Join 3,430 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Duelity - Creationism/evolution 2.0
December 14, 2007 4:07 AM   Subscribe

Duelity - the beginning in two parts The Vancover Film School does a really cool visual retelling of creation. The 'biblical' version with a science edge. The 'evolution' version with a biblical edge. And you can watch them both at the same time!
posted by filmgeek (34 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite

 
I hate, hate, hate bad pseudo-Elizabethan grammar. Are the videos any better than the intro page?

And yes, I do get annoyed at Renaissance Festivals. Why do you ask?
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:23 AM on December 14, 2007


Prithee, sirrah, didst anyone asketh thou?
Yes, the videos are much better than the Pseudobethian intro. It's funny seeing each side couched in the others' language.
posted by not_on_display at 4:40 AM on December 14, 2007


(And the Vancouver Film School rocks in general.)
posted by not_on_display at 4:44 AM on December 14, 2007


Ok, that was cool.
posted by awesomebrad at 4:45 AM on December 14, 2007


What was with the panspermia?
posted by edd at 5:05 AM on December 14, 2007


Creationists already couch their supernaturalism in scientific language. And really lame science programs use the fakey-poetic language of the other one (Neil DeGrasse, I'm looking at you).

I like the graphics, though.
posted by DU at 5:05 AM on December 14, 2007


For basic user interface, God installed Zodiac, a celestial-based time management application.
Fun stuff, thanks.
posted by patricio at 5:10 AM on December 14, 2007


These graphics are excellent, very creative, very well done. Didn't care for the style or delivery in the narration, but still, this is good stuff. Thanks for the post.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:25 AM on December 14, 2007


Actually the pseudoscience jargon is just as annoying. Rib quadrant?
posted by Pollomacho at 5:26 AM on December 14, 2007


What was with the panspermia?

I was curious about that myself. Alien bacteria, eh, Toronto?
posted by Greg Nog at 5:26 AM on December 14, 2007


Dave Carter had a better take on the evolution.
posted by MrGuilt at 5:27 AM on December 14, 2007


Also, what the fuck is up with the Botticelli over in the "Creation" one? Do they realize that's supposed to be another god?

The music was kinda nice, though; it sounded like a bit Blue-Man-Group-ish.
posted by Greg Nog at 5:29 AM on December 14, 2007


This isn't clever. It's a ham fisted attempt to claim both are equally worth of our consideration. The comments on the blog page are predictably depressing.
posted by sineater at 5:36 AM on December 14, 2007


Toronto, eh, Greg Nog? Wow, I apparently can't keep more than one Canadian city in my head at any given time. I'm'a stop commenting now.
posted by Greg Nog at 5:43 AM on December 14, 2007


there's more than one canadian city?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:52 AM on December 14, 2007


It looked like a Hitchhiker's Guide ripoff, only without the funny.
posted by JaredSeth at 6:00 AM on December 14, 2007


OBJECTION!
posted by ersatz at 6:33 AM on December 14, 2007 [3 favorites]


DU, you know its no wonder nobody wants to go into science you guys are boring and not only boring but want to stay boring and are aggressive about it.

That said I think this was cool in a film sense. Some of the visual tricks they played were very smart and original. .If its objective was to get you to see some of the similarities. Its kind of a failure.

Sineater the two are analogous in the sense of trying to answer the question "Why are we here?". Evolution and the Big bang are not sufficient to determine the final cause(i.e. the cause that set things into motion) of the creation of the universe. They can show you an alternate version of how the universe was expressed. There is no scientific evidence that the thing that kicked off the whole evolution and Big Bang thing wasn't God. There is also no evidence that it was. In fact I'm almost certain that that question is scientifically meaningless . You're operating just as much on assumptions as they are. At least they know it. If you disagree tell me what is the final cause of the Universe? Why is it here?
posted by Rubbstone at 6:58 AM on December 14, 2007


Evolution and the Big bang are not sufficient to determine the final cause(i.e. the cause that set things into motion) of the creation of the universe.

Neither is religion, but at least science doesn't lie to you about it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:03 AM on December 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Neither is religion, but at least science doesn't lie to you about it.

Its kind of hard to lie when you have nothing to say on the topic.
posted by Rubbstone at 8:42 AM on December 14, 2007


Its kind of hard to lie when you have nothing to say on the topic.

The vast multiplicity of religious creation stories indicates that this is not the case.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:07 AM on December 14, 2007


the download links are shut down. I can't find a torrent, and the conversion from youtube is crappy resolution. any ideas where I can download the hi-res version of this?
posted by ericbop at 9:24 AM on December 14, 2007


I think this does more harm than good. It is very well done, visually. But it does seem to equate creationism and big-bang/evolution as equally plausible ideas, which is dangerous. I didn't go reading around their other pages... was this their intent?
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:24 AM on December 14, 2007


But it does seem to equate creationism and big-bang/evolution as equally plausible ideas, which is dangerous.

Depends. Faith in any infinite ideas can happily exist unchallenged in the realm of the unknowable, i.e. what was before the universe. But I wouldn't call this creationism.
posted by iamck at 10:55 AM on December 14, 2007


I second the call for a download mirror- I'm teaching a class on creationism and evolution in the spring and would love to use this as a bit of perspective, have the students analyze what the creators were aiming at. Anyone know anywhere to find it?
posted by Hactar at 11:38 AM on December 14, 2007


I don't remember fire breathing dinosaurs, or trout in the Burgress shale.

Still, entertaining.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 12:03 PM on December 14, 2007


I don't remember fire breathing dinosaurs, or trout in the Burgress shale.

Really? Hell, I remember it like it was yesterday. Dad would bring home a big mess of fire breathing dinosaur meat (the old man was an avid hunter) and we'd all gather round the table to help carve it up. Mom used to complain about the blood: heck, must've been gallons of it! And the trout? Aww, hell, yeah! We caught so much trout outta that Burgress shale, we'd be eatin' nothin' but trout for days. Good times, good times.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:04 PM on December 14, 2007


*sigh* Ok then, let me rephrase.

I don't remember fire breathing dinosaurs when I learned about dinosaurs in school.

And well, I generally walk by a Burgess Shale presentation weekly.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 4:50 PM on December 14, 2007


(The link is meant to inform about what the burgess shale is, not to imply that I live in Field. I do not)
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 4:51 PM on December 14, 2007


"If you disagree tell me what is the final cause of the Universe? Why is it here?"

Dood. That's easy. It's here 'cause it was POSSIBLE. That's all.
posted by black8 at 5:23 PM on December 14, 2007


there's more than one canadian city?


Yea, but only one freeway to connect them.
posted by CynicalKnight at 5:53 PM on December 14, 2007


(The link is meant to inform about what the burgess shale is, not to imply that I live in Field. I do not)

You can't fool me, Pamplemousse. You live in Field. In fact, you're out standing in your Field.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:16 PM on December 14, 2007


I think that some of you guys are missing the intention of the videos. I don't think that this was some "teach the controversy" bullshit, or an attempt to say that "both theories are equally plausible." I think that the point was far more provocative than that: creation and evolution are different ways of telling the exact same story, just told from different perpectives.

I thought that the ending--with the painting and the operating system--was especially poignant.
posted by roll truck roll at 8:44 AM on December 15, 2007


Funny, I kinda got the opposite from it. It seems to accentuate that it's not the style of telling it but the authority vs chaos of the story itself that is at issue. As I said elsewhere the way they tell it here neither side sounds particularly believable...
posted by mdn at 9:15 AM on December 15, 2007


« Older During the latter half of the twentieth century, L...  |  BBC launch Flash version of iP... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments