious myth
demon-theory of disease as science and germ theory as religious myth
December 12, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Hey Ryan,
Uh, yeah, I think most people “got” it. Yes, they’re parodying each side of the debate with the linguistic style and imagery of the other side (although I have to agree with one other commenter–the creation side seemed more management, or maybe IT, than science).
No, Ryan, what the rest of us don’t get is the POINT of doing that at all. It’s neat-o looking, but it doesn’t provide much to take away from it.
I mean, instead of everyone talking about what great perspectives or commentary it “provokes,” maybe some specifics would be nice.
I’ll start. The science side is pointless because there’s no scientist or group of scientists who exude the attitude of dogma that’s portrayed in the film. There’s no reason to even hyperbolically throw “dogmatic” out as an adjective for the scientific community, except that the religious right often do it.
The creation side, however, is rather funny because it’s exactly what the IDers and creationists are trying to do; present religious dogma as an alternative to scientific theory for explaining the natural world. And it look and sounds so silly. I especially enjoyed “installing the zodiac program,” because that’s not even a Christian concept and is so much more widely recognized as BS. Stacking them together made for better parody.
Ultimately, I think someone reading these comments could point to much the same in the film–a lot of vague, ambiguous and unspecific ideas and a lot of emotional goodwill.
This was entertaining but not enlightening.
December 12, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Very nicely made.
My complaint is that the project seems to imply that these two ‘narratives’ are somehow equivalent, or interchangeable, which strikes me disingenuous, and perhaps even irresponsible.
December 12, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Heaven and earth was definately created by GOD! Do some reserch in the Holy Bible, you silly people. This is blasphimy & you will burn in hell!
December 12, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Prettily but deceptively packaged crapola.
December 12, 2007 at 11:01 pm
wow…nice. impressive. stellar.
December 12, 2007 at 11:05 pm
So we have a technified rendition of a creation myth that has never been more than a minority delusion among the world’s peoples, and a mythification of vaguely scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and life on our little speck of it.
The first came across purely as mockery, which is the only justifiable response to such a story presented as fact, no matter what the angle.
The second came across the way a really bad “science” show on television does. You know, the kinds that mix in complete horse puckey like “psychics” and “chi” with reality.
Whatever the intent of these two animations, no dent whatsoever has been made in the established fact that religion and science are mutually exclusive, and only the latter provides any actual information about reality.
December 12, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Beautiful piece of work, but it suggests that evolution and creationism are on the same level and should both be given the same consideration. That’s obviously wrong, and it denigrates science. If one person says 2+2=4 and one says 2+2=6, they don’t deserve to be considered equally, and the truth does not lie in combining the two views.
December 12, 2007 at 11:16 pm
http://www.iselong.com/1/1121.htm
Chapter 1
The Way that can be told of is not an Unvarying Way;
The names that can be named are not unvarying names.
It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang;
The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind.
Truly, ‘Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences’ ;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.
This ‘ same mould’ we can but call the Mystery,
Or rather the ‘Darker than any Mystery’,
The Doorway whence issued all Secret Essences.
December 12, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I had problems understanding why magic man made an appearance in both stories as causing all kinds of things.
If he is to appear at all, then surely, in style of the rest of the theme, he’d only make an appearance on one side. Nice animating though.
December 12, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Awesome! Nice work… Lovely and creative.
December 12, 2007 at 11:33 pm
The thematic concept didn’t work for me.
Basically you threw some cheesy techno talk into an awkward version of the biblical myth, and threw some cheesy poetry into an awkward version of the scientific account, and said “voila, now you see they are two sides of the same coin”. No, I don’t see.
Simply presenting the mythological and the scientific accounts of creation in a parallel format does not make them seem any more alike or compatible. It just makes both sides seem like crap.
I don’t want to discourage you, though. It was a very cool looking and entertaining video and obviously took a lot of artistic talent to make. I thought the visuals were especially creative and appealing in the gothic presentation of evolution. And I’m sorry for saying the word crap.
December 12, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Well apart from obscuring your own creation myth, and misrepresenting many scientific theories. It was still extremely poor due to the complete lack of any mention of evidence. Truth does not rest on story telling abilities, it is determined by facts. Animation was fairly impressive, pity you couldn’t put your talent into something more productive than obscuring the truth.
December 13, 2007 at 12:04 am
From an artistic perspective I thought the two films were really beautiful. I agree with some of the comments though that the films seem slanted towards creationism - having a deity featured on both sides seems to imply that both arguments are somehow really the same. But art should elicit conversation and debate, so in that sense it’s doing it’s job. Since I’m in the evolutionst camp, I of course want to see things more biased towards my point of view. It was certainly visually stunning.
And Mariem has a lovely voice.
December 13, 2007 at 12:25 am
I’m just glad that the majority of the posters understand that this piece has nothing to do with “proving” anything. It’s a clever exercise that explores how the style of delivery shapes the message.
December 13, 2007 at 12:27 am
[...] swept through science blogs, got linked by well-known blogger Jason Kottke, and has sparked a spirited debate on its official blog. Posted in: Grad Success, Digital Design Next post » « Previous [...]
December 13, 2007 at 12:33 am
I have no idea the point of this. Was it about the digital film making or the content? The content was awful and a poor representation of the scientific basis of evolution. If anything both films seemed biased for creationism. Those applauding this obviously have limited knowledge of current evolutionary theory as well as the history of life. I am not an atheist by any means and believe spirituality is a critical part of every person’s life in one form or another, but this was crap and a waste of my time. Not to mention the female narrator’s voice inflections were overly dramatic and annoying.
December 13, 2007 at 12:46 am
abolutely fabulous in so many ways. I really loved how the “scientist” presented the creationists’ view and the “religious voice” presented the Darwinist/scientific view–it made me think about how preachy we all are on both sides of the issue. And I say that as a firm believer in evolution. Neither did I see either side to be intended to be the “right” or “correct” view, or for either side to be a complete and accurate presentation of current dogma or theory (I wouldn’t expect that from something that lasts less than a few minutes). I have linked to this on my blog and hope that steers more people your way.
December 13, 2007 at 12:48 am
Good production values, nice graphics, decent voice acting. But the content was total and utter crap.
Despite the fact that the Creation side has been soundly demonstrated false in an absurd variety of ways, there’s also the nauseating inclusion of dreamed-up rationales for various stages in the Creation side.
Then there’s the fundamentally incorrect “evolution” side. First of all, it conflates the theory of evolution, which is a very specific theory dealing with the diversification of life, with the findings of a number of other scientific fields (cosmology, astrophysics, abiogenesis). And it does so in a fundamentally incorrect manner. Then the mystic tone of the whole thing just takes this tripe and dresses it up even uglier clothes. Never mind the fact that there is no mention whatsoever for how we know these things, something which is essential for any good scientific explanation.
December 13, 2007 at 1:52 am
To echo and elaborate on previous comments:
This is a beautiful, clever and slick film. As art, it’s almost a fine achievement. My biggest criticism in that regard is some awkwardness introduced by the parallel format. The pauses in narrative can be a little annoying, and I think that in trying to echo one another in content, the content of both narratives suffers.
As any sort of evidence for the scientific side (which I favor), and also I suspect for the creationist side (which I’ll let creationists address), this is poor. Yes, yes, I know it’s meant to be art first. I’m well aware of the parody intended. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s an excuse for not doing your homework, as you so clearly did not.
Several commenters have stated they feel this film favors creationism. I think I know why. Although the film depends on the clever concept of humorously switching the two arguments’ contexts, this is an infamous tactic used by creationists in all seriousness. The leading edge of modern creationism is Intelligent Design, creationism with a mail-order diploma. ID creationists strive hard to claim that their creationism is in fact science, supported by scientific evidence. They likewise seek to portray science in general and evolutionary biology in particular as dogmatically religious, usually lumping it in with atheism for good measure. Whether deliberately or accidentally (I optimistically lean towards the latter,) this film plays directly into that tactic. Hence the perception of bias.
Since I’m giving the benefit of the doubt on motives, I can’t criticize the film as biased, but I can as incompetently researched. I don’t think it would have taken much effort in researching the public debate on this issue to learn of the creationism is science/science is dogma tactic. Nor would it have taken much effort to learn that many of the characterizations of evolution given are seriously flawed. The two most prominent examples are the general implication that evolution trends from smaller to larger organisms, and the comment that bacteria were seeded on earth by comets. Trends in evolution are still a heavily discussed topic, but the current general consensus is that there are more or less none. The idea that life arose somewhere other than Earth and was “seeded” here by asteroids or some other means is not the prevailing view, and implies that an Earthbound origin is considered unlikely to have occurred by the scientific community. It isn’t. For brevity’s sake I’ll skip further criticisms other than to say that scientifically, the entire evolution video is weak.
Again, I’m aware this isn’t meant to be a science lesson or religious apologetic. Many here would argue that I should therefore not consider scientific mistakes or inaccuracies in evaluating the film. That’s bull. The scientific and religious arguments are an integral part of the art, indeed they’re the cornerstone of the piece. As such, it suffers from a poor knowledge and communication of either, unless that ignorance is in itself an intended part of the film. Good satire and parody need to know their subjects well.
December 13, 2007 at 1:55 am
This is pathetically ignorant crap that displays no understanding of theory of evolution or the factual evidence supporting it. There are not “two stories”; almost all biologists, religious or not, accept that evolution occurred and that the theory of evolution is our best current theory of how and why it occurred. Quite simply, this video is a lie about what scientists believe. Next time, try actually consulting with some.
