CellCraft, a subversive little game

(Rolls eyes...)

Where are the credits located? Do you have to download the darn thing?

July blog entry:

Just this morning, jayisgames.com (http://jayisgames.com/archives/2010/07/cellcraft.php), one of the biggest Flash game review websites, featured a very positive review of CellCraft on their front page!

I always feel hesitant to call creationists "intelligent". But dang they can be cunning.

Mike said: July blog entry: Just this morning, jayisgames.com (http://jayisgames.com/archives/2010/07/cellcraft.php), one of the biggest Flash game review websites, featured a very positive review of CellCraft on their front page!

Where do you get these organelles? A species of intelligent platypus just poofs them into existence for you when you need them.

I see that Liberty U professors gladly endorse the "anything, anything that remotely contradicts the theory of evolution is a good thing" meme.

I mean, how the heck is an intelligent (and scheming) platypus biomedical engineer as an ostensible explanation for life on earth supposed to be more "Christian" than the theory of evolution itself?

In the context of the game, who is supposed to have designed the platypuses and the viruses? The platypuses are supposed to have cells themselves, right? I mean, they have DNA. But if Jesus designed the platypuses, why not just say that?

I'll also note that if the assertion is that non-coding DNA in earthly cells actually represents the genome of an alien species who "designed" the cells, then there are large number of problems with that assertion. Whose non-coding DNA? Even within species, there are vast differences in the amount and/or sequences of non-coding DNA elements. What about prokaryotes? They don't have introns or most other types of "junk" DNA? They're cells. Are you saying that the designer only designed eukaryotes? What about the fact that earthly platypuses have their own genome, with plenty of non-coding DNA within it, and the fact that the expressed genes of a platypus do not resemble the non-coding DNA of some other species (but do resemble the genes of related species)?

Of course, if someone really thinks that eukaryotic non-coding DNA is alien DNA, maybe they could do an experiment. Put together an artificial genome consisting of all the LINES, SINES, ERVs, ALU sequences, introns, etc, from some eukaryotic species. Then try to use that material as a genome for cloning. I wouldn't predict much success, but I'll be the first to admit, if you can clone an intelligent alien platypus that way, I'll make a contribution to the DI.

I predict a religious war between Pastafarianism and Intelligent-alien-platypusism.

This will be useful, because whoever kills all the other guys first will have proven that theirs is the One True Faith.

Mike said: Where are the credits located? Do you have to download the darn thing?

So the MacArthur Foundation gave them $25K for this. Their email is 4answers@macfound.org

Does anyone know someone who could get a comment out of them about this?

Dembski has given this high praise on Uncommondescent.

Damn! This game is pretty addicting already!

I could care less if there is a hidden agenda behind it, CellCraft still seems like a pretty cool way to kill time.

Platypuses? Were the crocoducks busy?

The game's designer, Anthony Pecorella has left a response to the criticism on the game's blog under AnthonyP: http://cellcraftgame.com/blog/2010/07/three-days-in-and-cellcraft-is-doing-insanely-well/#comments

Boiler plate creationist obfuscation. It appears that everyone involved in the project meant for it to be a creationism learning tool from the start.

I'd say there's a crying need to lobby the MacArthur Foundation for better peer review. I suspect that there was no biology review of this project at all, just educators. Education schools have an unfortunately large number of creationist, creationist sympathizers, an people who just don't give a damn about the science.

I hope no one is planning on using it in their classroom.

— PZ Myers

OM – Sam already replied, but as the project leader I’ll add a little more. As he said, we as a group take no stance on ID vs. evolution.

This is a factual, scientific game,

and just like people tend to interpret the design of real cells in whatever way supports their beliefs,

the same will likely be done of this game. In fact, the game was made by a large team with various beliefs and theories on abiogenesis, and we agreed to put those aside for the game and just focus on the facts.

So, William Dembski is welcome to reference us, but it is purely his interpretation – it is not our intention to argue for evolution or for ID, or even to implicitly support either argument.

It does appear that the once secretive identity of the "intelligent designer" has now been divulged. It is a platypus and christians world-wide have been worshiping this platypus, unbeknownst to them of course.

Mike said: July blog entry: Just this morning, jayisgames.com (http://jayisgames.com/archives/2010/07/cellcraft.php), one of the biggest Flash game review websites, featured a very positive review of CellCraft on their front page!

It is a platypus and christians world-wide have been worshiping this platypus, unbeknownst to them of course

I teach high school biology. This game is crap, whether it hides an ID agenda or not. It's crap scientifically, it's crap biologically and it's crap educationally. I got to the point where I was supposed to "go get" splicer enzymes and I couldn't take it any more. Intelligent design my foot. This is stupid as hell design.

“This is a factual, scientific game, and just like people tend to interpret the design of real cells in whatever way supports their beliefs, the same will likely be done of this game.” You can’t have it both ways, Anthony. Either it’s a factual, scientific game, or it’s open to interpretation. E=mc^2 whether you pray or not; same goes for evolution. And anyone who slips “design” into his defense isn’t neutral. If it’s just a game, fine, say it’s just a game, but don’t pretend its educational when it isn’t.

There's a second problem here, namely the flushing of 250K on infotainment as an educational strategy. It's too easy to loose sight that even if this had been a legit effort scientifically it was still an educational waste from the beginning. Education takes work and thinking the more we falsely pretend with children that education is just another type of entertainment the worse we will be off.

There's an interesting short essay in the CellCraft forum that was apparently put there last year to set up the apologetics for the expected criticism: http://cellcraftgame.com/forums/index.php?topic=10.0
What it boils down to is that Jed Macosko convinced the game developer, Athony Pecorella, that they could claim that including evolution in the premise would be including abiogenesis, which everyone knows is speculative and therefore dispensible.

The Liberty University part made me laugh. But honestly, kids play plants vs zombies and don't think that zombies are real. Why would a kid playing a game think that this is how God did it rather than just a feature of the game play.

fnxtr -

Looks like my comment didn't make it past "moderation".

How pathetic.

