1. Comment #98508 by GodlessHeathen on December 13, 2007 at 8:08 pm

As I said on PZ's blog; this strikes me as film-school claptrap. If there really were a controversy, it'd be a little relevant. As it is, it's just empty.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

2. Comment #98519 by Chrono_Tata on December 13, 2007 at 8:26 pm

I looked at the website and it's really just looks like some guy's school project. I don't think he's trying to make any point, just art.

It is a pretty slick video though.

Other Comments by Chrono_Tata

3. Comment #98522 by Zakie Chan on December 13, 2007 at 8:35 pm

I thought that was freakin awesome! And its a little higher quality than just "film school claptrap" if you ask me (I went to film school).

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

4. Comment #98533 by secular82 on December 13, 2007 at 8:49 pm

I thought the religious representation of evolution was fascinating. Evolution is just such a powerful concept that it makes any creation narrative look weak in comparison. I don't think the creator of this clip had any purpose in mind, but I was struck by it.

Other Comments by secular82

5. Comment #98535 by macros_man on December 13, 2007 at 8:50 pm

Yeah... I was awed by the visual beauty of this... this is just visually stunning... and the subject matter is sufficiently pertinent, as well.

Other Comments by macros_man

6. Comment #98548 by CruciFiction on December 13, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Uh, huh, okay then.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

7. Comment #98556 by BAEOZ on December 13, 2007 at 9:20 pm

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 beast, and mankind, whose dolorous and chaotic evolution begat the gift of consciousness.

gak! What does cosmology have to do with Darwin? Isn't the Earth 5 billion or so years old and the universe about 3 times that age?
gak!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

8. Comment #98558 by Alastor on December 13, 2007 at 9:28 pm

I don't see why this is posted as news, I thought it was pretty dopey. The girl's voice sounds sexy though.

Other Comments by Alastor

9. Comment #98562 by Cartomancer on December 13, 2007 at 9:38 pm

When I read PZ Myers' account of this I thought it sounded like an ill-concieved attempt to pretend there is some kind of parity between the creation myths of the bronze age middle east and the modern scientific account of the origins of life and the universe, the corollary being "they're two sides of the same coin and religion is just as valid a tool for understanding the universe as science is". If that really were the intention behind this piece then it is a petty and disingenuous intention, but it has also failed spectacularly in my appreciation.

Well, for a start I simply cannot find myself awestruck by things said in American accents. Sorry, they grate on my consciousness too much to give me the impression of anything deep and meaningful. Give me some venerable, plummy-voiced thesp from the RSC any day...

But the main thing that struck me about this was the comparison it drew. I thought we were going to get religion presented in scientific language and science presented in religious language. What we actually got was science presented in slightly cliched feel-good new age mysticism (I was constantly reminded of Deanna Troy from Star Trek actually), and religion presented as... computer software installation. That guy sounded just like a microsoft rep telling bored executives about some new operating system they had invented. It left me feeling that this story was intensely facile and uninspired, which compared to the grand vistas of cosmological time I suppose it is really. The new-agey science bit did put me off a little, but despite the execution it seemed undeniably apparent that scientific discoveries can furnish the inspiration for awe and wonder at least as effectively as traditional myths.

One for the powers that be I feel, and one in the eye for the opposition.

Incidentally, as creation myths go, genesis as is must rank as one of the least inspired and most facile. It's basically guy sits down and makes lots of things, whole tree of knowledge fiasco, occasional hissy fits from creator and much throwing of toys out of pram. Compare Plato's majestic arching together of the spheres of the same and the different (secular myths are uninspiring and lacking profundity my arse), or the daunting expression of unleashed power in the traditional Greek Gigantomachy, or the stately descent from heaven of the regal Urania in Bernardus Sylvestris' Cosmographia. Compare the haunting beauty of Tolkien's Ainulindalae or the comedic theatrics of the Saiyuki. The genesis story, in contrast, had to wait for John Milton to inject some awe and majesty into it from the classical epic tradition before it became halfway inspiring.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #98591 by atheist_peace on December 13, 2007 at 11:02 pm

This video was made by students at Vancouver Film School.

Other Comments by atheist_peace

11. Comment #98613 by theantitheist on December 13, 2007 at 11:59 pm

If thats a film school video then i'll give it a B+. The only reason i din't give it an A is because it didn't touch any emotion in anyone.

But what the fuck do I know, i'm in Construction.

Other Comments by theantitheist

12. Comment #98627 by Big City on December 14, 2007 at 12:33 am

For those who have some problem with this video or don't understand the premise, I think it's kinda obvious they're simply juxtaposing the different formats and language of the Creation theory and the real origin story. I don't think a religious person would make this.

I don't know why so many people here seem to have a problem with it. I think it's great both conceptually and in its delivery.