December 13, 2007 at 2:06 am
The Intelligent Design proponents of the Discovery Institute, as part of their “Wedge Strategy”, promote the notion that their flavor of Creationism is science and push to “teach the controversy” in public school science classes, and seek yo establish their version of Creationism as an “alternative” to the theory of evolution. Scientists (as well as U.S. courts), on the other hand, argue that Intelligent Design and other forms of Creationism are religion, not science, and are not on a par with evolution and its theory, which are supported by massive amounts of evidence and analysis. Therefore, this video is totally one-sided, taking the position of and furthering the interests of the Discovery Institute, rather than representing any sort of duality.
December 13, 2007 at 2:07 am
Ah, and I forgot to mention the other reason for perceived bias: False equivalence. The parallel nature of the film gives one the impression of two equally opposed arguments, and of “two sides of the same coin.” As far as the public debate of this issue is concerned, that’s fair enough. People are fairly evenly split.
But this isn’t a matter of public debate, much as creationists would like you to believe. It’s a matter of science. And within science, there is no debate over the validity of evolution and the vacuity of creationism/ID. The question was settled over a century ago, and since that time we’ve moved light-years forward in our understanding of evolution.
Given that context, we are naturally sensitive any time creationism is presented as an equal half of the debate. It grants an authority and respectability to creationism that it hasn’t had for a hundred years and more.
December 13, 2007 at 2:07 am
Well, in terms of aesthetic value, this was certainly well-made. However, not knowing the aims of the artists, I can’t say whether it was a particularly effective piece of art.
It seemed to be an attempt to reframe two narratives, one from the Hebrew creation myth found in Genesis, and one reflecting modern scientific consensus, in each other’s frame: telling Genesis from a “scientific” point of view, and the scientific consensus from a “religious” point of view.
If that was the case, it failed on both accounts. In the case of the Genesis reframing, the story was rewritten as a planned experiment with religious terminology replaced by more sciencey terminology. However, this fell flat with me, because the reason that Genesis-based creationism is rejected by the more scientifically-minded among us is that it directly contradicts evidence found scientifically.
So, the flaw lies not in how the story is told, but how it is justified. Telling it with sciencey terminology does not in fact make it more scientific, not even superficially. I think this reframing failed mostly because it cast God as the scientist (actually more of an engineer) and not the audience.
In the case of the scientific consensus reframing, I felt it suffered as a result of using an anthropocentric distortion of the narrative that while ignoring most of the process (I suspect this was intended to give it more of a religious air), it often distorted the process when it did include it. For instance:
“The wisest of those that creepeth begat thy young safely on beaches and thus be more fruitful and so multiply”
I thought the use of the “be fruitful and mulitply” there was clever, but in doing so, it missed the point. Land dwelling creatures didn’t arise because wise fish found that it was safer to breed on land or anything of the sort. It was merely a product of various traits arisen through mutation that allowed for behaviors that ultimately led to a surviving line of organisms.
If you think I am being too literal here and should lighten up, realize that the process is in fact the most part of the scientific consensus on the matter, so a distortion of that ruins the re-framing.
Furthermore, beyond the mistelling of the story, it didn’t really carry a religious tone comparable to the telling of Genesis, since it lacked the central character, which is God, though some of the telling and graphics of the story seemed to hint at the presence of one.
Basically, if this was intended to show that even the most well choreographed attempts to re-frame the narratives will likely fall flat on their faces, it succeeded. If it was just an attempt at an aesthetic portrayal of the narratives that wasn’t particularly concerned with accuracy but just wanted to put forth a good story and show dualism in the narratives, then sure, it succeeded there.
But in the end the video didn’t send any particularly compelling message.
December 13, 2007 at 2:09 am
the “religious voice” presented the Darwinist/scientific view
No, it didn’t, not even close.
it made me think about how preachy we all are on both sides of the issue
Speak for yourself. Acceptance of the theory of evolution by the scientific world rests on vast numbers of research papers representing huge amounts of work, not on preaching.
December 13, 2007 at 2:19 am
I thought the use of the “be fruitful and mulitply” there was clever, but in doing so, it missed the point. Land dwelling creatures didn’t arise because wise fish found that it was safer to breed on land or anything of the sort. It was merely a product of various traits arisen through mutation that allowed for behaviors that ultimately led to a surviving line of organisms.
Indeed. Which are wiser, whales or cattle? If it’s dumb to stay in the water, why did the ancestors of whales return there? And if bearing young on beaches is “wise”, why are snowy plovers an endangered species? I can tell you who isn’t wise — whoever wrote the script for this video. Just because the authors believe really really dumb things doesn’t mean that the scientists that they pretend to represent believe those things. The only way to achieve parity here is to make the scientific story seem a lot dumber than it is.
December 13, 2007 at 2:21 am
And if bearing young on beaches is “wise”
I meant “safe”, which is the absurd claim made in the video.
December 13, 2007 at 2:26 am
Neither did I see either side to be intended to be the “right” or “correct” view
Well, now, that’s a problem, isn’t it? Imagine side-by-side videos that don’t portray either belief that the Holocaust happened or that it didn’t as correct, or the same with the view that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and really did have WMDs. Any video that radically misrepresents what is right and correct is intrinsically biased.