I don't believe anything these guys are saying. I did a little web surfing and it looks worse, the more one googles. It's all there. 1. Creationists on the design team. 2. Association with Liberty university, a xian Dominionist front dedicated to destroying the US and heading on back to the Dark Ages. C'mon, there are close to a million biologists of one type or another in the USA and way less than 1% are creationists. You have to look in the swamps of academia like Liberty to find them. 3. Neutral towards evolution? Oh really? Are you neutral towards Heliocentrism or the Flat Earth too? 4. General ignorance or outright denial of any knowledge of what has been going on in our society for the last 3 decades. My prediction. Their next game will be WITCH HUNT!!! It will be about all the True Xians rounding up those evil evolutionists to make the world safe for the 6,000 year old earth. It will also be a huge seller. Evolution is a bit hard to understand. But hate, that is easy. They know all about hate. PS Maybe this Phoenix guy is telling the truth about being an atheist. So what? So he sold out for a few bucks. We all have to eat. Most of us manage that with some standards and without helping slime molds. I've seen enough. It all comes out in the wash sooner or later. In this case, it is sooner. I wouldn't touch anything out of Liberty university.

harold said: I predict a religious war between Pastafarianism and Intelligent-alien-platypusism.

Going off to colonize other planets seems like a very specific form of ID, not one that most IDists would follow- something like a Scientology or Mormon ID belief.

It seems educational to the uneducated, that to me is the worst.

You want to blame both the players and the developers for blindness over its scientific failings, and yet the devs can claim it is just a game while sectarian players take away from it what they want.

The Liberty University part made me laugh. But honestly, kids play plants vs zombies and don’t think that zombies are real. Why would a kid playing a game think that this is how God did it rather than just a feature of the game play.

This would be a valid argument, as would be comparing it to "Spore" as several did on other threads, except that neither of those games were designed to be educational, backed by McArthur Foundation grants. Instead they were released as entertainment.

You have to judge this game based on it's educational impact. Frankly, it's pretty obvious this is just another attempt by creationists to get a legitimate wedge into the science curriculum, the lead programmer Anthony's protestations aside (I'm guessing he either didn't really care or was duped), all scientific content was provided by two very clearly creationist sources.

On the bright side, heck if something like this can garner a McArthur grant, there must be a LOT of room out there for someone to create a MUCH better game that isn't based on creationist ideas.

Heck, I often thought about doing this myself, but the internet implosion of 2000 pretty much scuttled most of the funding available for my ideas at the time.

might be time to revisit it again.

I played "Spore" because of the hype generated about it - that it was a game about evolution. It was no such thing, and it was evolutionary nonsense to boot. Computer games being what they are, the sellers are not held to any standard of performance at all, so I couldn't get my money back. After two or three plays, it went in the bin.

I would pay money for a good computer game that really was about evolution - where you won by finding an evolutionary path through a shifting environmental maze that eventually produced an intelligent organism that survived, or at least, produced intelligent daughter species before going extinct.

I would pay money for a good computer game that really was about evolution

I would too.

there were several publishers (Like Grolliers), that were interested in such things once upon a time.

alas, with the internet investment implosion, followed by most independent game publishers being swallowed or going bankrupt, there appeared to not be much industry interest left in such things.

However, if the larger nonprofit grant agencies are now expressing interest again, it might be time to brush off some old ideas I had.

I'm sure there are others around who have toyed with the idea of a game based on evolutionary principles before?

grant proposal time! why let the creationists beat us at getting cash for this stuff??

I find it funny that the designer's defense is that the people he worked with "they still know their science". Um, no they don't. Their interpretations are not scientific, and are not supported by centuries of biological research. Too bad he didn't consult with actual biologists when making this game, the people at Wake Forest that teach introductory biology. It is useless as a teaching tool.

But honestly, kids play plants vs zombies and don’t think that zombies are real. Why would a kid playing a game think that this is how God did it rather than just a feature of the game play.

— Michael J

harold said: I mean, how the heck is an intelligent (and scheming) platypus biomedical engineer as an ostensible explanation for life on earth supposed to be more "Christian" than the theory of evolution itself?

Awful drivel, this "game" - i would rather watch paint dry or my jeans fade in the sun. This is the sort of instruction that makes biology dull as dust, when you have to learn by heart the way organelles work together in a cell, with no logic being apparent. The cell did not poof into existence - whatever Jed Macosko may believe. It isn't a machine that was assembled one day. What bilge!

from the CellCraft press release: Macosko and Shtridelman, who graduated in 2007 and works with him as a research associate, approached Pecorella last fall about being the project leader. “Anthony was our best chance of winning this highly sought-after award,” Macosko recalled. “His expertise and connections in the gaming industry were crucial to our success.”

books.google.com/books?isbn=0195157427...Skeptic's Dictionary and Refuge: Mass Media Bunk The lecturer is Jed C. Macosko, a warrior for the Discovery Institute (DI), ..... Scientific American's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" by John Rennie. ...

It's really not that different to Spore, when push comes to shove. And I doubt most people even remember the rudimentary biology in the game, so it's probably a net plus. The amoeba DNA thing is actually something I'd imagine a devout believer would be puzzled by. The person whose religiosity this would be a best fit for would be Orson Scott Card, IMO.

JDE: No, the platypus just died socially for our sins.

I think it's amusing and even if it's a Falwellite tactic to teach kids to think ID-istically, I doubt it accomplishes that.

Dave Luckett:

Nowadays, the coin of the realm is time, not money. There are open-source educational games out there. Install an "edubuntu" sometime.

If you really want a good game about biology you wouldn't have to charge for it. Just contribute whatever you can to making it.

This education tool distorts and misinforms about biology, but the thing everyone has to realize is that it's absolutely main stream. It was funded by a major charitable foundation, The MacArthur Fund, and reviewed by a panel of educators, no doubt respected among their peers. The carefully crafted apologetics of how evolution is superfluous and confusing to any game teaching cellular anatomy will be completely believable to these folks.

The education establishment has zero interest confronting creationists and their agenda. They have to be pushed. Even in AP Bio, with the direct input of actual biologists very aware of the challenge to science education from creationism, and a direct unmistakable mandate given to teachers to make evolution the theme of AP Bio, teachers still stubbornly insist on making physiology, or rote memorization, the theme of their class, or insist that they must "teach the controversy".

Way too much smugness among you folks because there hasn't been a major court case in years. The creationists have been very busy.

Marion Delgado said: I think it's amusing and even if it's a Falwellite tactic to teach kids to think ID-istically, I doubt it accomplishes that.

raven said: CellCraft is trying to do damage control right now. They must have known people would figure it out and soon.

Way too much smugness among you folks because there hasn’t been a major court case in years. The creationists have been very busy.

The education establishment has zero interest confronting creationists and their agenda...Way too much smugness among you folks because there hasn’t been a major court case in years. The creationists have been very busy.