Other Comments by Big City

13. Comment #98641 by JanChan on December 14, 2007 at 1:14 am

Whatever it is supposed to be, it is still a gross misrepresentation of scientific cosmology. It almost seems that it doesn't take gravity into account at all, just like the creationist video posted in another article on the same day.

Other Comments by JanChan

14. Comment #98653 by eric.malitz on December 14, 2007 at 1:57 am

what the hell is this

Other Comments by eric.malitz

15. Comment #98655 by treeman17 on December 14, 2007 at 1:58 am

Well that was weird.

Other Comments by treeman17

16. Comment #98658 by wooter on December 14, 2007 at 2:04 am

I have got a question. How can you explain that something can exist by itself? Just tell me how? I am holding a glass and if you tell me that glass came into existence by chances, I would not believe it. Nobody would.

Other Comments by wooter

17. Comment #98659 by hopeful on December 14, 2007 at 2:09 am

I may be being paranoid but I get the impression that the message behind this is that if you change the language evolution sounds just as far fetched as the creation myth.

The problem is that the representation of evolution was utterly distorted and as a result I found the analogy to be so weak as to be meaningless.

Interesting variety of views in the blog. Some thought it was satiring evolution and some thought it was satiring creation and plenty just seemed to think it was innovative and artistic.

I can see how it could just be art for art's sake. It also might be as much about gauging people's reactions as the art itself.

Other Comments by hopeful

18. Comment #98662 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 2:13 am

I have got a question. How can you explain that something can exist by itself? Just tell me how? I am holding a glass and if you tell me that glass came into existence by chances, I would not believe it. Nobody would.

Why not?

Other Comments by steve99

19. Comment #98663 by treeman17 on December 14, 2007 at 2:13 am

"I have got a question. How can you explain that something can exist by itself? Just tell me how? I am holding a glass and if you tell me that glass came into existence by chances, I would not believe it. Nobody would."

Good question Wooter, I was wondering the same thing. How could this god who obviously created the universe come into existence just by himself? Who created that god, and the super god before that? This intelligent, ordered god couldn't have come into existence by chance, and if you told me that, I wouldn't believe you, nobody would. I mean, it's just a huge circular reasoning on steroids.

Other Comments by treeman17

20. Comment #98674 by RainDear on December 14, 2007 at 2:42 am

Apparently many of you, as well as PZ Myers, seem to look at these things way, way too seriously. Have a sense of humour. Everything is not about propaganda. All factual errors are not hiding some anti-darwinist agenda behind them.

This little film is a charming little piece of cinematic art. Not earth-shattering, but charming. Its screenplay may have factual scientific errors, but that doesn't diminish the other merits. Come on, it was funny and beautiful! Ok, I am professionally a film maker, science is just a hobby to me. So I may come from a bit different place than, say, PZ Myers, but I have a huge respect for him and all other scientists.

The basic idea of this animation is fantastic: Switch the languages of theology and science, and see how that makes one feel about their propositions. To me the biblical language made science sound festive but stupid, and engineering jargon made creationism sound boring but plausible. And yes, it was interesting to see how the packaging affects the message. Both ways.

The message of this film? Well, at least it made me wonder that if we had built cathedrals, written poetry and painted murals to honour science the last 3000 years, much more people would embrace it. People clearly love the way religion's nonsensical propositions are packaged.

This film is not supposed to be educational. There's no way this film would make anyone believe that silly, albeit in many ways charming Bible stories could be compared to cool, well researched scientific facts. The comparison here is between cultural and emotional effects, not two competing world views.

Other Comments by RainDear

21. Comment #98728 by TyKonderoga on December 14, 2007 at 6:35 am

I thought this was a (quite clever) attempt at demonstrating the inanity of creationism by couching it in "scientific" terms... it is satire, maybe not in-your-face obvious, but satire nonetheless...

EDIT.
I just went to PZ's site to read the comments... it seems because he "misinterpreted" the point of the video, many commenters did as well... wow, i think that is a strong commentary on "allegiance" to personality... even among we free-thinkers and free-spirits...


Other Comments by TyKonderoga

22. Comment #98751 by steveroot on December 14, 2007 at 7:40 am

16. Comment #98658 by wooter on December 14, 2007 at 2:04 am
I have got a question. How can you explain that something can exist by itself? Just tell me how? I am holding a glass and if you tell me that glass came into existence by chances, I would not believe it. Nobody would.

Ah, the "appearance of design"...
Stick around. There are folks here who will help you get your eyes open!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

23. Comment #98753 by Diacanu on December 14, 2007 at 8:02 am

Design in nature is an illusion of your brain, and your brain evolved.

Example of complex apparent design from random chemical reactions; a snowflake.

And a snowflake is bigger and a more complex pattern than DNA.

There, that was easy.