December 13, 2007 at 2:29 am
What does the inability to pick up on the themes here say about such ‘intelligent’ people?
It says that intelligent (no scare quotes) people understand that silk purses and sow’s ears cannot be interchanged.
December 13, 2007 at 2:31 am
As an added note, you should probably correct the following paragraph on your homepage:
“If thou shalt believe the Book of Darwin, t’is five billion years after The Big Bang that we behold what the cosmos hath begat: the magma, the terra firma, the creeping beasts, and mankind, whose dolorous and chaotic evolution begat the gift of consciousness.”
There are a few errors there not least of which is the fact that no one believes the universe to be 5 billion years old. That, instead, is roughly the age of the solar system. The universe, which is what was started by the Big Bang, is about 13 to 14 billion years old.
Second, realizing that you are attempting to re-frame a scientific consensus into religious terminology, it is still a bit strange to use “Book of Darwin”, because Darwin knew nothing of the age of the Earth and mainly contributed the basic process of Darwinian evolution, making his contribution to modern scientific consensus of the matters discussed a significant but small. I would suggest Book of Hubble instead.
I will just leave the comment that an overemphasis on Darwin suggests a creationist viewpoint, since it tends to be just creationists that equate the entirety of scientific consensus about the history of the universe between the Big Bang and now to Darwinism, which really only applies to a certain process that is only relevant to, so far as we know, life on Earth. All knowledge of cosmological phenomena is completely independent of Darwin’s ideas.
December 13, 2007 at 2:49 am
Hmm. I really, really enjoyed this, and I’m probably going to pull it out at church one day. Ha!
Before I continue, let me say that I’m quite comfortable with the scientific explanation of our origins and I think the Creation Science movement does a great disservice to both the church and science. So please, don’t interpret what I have to say as the ranting of a crack pot.
A few commenters have pointed out some of the inaccuracies of the right side of the video. That’s reasonably fair, and it would be overly simplistic for use in the classroom. But that’s not the intention, is it? The creators have tried to give a very quick overview of the scientific account of our origins using mythological and dogmatic language and categories.
Several people have found this lacking, because, they say, scientists do not use these categories. The problem is, though, that while evolution and cosmology are best described by scientists, its not only scientists that believe in them. I know many a non-scientist atheist who would see the right side of the video and say that whilst the language isn’t what they expect, it’s a pretty good description about what they believe about our origins. In that sense it is the grand mythology of our time. It’s mediated to us by scientists, but it’s not only scientists who believe it.
Whilst the accuracy of our scientific account will always be important, very few are ever going to be able to articulate it properly. When that happens the vibe of the thing may be just as useful as a perfect blow by blow account of exactly what happened. And I think if Creationists applied that thinking to Genesis we might actually start to get somewhere!
December 13, 2007 at 2:55 am
Darwin knew nothing of the age of the Earth and mainly contributed the basic process of Darwinian evolution, making his contribution to modern scientific consensus of the matters discussed a significant but small. I would suggest Book of Hubble instead.
Indeed. There is no “Book of Darwin” for science — Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” contained many errors and has been superseded by 150 years of science. And it said nothing of five billion years or any other time span, and certainly nothing of the Big Bang. The filmmakers are ignorant gits who know nothing of science, Darwin, or evolution but pretend to make some deep statement about it.
December 13, 2007 at 2:59 am
But that’s not the intention, is it? The creators have tried to give a very quick overview of the scientific account of our origins using mythological and dogmatic language and categories.
How about addressing the actual complaints instead of a silly strawman?
it’s a pretty good description about what they believe about our origins. In that sense it is the grand mythology of our time. It’s mediated to us by scientists, but it’s not only scientists who believe it.
No scientist believes it. Sheesh.
When that happens the vibe of the thing may be just as useful as a perfect blow by blow account of exactly what happened.
No, the “vibe of the thing” is to put science and creation myths on equal footing by radically misrepresenting both the content of science (on the right) and what it takes to make something science (on the left).
December 13, 2007 at 3:46 am
Where in the “evolution” video were natural selection and random mutation mentioned? Genetics? Do the video makers have even the slightest clue as to what evolution is about?
December 13, 2007 at 4:03 am
Congratulations! A wonderful achievement!
Even better that it has created over-analysis by many of the respondents to this blog!
Keep up the great work! True creative art is beautiful and stands on its own. It doesn’t need to be justified.
December 13, 2007 at 4:23 am
CammoBlammo:
Look, friend, you may mean well, but put some thought into what you’re saying. Because some people misunderstand evolution, it’s okay to do so in this film? Come on. Your argument might be compelling if they were specifically targeting misunderstandings of evolution and creationism. But I’m sure they weren’t. Of course I’d defer to any statements from the artists on this point.