— Mike

Way too much smugness among you folks because there hasn’t been a major court case in years. The creationists have been very busy.

Our comments have been passed moderation and are now posted.

been

Note that when I use the word "civil" or related words, I NEVER, EVER, EVER use it as a synonym for "obsequious".

Expressions of outrage and plenty of good-natured ridicule and mockery of ludicrous or transparently dishonest positions are appropriate when dealing with creationists.

By "civil", I mean not including threats, offensive profanity (mild, humorous profanity expempted), or needless comparisons to controversial historical figures.

fnxtr -

Interesting. I am about to get very busy, but I'll try to keep an eye.

Lars Doucet explains.

Its a game. I predict this game will have an effect on players' understanding of biology approximately equal to the effect Grand Theft Auto has on players' understanding of road rules.

I also think the gamer audience is a bit more jaded about games than the creationists seem to think. Their audience has typically played in tens or even hundreds of different simulated worlds - including ones where they play god and build worlds
- and will quickly move on to some other game (where they get to build worlds or organisms) a day, week, or month after trying this one. The idea that this web app is going to impart some subliminal philosophical message about how reality works is wishful thinking. Last time I checked, Black & White didn't convert anyone to paganism, and this isn't going to convert anyone to ID.

Ichthyic

I would pay money for a good computer game that really was about evolution

I would too. ... I’m sure there are others around who have toyed with the idea of a game based on evolutionary principles before? grant proposal time!

John Kwok -

You're proven right on a small scale already. There's already a comment to Lars from a creationist, insisting that the game actually does disprove evolution, lol.

fnxtr said: Lars Doucet explains.

skepdic.com RT Carroll: Macosko seemed to impress many in the audience when he claimed that the odds of these molecular machines coming together by chance is equivalent to the odds of hitting a particle in the galaxy with a bullet smaller than the smallest known particle.

One of the game's designers responds to Dembski's blog post on the game:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/simcity-for-the-intracellular-world/#comment-359212

Dewitt: “If a frog turns into a prince with a kiss then it’s a fairy tale. If a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, it’s science,” he said, referencing the theory of evolution. “It’s almost ridiculous.”

Dunno why the game authors would be so surprised that their software was controversial.

Look at all the ammo expended on the Dawkins weasel program: "IT LATCHES!" No it doesn't, doofus, why don't you make it yourself and check?

Tried my utmost to be as courteous and as friendly as possible to two teen-aged acolytes of Ken Ham, while sharing a ride on a New York City subway train Monday evening. Don’t know if I had any effect, but I hope they’ll look up Stephen Matheson, Keith Miller and Ken Miller’s work:

— John Kwok

Just an FYI.
I was cleaning out my old floppies and ran across "The Blind Watchamker" by Richard Dawkins. I haven't tried it yet, but it's the executable program by RD.

I think the designers of this game did an admirable job of responding to the critiques.

They did not censor critical feedback, and it only took them a day to make a clear break with creationism.

I commend them for the way they dealt with this.

It is clear that there was some creationist effort to hijack this game project. People don't go looking for biology advisors from Liberty University by coincidence. As someone pointed out, Wake Forest, in contrast, has an excellent biology department full of potential advisors who know what they are talking about and have no hidden agenda. If I were the designers of this game, I would do a thorough lookback to figure out how these creationists were brought in, and I would disassociate myself from anyone whose activities seem, in retrospect, less ethical than would be desired.

harold said: If I were the designers of this game, I would do a thorough lookback to figure out how these creationists were brought in,

Some people are nucking futs.

Doesn't seem to them from reproducing though.

"Quote mining" ... I like the related phrase, "disproofreading".

Gotta hand it to the lunatic fringe ... if there's ANYTHING faintly incorrect, misleading, or carelessly phrased in a document -- they WILL find it. Parts of the lunatic fringe brain seem to work overtime, though they still fail to make up for the parts that are on vacation.

Nope. Too smug. The goal is to teach biology without using the E word, and therefore “proving” it’s worthless. This game is just one small aspect of this well established and pervasive strategy.

*bing*

Mike gets what is going on here.

It's another "wedge" strategy.

they sought out the game designer

who also said he relied on their expertise.

would YOU have?

Mike said: There's an interesting short essay in the CellCraft forum that was apparently put there last year to set up the apologetics for the expected criticism: http://cellcraftgame.com/forums/index.php?topic=10.0 What it boils down to is that Jed Macosko convinced the game developer, Athony Pecorella, that they could claim that including evolution in the premise would be including abiogenesis, which everyone knows is speculative and therefore dispensible.

Ichthyic said: they sought out the game designer who also said he relied on their expertise. would YOU have?

Mike said: The game's designer, Anthony Pecorella has left a response to the criticism on the game's blog under AnthonyP: http://cellcraftgame.com/blog/2010/07/three-days-in-and-cellcraft-is-doing-insanely-well/#comments Boiler plate creationist obfuscation. It appears that everyone involved in the project meant for it to be a creationism learning tool from the start. I'd say there's a crying need to lobby the MacArthur Foundation for better peer review. I suspect that there was no biology review of this project at all, just educators. Education schools have an unfortunately large number of creationist, creationist sympathizers, an people who just don't give a damn about the science.

You can’t wait for the components to evolve. This is not a simulation, it’s a game.

yes, because there's never been any popular games based on simulations, ever...

*headdesk*

Ichthyic said: You can’t wait for the components to evolve. This is not a simulation, it’s a game. yes, because there's never been any popular games based on simulations, ever... *headdesk*

Wow. The trolls have really come out this week. A fun little game that teaches (very basically) how cells work, because it doesn't wave high the banner of the evolutionist movement and smash down the unwashed masses of lunatic Creationists, and has members from both ends of the spectrum of beliefs, simply must be a product of the Intelligent Design fifth column, sneaking in their insidious ideology in the guise of 'edutainment'.

What a load of rubbish. Both the article and a large portion of the responses to it. As the author of this uninformed diatribe only spent 'a few minutes' playing it, let me educate him, and the rest of the knee-jerkers: A good game design does not simply dump you into the game with all of the possible options enabled; the first levels only offer a limited number of them (often without displaying any others), then give you an opportunity to practice with them before adding more. By the time that all of the options are available, you (hopefully) will understand how to use all of them, and can start playing the game in earnest, which is exactly how CellCraft does it. You people need to stop finding non-existent capitalization; the devs are pro intelligent design not Intelligent Design.