Other Comments by Diacanu

24. Comment #98763 by sidfaiwu on December 14, 2007 at 8:27 am

Very well done and quite enjoyable. I agree with TyKonderoga. The side by side comparison didn't seem to me to be the point. Casting creationism in business language and natural history in religious language was the real interesting effect.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

25. Comment #98767 by ronfac on December 14, 2007 at 8:33 am

Once again, RainDear appears to be the most rational commentator on the site, but kudos to anti-theist for making me laugh out loud.

Lighten up people, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Other Comments by ronfac

26. Comment #98782 by sent2null on December 14, 2007 at 9:54 am

ohhhhh that was trippy, I wonder what hallucinogen was used to aid its creation?

*grin*

Other Comments by sent2null

27. Comment #98814 by Jamougha on December 14, 2007 at 1:03 pm

That was fun. :) No idea how people could interpret it as anti-science.

Other Comments by Jamougha

28. Comment #98835 by eno on December 14, 2007 at 2:37 pm

I'm Head of Multi-Media at a 6th Form College in Hampshire, England and I think this is a spectacular animation that looks professional, it is thought provoking and relevant. If they were my students they'd get an 'A'.

reno

Other Comments by eno

29. Comment #98848 by Ohnhai on December 14, 2007 at 4:31 pm

I agree with DearRain, this wasn't about accuracy, but more a chance for the two sides to swap clothes and prance about for a bit. To imagine what science would be like dressed up in religious grandeur. It drive home what creation science does in draping it's myths in clinical 'data'.

I thought it was a suburb exercise in that ever present cinematic and TV cliché, 'The Body Swap' but for ideas rather than people.

If you have problems with it's actual content then simply try to enjoy it as you would a marathon session of clips from 'the Book'. The book with "DONT PANIC" embossed on the surface, that is.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

30. Comment #98884 by robotaholic on December 14, 2007 at 8:21 pm

I don't get this at all-

Other Comments by robotaholic

31. Comment #98911 by meraj on December 14, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Some of the posts here are astounding. Being an atheist is one thing, but nitpicking like teetotalers over a piece of *art* seems to be a little out there.

Maybe its time for some of you to relax.

Other Comments by meraj

32. Comment #98955 by macros_man on December 15, 2007 at 2:45 am

IF it were somehow possible for the 'physical' universe to not exist - or for nothing to exist at all... would things like logic and PI still not exist?

For me, the fact that completely abstract mathematics has relationships with inherent information content (such as PI), I think it is obvious that it would be impossible for nothing to exist.

For even in the intuitive conception of nothingness, the abstract relationships in mathematics persist independent of anything, and thereby side-step the physicalist imperative of existence vs non-existence.

The platonist ideal may be a bit dated... but it may also still have some life in it yet. While Plato may have had an inkling of transcendental mathematics, he had no conception of things like fractals, chaos and even string theory, which naturally emerge from the so-called 'elegance' of mathematics... and it is these things which lend ever more credence to the platonist ideal, and the emergence of physics and physical content from the abstract.

If this were true... then you no more need to explain the existence of our reality, and our universe, than you have to explain the existence of PI.

Other Comments by macros_man

33. Comment #98982 by _J_ on December 15, 2007 at 5:14 am

Wow. They've made a really, really slick, professional-looking video, there. Lots of great little visual and verbal gags, and no rough edges to speak of. I thought that was great.

I can see how, if you come to this straight from a diet of non-stop religion/science arguments, and have become habituated to weathering a barrage of 'science is just like religion', 'you atheists have just as much faith as us believers', 'Dawkins is a Prophet of Science' attacks, then you could find an irritating attitude in this video. But (whilst a religious apologist could attempt to make such use of this video), there really is no particular reason to view it in that way. Finding oneself instinctively criticising it should perhaps serve as a reminder to go outside, get some fresh air and think about something else for a while, before you become some kind of angry atheism-spouting automaton who sees religion in the tea leaves, religion in the bus timetables, religion in the sofa cushions.

RainDear's got this nailed. It's a great looking, great sounding, imaginative and well executed little video that both amuses and makes an interesting demonstration of how form affects content. Which, if we're determined to find some relevance for it on this site, is a worthwhile reminder for those of us who are sometimes tempted to join with the former New Scientist editor in telling anyone who doesn't automatically find science interesting to fuck off.

Other Comments by _J_

34. Comment #99187 by Cartomancer on December 15, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Meraj, comment #31,

Some of us here actually ARE teetotalers, and find your implied insult rather condescending...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

35. Comment #99244 by Philster61 on December 16, 2007 at 4:01 am

Reminds me of a Royksopp music video.Clever but highly misleading.

Other Comments by Philster61

36. Comment #101127 by doubter on December 20, 2007 at 12:18 am

I thought this video was interesting. The graphics were clean and well-done. Quite artistic!

Other Comments by doubter