It is NOT that difficult to gain a basic understanding of the scientific consensus on evolution. There are plenty of resources for this. If the authors intended to “give a very quick overview of the scientific account of our origins,” they’ve failed, by your own admission. And there’s no reason they had to. With due respect to our blog hosts here, they screwed up.
This creative art doesn’t stand on its own as well as it could precisely for these mistakes. What’s the goal of this film? To educate? It fails, because it misinforms. To satirize? Doesn’t that generally imply an element of education? Is it to make creationists and scientists laugh? I can’t speak for the creationists, but the comments here make it awfully clear the scientists aren’t laughing very hard.
December 13, 2007 at 4:42 am
It is amazing what people will come up with to let there belief system hold true.
Nice story though
December 13, 2007 at 5:04 am
I’d like to emphasize my previous “minority delusion” point, since it’s really more key than any other criticism. Science is a global enterprise that works in every culture, because while scientists aren’t culture-neutral, science itself is.
The Genesis creation myth is provincial. There are countless other creation myths that have been invented on this planet of ours over thousands of years of human civilization and pre-civilization.
The notion that “Duelity” (the name itself is a bit puzzling, since it conjures up an image of a fight rather than a duality) gives “both sides” is completely ridiculous. If you consider myth a side of reality, then there are thousands of sides. But science - which is a method of examining reality, not a set of beliefs - is the only side that holds up to scrutiny.
December 13, 2007 at 5:06 am
Yeah turns out you didn’t represent evolution at all.
December 13, 2007 at 5:06 am
Sorry. I could not bring myself to watch it. On your introduction page, you could not even get the age of the universe/earth right. (Hint: it is closer to 10 billion years between the big bang and the formation of the earth, at least according to the “evolutionist”.) After that, I could not trust anything you presented…for either story.
December 13, 2007 at 5:32 am
What truth machine and Ben Main said. Exactly. Science had to be dumbed down and described inaccurately to make it compare with religion. And to all the condescending types who think we didn’t get it: swapped voices, yadda, yadda, yadda - we do get. But it’s like comparing spontaneous generation with germ theory. One is superstitious nonsense, the other now obvious fact. They can certainly be compared artistically, but they cannot be compared equally, unless one is ignorant or intellectually dishonest. (Or strains to believe in Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria, which surely even he didn’t really believe.)
Really lovely animation, tho. Seriously.
December 13, 2007 at 5:35 am
@truth machine & rrt:
I’m fully aware that there are inaccuracies in the ‘evolutionist’ version of the video. Okay, ‘inaccuracies’ might be a little weak. There are points on which it is misleading and blatantly wrong. I get that.
My point, now that I think about it a bit more, is that ‘evolution’ (in the sense that the Creationists misuse it) has displaced ‘creationism’ (however it’s understood) as the generally accepted story of our origins. In that sense it is a myth. It is accepted by scientist and non scientist alike. Now there might be misunderstandings of what that might actually mean. For some, ‘mutation’ is the process by which ordinary humans become X-Men. Many think that the Big Bang was an explosion which took place at a particular point of space..
I know it’s not hard for the average person to learn the basics of evolutionary and cosmological theory. But because it’s possible to learn doesn’t mean that people will make the effort. This means that the generally accepted version of our origins probably won’t be scientifically accurate. Scientists have an important role to play in educating the public, but many won’t care about the details.
This hasn’t only happened recently. Back when creationism (in whatever form) was more generally accepted only the educated could tell you the details of the story. The average layperson wouldn’t have been able to tell you much more than ‘God did it.’
I’m not saying it’s right that the film gets the scientific account wrong. I do think they’ve done a good thing in juxtaposing the way that evolution’s become our dominant creation myth and how creationism tries hard to look like science. It’s interesting that many of the comments are a reaction to calling ‘evolution’ a myth and ‘creationism’ science. I can understand being upset creationism is called science, but being upset at the implication that evolution is a myth is unfounded. Every society has myths. Some of our myths have the interesting characteristic that they’re based on empirical observation.
And the goal of the film? I’m not entirely sure it has one. As you say, rrt, it fails to do quite a few things. I wonder if it’s just meant to recast the controversy in different terminology and get a reaction. If that’s the intention, it’s certainly succeeded!
December 13, 2007 at 6:12 am
I like your point about myths CammoBlammo, but I also think that the very names of project - “Duality” - seems to speak to some sort of perceived equal-footed-ness between the creation myth and scientific theory.
December 13, 2007 at 6:16 am
I certainly agree with you about evolution as mythology, Cammo. It’s a serious problem. At least in my home, the US, evolution still hasn’t achieved real dominance in public opinion. I worry that if it ever does, far too many people will be accepting a distorted parody, with no real understanding of the science. How many people see evolution as a progressive, directed process with intelligent humans as its “goal?”
We have a long way to go. And some of us are getting rather tired… :/
December 13, 2007 at 7:41 am
The problem, rrt, as I see it in America, is that people already have a distorted idea of evolution - that’s primarily why it is not widely accepted as fact. The battle between science and religion, simply put, is the conflict between education v. ignorance.