As for gene splicing and injecting things into cells being ID, Myers, where have you been for the last century or so? Wow. And just because they don't talk about how organelles theoretically evolved, that must mean that they 'created' them? Again, wow. All in all, this was one article (and a number of posts) that should never have been posted.

Honestly, Myers, you own everyone here and the CC devs an apology (though I doubt that you are honest or gutsy enough to do it, and I'll be quite surprised if this hasn't been deleted in a day or two). If you would have-you know-done a little research and actually investigated the game itself, you would have found this sentence, in the in-game encyclopedia, under Chloroplast: "The presence of both a membrane and DNA give support to the idea that chloroplasts were once independent bacteria, that evolved to form more complex cells in conjunction with other organelles (such as the mitochondria)."

<sarcasm>I guess that wouldn't be proof enough for you, though, would it, as it only says "give support to the idea", instead of the more ideologically 'correct' "proves". Obviously the game is still pro-ID because of that unbiased phrasing, which actually admits that the popular idea of evolution isn't scientifically provable.</sarcasm> (Quite the contrary; it doesn't seem to be anything more than just an aggregation of interpretations of circumstantial evidence, requiring as much blind faith as Creationism, without the feeble excuse of being a religion.)

You know, my posts are usually pretty mild, but smug, narrow minded, pompous arrogance just gets my dander up. Galileo probably felt like this when the 'scientific' community was denouncing him for his heretical thinking that the Earth orbited the Sun.

deadlydad being incoherent: simply must be a product of the Intelligent Design fifth column, sneaking in their insidious ideology in the guise of ‘edutainment’.

Galileo probably felt like this when the ‘scientific’ community was denouncing him for his heretical thinking that the Earth orbited the Sun.

a 3-man part-time team with a 6 month dev cycle for a flash game. what were you expecting exactly.

a 3-man part-time team with a 6 month dev cycle for a flash game. what were you expecting exactly.

more.

You must not have ever actually looked at the production schedule from a professional game company in the last 10 years. 6 months is more than enough time to spit out something many times better than this game.

and, yes, I have worked on games myself, and done many things in flash, back when flash was an order of magnitude harder to do stuff with, and was still owned by Macromedia (and we had to walk to silicon valley, in the snow, uphill, both ways! :P )

but of course, this is all besides the point. The point is, all this was was an attempt by 2 creationists to get something published "that didn't require evolutionary theory".

hey, if you want to support them in that, I say you'd be doing the world of science education no favors.

but others here will be fine and dandy with it.

me? I wonder how on earth there weren't real scientists outcompeting these dolts for grant money.

In fact, I've already started resurrecting some of my old ideas.

smash down the unwashed masses of lunatic Creationists

are you any of the following:

-unwashed
-a lunatic
-a creationist

if not, then you are screaming at the hills.

if you are, why SHOULDN'T we be smacking you down?

A good game design does not simply dump you into the game with all of the possible options enabled;

irrelevant to the critiques of this game, and those who provided "gudiance" for it.

You people need to stop finding non-existent capitalization; the devs are pro intelligent design not Intelligent Design.

Did you actually even bother to look for yourself at who Dr. Jed Macosko at Wake Forest University and Dr. David Dewitt at Liberty University actually are, and whether they are creationists or not?

I'm betting not.

deadlydad being more incoherent: You know, my posts are usually pretty mild, but smug, narrow minded, pompous arrogance just gets my dander up.

Thanks for playing David Dewitt, who is a YEC.

— raven

Leszek said: I don't hear about Liberty U elsewhere except when doing my Atheist/Secular Humanist/Evolution thing. I would have never known they weren't an accredited U.

Frank J said: (newsflash: ~90% of the people either don't care or want religion promoted).

I think a key to eventually turning people off to the scams is to ignore the most hopeless ~25% of rank-and-file evolution-deniers that will never admit evolution under any circumstances, and concentrate on the other ~50% that has been fooled one way or another. ... Many of them (e.g. Behe) are definitely not Biblical literalists.

4. Why would a (Biblical) YEC, OEC or Omphalos creationist have anything to do with the DI, given that they welcome those who accept common ancestry of humans and other species - the most offensive part of evolution to the rank-and-file?
5. Why would any YEC or OEC who truly thinks that the evidence supports their alternate origins account have anything to do with the DI, given their “don’t ask, don’t tell what the designer did, when or how” policy, that will ultimately (yeah, it will take generations) undermine the whole “scientific” creationism enterprise?

big tent.

here's an exercise for you:

go look at who sat on the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt when they had the majority on the school board and tried to put evolution on trial and change the actual definition of what science itself is in Kansas a few years back.

hell, I bet the old threads regarding that are still searchable on this very site.

once you get the list, and see who all the people were on it, you'll not only find representatives from the DI along with creationists (OEC AND YEC), you'll even find representatives from Harun Yahya (the big Islamic creationist group).

yes, it's a very big tent, full of people who find kinship in claiming false martyrdom and persecution.

btw, Liberty University was the source for all the bozos W put on staff in his administration; responsible for a lot of the screwups that made it into the media.

seriously, I think he grabbed about 180 graduates or so from that place.

... sorry, my bad, I was thinking of Regent University, Robertson's folly, not Falwell's:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/209660/150_graduates_of_pat_robertsons_college.html?cat=9

big tent. here’s an exercise for you: go look at who sat on the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt when they had the majority on the school board and tried to put evolution on trial and change the actual definition of what science itself is in Kansas a few years back. hell, I bet the old threads regarding that are still searchable on this very site. once you get the list, and see who all the people were on it, you’ll not only find representatives from the DI along with creationists (OEC AND YEC), you’ll even find representatives from Harun Yahya (the big Islamic creationist group). yes, it’s a very big tent, full of people who find kinship in claiming false martyrdom and persecution.

— Ichthyic

I find it hard to agree with this assessment, when something like 40% (it may be more) of the people in this country believe the universe is 6,000 years old and that humans used to ride dinosaurs to work.

— JDE

Again, I think you’re being overly optimistic. I’m hard-pressed to accept that 50% are even capable of getting it.

— JDE

The creationists were not brought in, they sought out the game designer, as is made clear in the exchange with the designer on Pharyngula.

from the CellCraft press release: Macosko and Shtridelman, who graduated in 2007 and works with him as a research associate, approached Pecorella last fall about being the project leader. “Anthony was our best chance of winning this highly sought-after award,” Macosko recalled. “His expertise and connections in the gaming industry were crucial to our success.”