There is a Christian euphemism: “Cold is the absence of heat. Dark is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of God.” To profoundly rearrange: “Ignorance is the absence of education,” or better yet, “Creationism is the absence of science.”
December 13, 2007 at 9:08 am
I’m getting a “password required” prompt when trying to extract duelity_both_lg.rar … any ideas? Thanks! (My bandwidth seems too low to watch the online version.)
December 13, 2007 at 9:14 am
please, folks… a little perspective and maybe even– I don’t know– some sense of humor about the whole thing? i thank christ (or yhwh or buddha or allah or providence or nothingness) that when art’s been made in the past, be it fertility-art from 35,000 years ago in the caves at Lascoux, or papist-patronized art on the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel, or Jackson Pollack’s “action painting,” there weren’t any blogs to drive the artists and the viewing public nuts with an infinite expression of inanity.
thank you, creators (or evolvers) of this piece. it’s really fine, and makes some really sharp points. not that it needs to, of course… because it’s entertaining as well, and that’s certainly a worthy end in and of itself.
regarding the dangerous views of reality vs. religion in the US: yes, it’s true, this distortion exists. however, it doesn’t mean that we ALL have to be fascists about what we write, draw or perform; or read or view or listen to. it’s very possible (and for the good of all) to have a pluralism of viewpoints (especially in art), even when those viewpoints sometimes make us a little uncomfortable and/or aren’t absolutely PC. come on… live a little.
December 13, 2007 at 9:35 am
That was one of the worst representation of the scientific understanding of how the solar system arise. The solar system used to be a swirling cloud of gas and dust from a supernova explosion about 5 billion years ago. It wasn’t chucks of rocks! Gravity pulled the dust and gas closest to the centre inwards, due to the large forces of gravity from such a huge cloud, atoms were pressed so close together that nuclear fission took place. The result was the Sun, and solar wind emitted from the sun literally blew away most of the lighter particles around the solar system. Meanwhile planets condensed to form accretion discs, no doubt a large number of planets formed because matter was scattered throughout the solar system. As time passes, their unstable orbit caused them to collide into larger planets. With the outer portions of the accretion discs forming moons. Planets near the Sun are usually small because of the smaller circumference of matter in their orbits. The weak gravity of these planets means that whatever lighter gas atmosphere on their surface are blown away by solar wind, so there’s very little helium or hydrogen. As for the Earth however, water and other gas has been trapped under the crust and that is where our supply of hydrogen came from. The early atmosphere was almost bare of oxygen gas, so proteins could be formed easily from ammonia, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. The proteins then polymerise, to form the first self replicating unit. Once that happens, competition between self replicating units caused only the best replicators to survive, by having adaptations like the cell wall due to genetic mutations. Only after a billion of years of competition, the modern eukaryote cell emerge, and it took even more years before multicellularism emerge. All these early cells were found in bodies of water, or other moist places because they don’t have water storage to move above land, but multicellular organisms changed all that. First the plants went up to land, the increase in transpiration caused more water vapour to be released so that ample rain could fall, photosynthesis also allow for atmospheric oxygen. This allow first the insects to live on land, and following that the backboned animals.
December 13, 2007 at 10:27 am
9th commandment violation alert
December 13, 2007 at 11:47 am
JanChan, you are a jerk asshole.
December 13, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The animation is very nice but you REALLY should have gotten some scientific advisory in your “evolution” part because it is totally wrong and you will only confuse people more that they already are about the theory
December 13, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Though the animation itself was great, the comparison of creationism and evolutionary theory was utterly misleading. One could watch it and thinks that they are somehow equivalent, whereas they are not: the first is a matter of faith, while the later is a scientific theory. Furthermore, the evolution animation was filled with misconceptions about the evolutionary process and the history of life on earth.
Keep up with the nice work on animation, and better luck next time with the contents.
December 13, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Well after reading so many comments I decided to post one myself. I thought the animation was good and ofcourse there were holes in the explanation which is very logical because it’s only 2 minutes.
I actually wanted to know if the two points of view were on occasion (animation wise) the opposite. I ask this because I got the feeling the the religious point of view was presented scientifically with the animation and the other point of view religious like. Is this true or am I imaginig thing?
On the whole I would call this a job well done.
December 13, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Elvenc - that’s what I found so lovely about this, the language and entire visual vocabulary being swapped.
As for problems with the contents of the evolution story, dude…an electric fan used to spread life? (Creation story) I think anyone with an ounce of grey matter knows that these are super-simplified and tweaked (for humour and to fit their adopted, swapped perspective) versions of BOTH narratives.
December 13, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Ryan:
Good rephrasing of the “evil is the absence of God” bit, I think you’re quite right. Of course, the original itself is unintentionally ironic. There are many fundamentalists who remain convinced, based upon some language in the bible, that “Dark” must be a positive material entity just as light is, rather than the mere absence of light. Some of them get quite excited over dark matter and energy, heh.