Wow. The trolls have really come out this week.

A fun little game that teaches (very basically) how cells work, because it doesn’t wave high the banner of the evolutionist movement

and smash down the unwashed masses of lunatic Creationists,

and has members from both ends of the spectrum of beliefs,

simply must be a product of the Intelligent Design fifth column, sneaking in their insidious ideology in the guise of ‘edutainment’.

What a load of rubbish. Both the article and a large portion of the responses to it. As the author of this uninformed diatribe only spent ‘a few minutes’ playing it, let me educate him, and the rest of the knee-jerkers:

A good game design does not simply dump you into the game with all of the possible options enabled; the first levels only offer a limited number of them (often without displaying any others), then give you an opportunity to practice with them before adding more. By the time that all of the options are available, you (hopefully) will understand how to use all of them, and can start playing the game in earnest, which is exactly how CellCraft does it.

You people need to stop finding non-existent capitalization; the devs are pro intelligent design not Intelligent Design.

As for gene splicing and injecting things into cells being ID, Myers, where have you been for the last century or so? Wow.

And just because they don’t talk about how organelles theoretically evolved, that must mean that they ‘created’ them?

Again, wow. All in all, this was one article (and a number of posts) that should never have been posted. Honestly, Myers, you own everyone here and the CC devs an apology (though I doubt that you are honest or gutsy enough to do it, and I’ll be quite surprised if this hasn’t been deleted in a day or two).

If you would have-you know-done a little research and actually investigated the game itself, you would have found this sentence, in the in-game encyclopedia, under Chloroplast: “The presence of both a membrane and DNA give support to the idea that chloroplasts were once independent bacteria, that evolved to form more complex cells in conjunction with other organelles (such as the mitochondria).”

I guess that wouldn’t be proof enough for you, though, would it, as it only says “give support to the idea”, instead of the more ideologically ‘correct’ “proves”. Obviously the game is still pro-ID because of that unbiased phrasing, which actually admits that the popular idea of evolution isn’t scientifically provable. (Quite the contrary; it doesn’t seem to be anything more than just an aggregation of interpretations of circumstantial evidence, requiring as much blind faith as Creationism, without the feeble excuse of being a religion.)

You know, my posts are usually pretty mild, but smug, narrow minded, pompous arrogance just gets my dander up.

Galileo probably felt like this when the ‘scientific’ community was denouncing him for his heretical thinking that the Earth orbited the Sun.

DeadlyDad said: ... because it doesn't wave high the banner of the evolutionist movement ...

Reed A. Cartwright said: I find it funny that the designer's defense is that the people he worked with "they still know their science". Um, no they don't. Their interpretations are not scientific, and are not supported by centuries of biological research. Too bad he didn't consult with actual biologists when making this game, the people at Wake Forest that teach introductory biology. It is useless as a teaching tool.

Ichthyic said: ... sorry, my bad, I was thinking of Regent University, Robertson's folly, not Falwell's: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/209660/150_graduates_of_pat_robertsons_college.html?cat=9

Frank J said: To show you how "optimistic" that I really am, I don't expect much change in my lifetime regardless of the approach we take to correct public misconceptions.

OK, if you designed a game like this, what would you recommend for it? How would you avoid any Creationist misrepresentations?

OK, if you designed a game like this, what would you recommend for it?

How would you avoid any Creationist misrepresentations?

harold said: It's obvious what I meant, and your reply does not address my obvious meaning. Somehow creationists found out about and hijacked this particular project. Probably someone had to make them aware of it.

tomh -

Okay, I stand corrected.

Clearly, some people involved are and were weasels, and other people involved are honest dupes. Or at least one seems to be.

I would just like to say that I think it is an excellent educational game for collage level introductory biology courses.

Creationism is not like codies. You cannot 'catch' creationism from holding hands. If you eat lunch with a creationist, you do not become a creationist.

If you write a book about creationism, then you are a creationist. If you make a game that accurately presents scientific facts, then you are not a creationist. Capisce?

Ah, collage. That's where you learn how everything goes together.

Creationism is not like codies. You cannot ‘catch’ creationism from holding hands. If you eat lunch with a creationist, you do not become a creationist.

Matt said: I would just like to say that I think it is an excellent educational game for collage level introductory biology courses. Creationism is not like codies. You cannot 'catch' creationism from holding hands. If you eat lunch with a creationist, you do not become a creationist. If you write a book about creationism, then you are a creationist. If you make a game that accurately presents scientific facts, then you are not a creationist. Capisce?

...In fact I suspect that the % who become YECs would likely decrease, in favor of those who have learned "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did, when or how."

Matt said: I would just like to say that I think it is an excellent educational game for collage level introductory biology courses. Creationism is not like codies. You cannot 'catch' creationism from holding hands. If you eat lunch with a creationist, you do not become a creationist.

If you write a book about creationism, then you are a creationist. If you make a game that accurately presents scientific facts, then you are not a creationist. Capisce?

Sorry, that's "DeadlyDad" not "DangerousDad".

Matt said: I would just like to say that I think it is an excellent educational game for collage level introductory biology courses.

Creationism is not like codies. You cannot 'catch' creationism from holding hands. If you eat lunch with a creationist, you do not become a creationist.

If you write a book about creationism, then you are a creationist.

If you make a game that accurately presents scientific facts, then you are not a creationist. Capisce?

That is probably one of the most stupid statements I’ve read in a while. If you really are stating that the people who have written books criticizing Creationism are, themselves, proponents of the idea that the King James’ Translation of the Book of Genesis should be the science textbook of the land, then I am forced to question your intelligence.

— Stanton

Even before the “big tent” strategy there was the “pseudoscience code of silence.”

JDE said:

Leszek said: I don't hear about Liberty U elsewhere except when doing my Atheist/Secular Humanist/Evolution thing. I would have never known they weren't an accredited U.

But I assume you did know it's a Christian fundamentalist institution founded by Jerry Falwell. It should have been enough to tip them off - unless your typical computer programmer wouldn't be aware of that, which I find rather oblivious.

No actually. I don’t encounter anything about Liberty U anywhere else. Perhaps because I am in Canada? It doesn’t come up at work, when I talk with friends, or anything.

Really my clue would have been that “Liberty” seems to be an odd name for a University. But since they weren’t asking me to make a NRA vs Marines game or some weird crap I probably wouldn’t have cared.

I only know bits about how cells work and I generally know more about it then the people around me. This game may have been sourced by some wackjobs but as far as it goes it isn’t all that controversial in substance. I could even argue that the scope and purpose of the game was to show more about how cells work to a very low level rather then anything else and evolution was out of scope. Perhaps I see it that way because I am not an expert in Evolution, but then that is true of the average programmer as well. The platypuses imply a low level not serious game that models biology just a bit in depth more then Kitten Cannon teaches physics, but not much. (Google it if you don’t know it.) Or at least that is what I would be thinking if I came across the game elsewhere instead of here.

I'm a dual US/Canadian citizen currently living in the US. I had definitely heard of Falwell when I lived in Canada, but whatever...

I’m not a game designer, but if I got a request to design a game about physics, and I found out it was from Flat Earth Society University, I might have had some concern…

Leszek said: As usual creationists like to study the science of bovine scatology. I am not defending any of that, or endorsing it in any way shape or form.

This is why, while it is valuable to point out the differences between them to third party observers, you will never, never ever succeed in provoking creationists themselves to divide.

— harold

I played the game. It's absolutely horrible.

If there is an agenda, it only serves to make me hate those stupid platypuses and their monotanous assignments, their slow moving creations, and their inability to keep a clean room free of cell killing viruses.

I got to the fifth stage and couldn't take it no more, and I'm the kind of guy that spends hours playing games. this weeekend alone I played for 10+ hours. I couldn't even play this game for a full hour.

If you guys actually think they can keep any modern kid's attention long enough for them to find some hidden meaning in this boring game, you're sadly mistaken.

Frank J said: With them I think the priority is not to bash religion, but to show how hopelessly contradictory the anti-evolution "science" and strategies are.

harold said: If there is mild dislike between two people, but they share a common hatred of a third, they will always be motivated to “team up”, regardless of their differences.

I'm an evolutionist and an atheist. I believe creationism is a load of codswallop. But reading these comments I can't help but detect a certain level of hysteria.

I've played the game the whole way through. Nothing in the game refers to evolution at all, positively or negatively. That the cell you play is deliberately designed by a race of intelligent platypuses strikes me as weak an argument for creationism as the fact that humans can do similar things in real life.

If the connection with Liberty University wasn't present, would you be reading creationist intent into the game at all? Simply because a creationist says something *doesn't mean it's not true or useful*. Ichthyic, raven, hardold - you all seem to be very intelligent people, but can't you see you're simply making an ad hominem argument?

--Devin Carless

DevinC said: Nothing in the game refers to evolution at all, positively or negatively.

If the connection with Liberty University wasn't present, would you be reading creationist intent into the game at all?

I’m an evolutionist and an atheist. I believe creationism is a load of codswallop.

But reading these comments I can’t help but detect a certain level of hysteria.

I’ve played the game the whole way through. Nothing in the game refers to evolution at all, positively or negatively.

That the cell you play is deliberately designed by a race of intelligent platypuses strikes me as weak an argument for creationism as the fact that humans can do similar things in real life.

If the connection with Liberty University wasn’t present, would you be reading creationist intent into the game at all?

Simply because a creationist says something *doesn’t mean it’s not true or useful*.

Ichthyic, raven, hardold - you all seem to be very intelligent people, but can’t you see you’re simply making an ad hominem argument?

Besides, DevinC, everybody knows the word is really "EVILutionist"! People just NEVER get that right.

Which is why it’s worthless. To try and teach anything about biology without even mentioning evolution is bad science and bad teaching.

Actually, claiming that organelles are magically created is an argument against the mainstream theory.

2) The presence of Liberty U is a valid red flag. ..... Were you using the term ad hominem despite not really knowing what it means, or were you deliberately using it falsely, in the hopes that you would fool somebody?

DevinC said: Quite simply, I don't believe creationists lie any more often than non-creationists.

One factor to consider is that a group's reputation comes from the members that make the most noise.

In the case of Creationists, the ones that make most of the noise also routinely spread false information.

OK, now that I’m recovered from being dumbfounded,

Harold: I used the term evolutionist simply because it was a simple word for what I was trying to say. (For what it’s worth, in physics you will occasionally hear reference to a ‘relativist’, usually as opposed to a specialist in quantum mechanics.)

I used the term ‘hysteria’ deliberately, because the zeal to unmask creationist sympathies (and now, apparently, disguised creationists) struck me as extreme.

Quite simply, I don’t believe creationists lie any more often than non-creationists.

2) The presence of Liberty U is a valid red flag. ….. Were you using the term ad hominem despite not really knowing what it means, or were you deliberately using it falsely, in the hopes that you would fool somebody?

This is exactly what I mean by ad hominem: to argue that an argument is invalid because of an alleged negative characteristic of the source. It is a fallacy of relevance. Now, an ad hominem objection *is* valid if the negative characteristic is shown to exist ~and is relevant to the objection. If you said ‘Liberty University is a creationist university, therefore, their statements on evolution are not to be trusted’ I’d agree with you.

But a much broader claim is implicit in your ‘red flag’. The game, as stated, says nothing about evolution (though people in this thread seem very eager to read creationist sympathies into the smallest detail.)

Saying that a Liberty University professor’s statement about how a cell works independent of evolution ought not to be trusted because of their beliefs about evolution requires more evidence than has been presented.

If you found that Liberty University biology professors, say, disbelieved in the existence of DNA, I’d be with you.

Really? Because it's highly, highly unusual for the term "evolutionist" to be used, except by creationists.

DevinC said: TomH:

Which is why it’s worthless. To try and teach anything about biology without even mentioning evolution is bad science and bad teaching.

I agree that the theory of evolution is *the* central theory of the biological sciences. But one can usefully teach some things about biology without referring to evolution. In my experience (high school in Ontario in the late '80s), it was grade 10 before evolution was even mentioned in science. The scope of the game is very limited: it describes the internal workings of a cell. That's all it aims to do, and while it would have been a better game if it had done more, it doesn't make it misleading or 'creationist'. (You're right, I did miss the bit about 'Intelligent Design creation superstitions'. Mea culpa.) Harold: I used the term evolutionist simply because it was a simple word for what I was trying to say. (For what it's worth, in physics you will occasionally hear reference to a 'relativist', usually as opposed to a specialist in quantum mechanics.) I used the term 'hysteria' deliberately, because the zeal to unmask creationist sympathies (and now, apparently, disguised creationists) struck me as extreme. Quite simply, I don't believe creationists lie any more often than non-creationists.