December 13, 2007 at 2:31 pm
In my past two comments, I avoided direct criticism of one of the underlying premises, which is key, but since others have mentioned it, I think I’ll take a crack at it as well.
The name of the animation is “duelity” which is a play on “duel” and “duality”, both words representing a notion of a pair, the first refering to rivalry and the second merely to existence. The pair presented by this video is the creation myth taken from Judaic mythology i.e. the Book of Genesis, or at least the beginning of it. The other concept of this pair is at least a caricature of the modern scientific consensus of the general history of the universe.
But this really is a poor representation of duality, since while there is only one scientific consensus, there are a multitude of creation myths and not only is it unfair to characterize this one on even ground with scientific consensus, which is much more likely to be true, it’s even more unfair to the multitude of other creation myths which permeate the globe.
Now, it is perhaps understandable, given the ideological climate on this subject in the US, but that leads to another problem…it does perpetuate the notion that there is a real area of contention based upon the knowledge available. In reality, there is a group that claims knowledge based upon a literal translation of an ancient mythological text and the other group consists of those who actually study evidence, which as it should, gives greater weight to the narrative that was caricatured on the right.
Now, I have reason to believe that the creators of this film are not incredibly well-versed in this subject matter, as evidenced by the factual error and error in spirit of the text on the homepage, in addition to this issue of portrayal, which has been debated a bit more here in the comment section.
So ultimately, I feel as if this was a cleverly made and rather cute portrayal of the two accounts, it was ultimately inaccurate both in content and in spirit, so while I applaud the work that went into it, I ultimately disapprove of the work and it’s message.
December 13, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Really cool film! No one should think that their truth is the only truth, and you showed that perfectly
December 13, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Hey guys,
Thank you for making these films! If i may suck up; They were minutes of my life well-spent!! A great alteration of the classic images we have (thank ehm… God or Xenu or whatever… that you didn’t go for Scientology)….
Pretty neat piece of original humor.
If you ever get bored…. keep up the good work!
Grtz,
Rene
December 13, 2007 at 3:29 pm
That was terrific. And simply gorgeous to look at. I especially like the narration by a Lord of the Rings-ish female narrator.
Bravo!
December 13, 2007 at 3:34 pm
For real, this is probably the next best movie after Zeitgeist (www.zeitgeistmovie.com). I had to write something about it. Go check it out at http://onyxgod777.blogspot.com/ .
Again, nice job on the short animation!
December 13, 2007 at 4:15 pm
The juxtaposition of the scientific and the religious storytelling in an unexpected way is quite clever. Some people are rather touchy about it, but I think they don’t understand art. Both were beautifully illustrated.
Maybe if creationists presented their views like that they’d have a better response?
December 13, 2007 at 4:16 pm
[...] might take a look at the comments as [...]
December 13, 2007 at 4:59 pm
A superb production — excellent animation, fabulous script, beautifully structured. Superior narration except fot one nit pick: “yea” is pronounced YAY not YEE as in “Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil”
December 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I think that film is amazing, especially if you watch both stories in parallel.
I’m just a bit shocked about some of the comments.
There is not second truth, God is the only one
December 13, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Clever concept and great animation! It’s not what I was expecting — which makes it all the more memorable.
December 13, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I watched the creationism film first and was a little irritated at how the film conflated the first story of the days with the second story of the Garden of Eden, they are from entirely different traditions as is evident from the radical break in the story at Gen. 2:1. But then I watched the evolution film and noticed that it conflated Big Bang with evolution. Those two topics have nothing to do with each other either. I wonder if it would help folks to know that both representations are imperfect in almost identical ways?
It goes without saying that it is visually interesting and clearly a discussion starter. So, I’m glad it exists in the world, and I think I will post a link on my blog.
December 13, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Hi there,
came here through ehrensenf.de, they featured you in their daily videoblog, this will surely push up your traffic!
Both videos were great, and watched together they were even more than their sum, or however you phrase this in English. Who cares if the videos were not accurate - wise fish walking, dumb fish staying, or the bold six day solution that forgot about the day off at the end.
Many people really believe in creationism and the Genesis. If someone believes in something, you will not change his mind with facts alone. You have to understand the other’s viewpoint, and I think the mystic narration of evolution was a great eye-opener.
I think evolution is far more fantastic and mighty than any story of creation I have heard of. Just like the creation of a flat earth and some stars swirling around it is nothing compared to the creation of a whole universe and life on thousands and thousands of planets all over the place.
The human mind might not be equipped for ever grasping the origin of the universe - is it eternal? But then, eternal is nothing we can really understand. Did it start from nothing? How could that be?
There is still enough room to imagine some kind of creator, though it cannot be an old wise man anymore, taking care of each single prayer on earth. Anyways, it would be an insult to this creator to credit him only with the creation of some naked apes on a rock far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy…
To supplement this citation: Kakuei Araral said in a comment further up on this page, that the more important question would not be the “how” but the “why”. Douglas Adam’s answer to this would be: “Why not?”