Actually, claiming that organelles are magically created is an argument against the mainstream theory.

The game does not claim that organelles are created magically. It makes no claims about how organelles originated at all. Their creation by the platypuses (platypi?) is purely a narrative convenience.

2) The presence of Liberty U is a valid red flag. ..... Were you using the term ad hominem despite not really knowing what it means, or were you deliberately using it falsely, in the hopes that you would fool somebody?

This is exactly what I mean by ad hominem: to argue that an argument is invalid because of an alleged negative characteristic of the source. It is a fallacy of relevance. Now, an ad hominem objection *is* valid if the negative characteristic is shown to exist ~and is relevant to the objection. If you said 'Liberty University is a creationist university, therefore, their statements on evolution are not to be trusted' I'd agree with you. But a much broader claim is implicit in your 'red flag'. The game, as stated, says nothing about evolution (though people in this thread seem very eager to read creationist sympathies into the smallest detail.) Saying that a Liberty University professor's statement about how a cell works independent of evolution ought not to be trusted because of their beliefs about evolution requires more evidence than has been presented. If you found that Liberty University biology professors, say, disbelieved in the existence of DNA, I'd be with you.

Mike -

Yes, that's true, and I can't prevent otherwise sensible people (or anyone else) from using misleading terminology, if they want to.

I do recommend that the term "evolutionist" be left to creationists.

Creationism of any form denies much more than the theory of evolutions. Honestly stated "young earth" creationism denies physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, etc.

"Intelligent design" goes even further. It endorses direct logical fallacies. "Irreducible complexity" is just argument from incredulity ("I can't imagine how it could have evolved so it didn't evolve"). Dembski's "design filter" is just false dichotomy ("anything that I don't categorize as 'x' is 'designed'). Most of the rest of it is just false analogy/non sequitur ("we recognize a beehive as having been designed by well-studied, natural designers so therefore we are obliged to claim that living cells were directly desgined by an unknown, magical designer whom I refuse to identify or characterize"). Obviously, if we generalize from this usage and decide to endorse a nihilistic disregard for logic as "equally as valid" as correct logic, all of science (as well as math, and much of other fields like philosophy and law) would fall down.

Creationists focus on the theory of evolution for psychological reasons. They like to falsely imply that they "only" object to "evolution" - in fact, they like to falsely claim that people from other sciences reject evolutionary biology. But it doesn't work that way. If the theory of evolution is wrong, then molecular biology is wrong, because organisms with nucleic acid genomes must exhibit heredity with variation if molecular biology is correct. But molecular biology is ultimately organic chemistry, so it it's wrong, then organic chemistry is wrong. And if organic chemistry is wrong, then much of physics is wrong. Biomedical science simply does not exist in isolation.

Anyone who accepts mainstream science as a valid way to study the physical universe by definition rejects creationism. I suppose people who accept science could refer to themselves as "scientists", but that's already taken and implies professional activity in science. "Reality-ist" just doesn't sound that great.

I can't stop other people from using the term "evolutionist", but it seems a bit silly, to me, to do so.

harold said: I can't stop other people from using the term "evolutionist", but it seems a bit silly, to me, to do so.

MrG -

Another idea would be for them to start calling it "the theory of Devil-ution".

Hmm ... I think I'll stick with "EVILutionist",

... but "DEVILutionist" does flow naturally out of "Darwinist evolutionist" ...

DevinC said: Quite simply, I don't believe creationists lie any more often than non-creationists.

I find it to be an inappropriate and misleading term. It is not a within-science term for a specialist in evolutionary biology. It is a term intended to imply that the theory of evolution is an ideology rather than a scientific theory. My advice is to stop using it.

You may think you are teaching some “useful” things about biology without referring to evolution at all, but in so doing, you’re missing out on important key concepts...

The “zeal” and “hysteria” you are talking about consist of nothing but some accurate, civil comments on web sites.

If you couldn’t recognize the sectarian messages in this game, others could. The game is presented as educational, yet its content is designed to cast doubt on mainstream endosymbiotic theory and the theory of evolution in general, and to imply that organelles are the result of direct creation in their modern form. If you can’t see that, it’s because you aren’t informed enough on this particular issue.

It isn’t necessary to directly mention biological evolution whenever discussing any biological phenomenon. Having said that, what you don’t seem to understand is that the theory of evolution is a central theory of biomedical science.

DevinC

Quite simply, I don’t believe creationists lie any more often than non-creationists.

OK, now that I’m recovered from being dumbfounded, I would have to ask which group of “non-creationists” is the standard of comparison. Nigerian email scammers? 911 Truthers? Antivaxers?

DevinC said: When they use quotes from scientists out of context to support their beliefs, they really believe they have a “gotcha”.

Charity is utterly wasted on creationists, Devin. One time I offered to help tutor this one whiny creationist in Biology, and then he steered the conversation on how God will send me to Hell forever simply because I have a "different point of view."

And yes, a lot of creationists are deliberate liars, too: anyone who suggests otherwise are dangerously naive.

Stanton said: And yes, a lot of creationists are deliberate liars, too: anyone who suggests otherwise are dangerously naive.

From where I sit the conversation has been less than civil. You yourself accused me of intellectual dishonesty more than once. I expected a certain amount of hostility - after all, I’m just some guy who parachuted into a tightly-knit discussion forum with a message of ‘I think you’re overreacting about this game’ - but I did expect an assumption of good faith.

I am habitually suspicious of the existence of coded “dog whistles” that can only be seen by true believers (and those who have dedicated themselves to fighting true believers.) In short, I believe a confirmation bias is working here: a game that doesn’t mention evolution is revealed to have been funded by creationists and stops being judged on its merits. That’s why I believe the arguments about the game being crypto-creationist are ad hominem.

DevinC said: I'm sure you know of plenty of examples of creationist perfidy, and I'm equally sure creationists can cite similar examples of anticreationist dishonesty...

I’m sure you know of plenty of examples of creationist perfidy, and I’m equally sure creationists can cite similar examples of anticreationist dishonesty…

I think DevinC is simply saying that creationists have their list of gripes against science advocates. True enough.

However, ultimately the creationist view is indefensible. Not because they reject evolutionary science -- no, they have a perfect right to do that, and there's not really much that could be said about that in itself.