Greeting from Darmstadt, Germany, city of science and the place to be if you want to explore the solar system,
Jancsi
December 13, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I have heard of an Isaac Asimov book that ends in a very similar manner then the left part of your video began. Anyway.
Nice video.
Have fun in your lifes
Tchau
December 13, 2007 at 7:49 pm
To the creators of this work, brilliant. You have my appreciation for a job well done.
To the critical commentaries of this piece, to quote a Biblical verse, “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matt. 23-24).
As for myself, I saw it as a balanced view of how people understand the universe through the use of metaphor. In this particular example of the video, don’t think mathematics, think linguistics. Among other things, I’m a Minister. I’m also a strong proponent of evolution. I consider it to be thoroughly valid and a step to understanding our species. We still have a long way to travel, however, before we can truly understand the knowledge we’re seeking.
If you’ve read this far, then I’m glad to see you don’t dismiss me out of hand. If you did not read this far, then you are a part of the problem. Whether for religion or science, a person who has a completely closed mind is useless. A person who refuses to listen to the opinions of others is foolish. A person who ignores those who disagree with him is ignorant and ill informed. As we become so absolutely certain in our own understanding, so we also become absolutely inflexible.
As I said earlier, I’m a Minister. A Christian one at that. It is my understanding, that my faith, and my science, can co-exist together, with both of them being truth. It’s not impossible. My faith stops where the natural world begins, and my scientific understanding stops where my journey into the supernatural begins. There is an area right in the middle, where they blend. For example, I believe evolution is the most logical way to explain our origins as a species. I also believe God created the universe.
The first is verifiable, the second is not. Of course, I live my faith every day, not out of some sense of obligation, but out of a desire to understand beyond the sense. Would you consider that sentimental, emotional garbage? Most likely. Do I care? No. I don’t affect you negatively in any way, since you would have to question me further to understand my beliefs, and I’ve taken up far too much of this blog already fashioning my comment.
My point is this: don’t dismiss out of hand something that may be more profound, benefit people, bring understanding and encourage humility from all sides, simply because you don’t disagree with it. Something worth looking at is something worth understanding. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover. Science reads the words. Spirituality reads between the lines. You can read the same book and have totally different stories. Think about that, please, before putting down people of faith. By making it into “us vs. them”, you devalue the efforts made by both sides to bring understanding.
J.
December 13, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Nicely done! A pet peeve, though: “creepeth” in King James English means the same as “creeps” in standard modern English so “the wisest of those that creepeth” doesn’t add up.
December 13, 2007 at 9:12 pm
This was way cool! Really beautiful animation. It’s a drag that some of the scientists posting criticism here are being WAAAAYYYY too literal-minded. Both presentations weren’t meant, I don’t think, to be taken as either complete or 100% accurate. (I mean seriously, someone else said it–it’s like two minutes long. Ease up!) I don’t think the artists meant either side to “Win” the duel…it’s just a general portrayal of how religious people and how scientific people view human origins. Both sides are kind of gently poked fun at. Hey, if you think the “evolution” side is inaccurate, the “religion” side isn’t exactly letter-of-the-law either. Two dogs humping? The Zodiac?! Sorry, but I laughed throughout the whole film. And it also made me think a little. My guess is that’s all the artists intended…all this controversy is icing on the cake. The best art often provokes intense debate. Well done!
December 13, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Agreed, Mattie.
J.
December 13, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I didn’t waste any time actually watching your silliness, but I do want to complain about that “5 billion years” on your main page. The Big Bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago.
December 13, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Youre site is posted on a dutch website flabber.com so you’re fame reached even this far!
impressed by this project!
December 13, 2007 at 11:24 pm
What a clever production! You present the creation story in the voice of computer science and the story of evolution in the voice of the Old Testament. Your work here is inspired. Bravo!
December 13, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Amusing. Witty. Entertaining.
December 14, 2007 at 1:10 am
Hello,
I want to congratulate you for your excellent idea and work.
Everyone sees it in a different light which shows that it is really
making people think about it (well at least some).
By the way, as a biologist myself I see so many things to correct
in the evolution video… But this would somehow destroy the art.
Greetings,
Peter
December 14, 2007 at 1:21 am
Very Nice.
December 14, 2007 at 1:48 am
Really good work.
Awesome what god made, even people they think that “nothing is coming from nothing” ^^
A poll would be very interesting.
December 14, 2007 at 2:36 am
I find this disturbing on a number of levels.
First, in both scenarios you seem to promote a “God of the gaps”, with the silent implication in the hand hurling the asteroid toward earth, etc.
Second, not all folks come to the same final conclusion.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly. It is frightening to by any implication suggest that they are equal competing hypotheses, that science is religion, or that religion can be construed (in any way) as hypothesis testing.
You seem to have reinvented the wedge plan that the ID folks are working through, where you pave the way for some designer.
Only, scientifically, the Designer is not necessary, parsimonious, or appro