Where they are flatly dishonest is in trying to use science to SUPPORT that claim. The sciences, agree with them or not, do NOT support any such claim, and saying they do is like saying Mexicans speak French. No, unarguably wrong, they speak Spanish. And in claiming that science supports creationism, all they can is mangle science and, in practice, simply try to show science is bunk while still attempting to use it to enhance their authority.

I do think people are expending more ammo on this game than I see it deserves. However, there's nothing there to make it worth defense, either, and so I sit back and watch the fireworks.

MrG -

Well, no, his word are "similar examples of anti-creationist dishonesty". I've been involved in this issue since 1999, when I became aware of the actions of the Kansas School Board that year. I have seen very, very little "anti-creationist dishonesty". And what few potential examples I have seen have not been "similar" to the constant creationist onslaught of misrepresentations, flawed logic, false accusations, etc.

Again, for an obvious reason. The scientific facts don't support creationism.

There actually are a fair number of Mexicans who speak French, and even a fair number who don't speak Spanish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Mexico :). But ID/creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

DevinC seems to be an intelligent and well-meaning person.

Unfortunately, he has, for unknown reasons, taken on some characteristics of a "concern troll", at least within this thread.

My hope and expectation is that he is beginning to get it now. He either wasn't familiar with creationism before, or perhaps, was familiar with nice people who personally hold science-denying views but aren't trying to violate anyone's rights or deceive anyone. Hopefully, he is beginning to see what we are dealing with, and why a civil but strong response is justified.

harold said: Again, for an obvious reason. The scientific facts don't support creationism.

MrG -

Sorry, let me be clear. He seems to agree that the scientific facts don't support creationism. But he seems to think that scientists show "similar examples of anti-creationist dishonesty".

I'm just making the logical point that, since the facts don't support creationism, scientists don't even need to show "similar examples...". Which is presumably one major reason why such similar examples aren't seen.

I haven't quite figured out where DevinC is coming from.

I am inclined to believe that he is simply saying that PT people are using a sledgehammer to smash a fly when a flyswatter would do -- PT people tend to do this, I usually just shrug for the simple reason that I don't mind seeing the fly get smashed and arguing over methods is irrelevant.

There is the lingering suspicion that he's playing the bizarre "sheep in wolf's clothing" game that creationists have become fond of over the last year or two. (That one still throws me, I haven't figured out how to deal with it yet.) I blinked when he used the term "EVIL-utionist" but ignored it -- the bit about creationists not being particular inclined to lying I found much harder to ignore.

Actually, I AGREE with that, but in a sense that makes them look WORSE than would if they were deliberate liars.

I am inclined to believe that he is simply saying that PT people are using a sledgehammer to smash a fly when a flyswatter would do – PT people tend to do this, I usually just shrug for the simple reason that I don’t mind seeing the fly get smashed and arguing over methods is irrelevant.

In this case -- said flash game -- I perceive a lot of ammo being expended on a puny target.

But it's not like I care, either.

MrG -

Well, the reason I've made comments about this game is that it has been presented as something that should be considered "factual" and "educational" and used in public schools. And it seems to have been associated with the MacArthur Foundation, which does not have a record of deliberately supporting creationism.

The Creation Museum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_museum is more blatant, but you have to go to it voluntarily (in fact you have to pay to get in).

A smaller, better aimed bullet can be more dangerous than a huge, clumsy musket ball.

Again, however, saying such folk are “no more liars than anyone else” can only be defended on a semantic basis, and the distinctions made do not really put them in a better light.

Charity is utterly wasted on creationists, Devin.

No, they can’t. This is not a dispute between two well-meaning camps with different worldviews. One side is decidely less honest than the other, which would become clear to you if you took the time to read what each side says instead of just assuming you already know it.

When dealing with people who behave in this way, it is necessary, or at least highly efficient, to raise the issue that they may be falsely representing themselves.

They are forced to be more dishonest, because the facts are not on their side.

DevinC said: I think there's a moral difference.

DevinC said: harold

They are forced to be more dishonest, because the facts are not on their side.

Here I think you have a point. A kind of epistemic desperation may set in among defenders of increasingly inconsistent theories. I'd predict more dishonesty from creationists than intelligent design advocates, since creationism is directly contradicted by the established facts, while intelligent design is consistent with any set of facts whatsoever. But now you have me digging into The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for the bit where Kuhn talks about dying theories. Be back tomorrow.

Devin C wrote:

"Here I think you have a point. A kind of epistemic desperation may set in among defenders of increasingly inconsistent theories. I’d predict more dishonesty from creationists than intelligent design advocates, since creationism is directly contradicted by the established facts, while intelligent design is consistent with any set of facts whatsoever."

Sadly, you seem to have been too generous once again.

Creationists are basically dishonest, they cannot help but be otherwise. They worship a falsehood, flatly contradicted by all of the evidence. Their only hope is to try to ignore all of the evidence or lie about it. Ignorance is their ally.

ID is the bastard child of creationism. Its sole purpose is to deceive and circumvent legal sanctions. It is even more inherently dishonest than old style creationism and demands even more ignorance. Just ask yourself, what is the actual theory of ID? What is actually claimed? Or as Frank J puts it, what happened why and when? Or just ask who the designer is. That should tell you all you need to know about this heresy in scientific clothing.

All you have to do is look at the track record of creationists and ID proponents under oath at trials. Even Behe, who was once a real scientist, was proud of the fact that he could not be bothered to examine the evidence. Every single one of them has lied in court and gotten caught at it. Now if they want to be taken seriously, all they have to do is examine some evidence. All they have to do is get into the lab, do some research and get some evidence. If they have the time and the money and they refuse to do this, why should they be considered anything but liars and charlatans? It's like showing up at a tennis match with a football and demanding to know why no one takes you seriously.

DS said: Creationists are basically dishonest, they cannot help but be otherwise. They worship a falsehood, flatly contradicted by all of the evidence. Their only hope is to try to ignore all of the evidence or lie about it. Ignorance is their ally. ID is the bastard child of creationism. Its sole purpose is to deceive and circumvent legal sanctions. It is even more inherently dishonest than old style creationism and demands even more ignorance. Just ask yourself, what is the actual theory of ID? What is actually claimed? Or as Frank J puts it, what happened why and when? Or just ask who the designer is. That should tell you all you need to know about this heresy in scientific clothing.

They are forced to be more dishonest, because the facts are not on their side.

Here I think you have a point. A kind of epistemic desperation may set in among defenders of increasingly inconsistent theories. I’d predict more dishonesty from creationists than intelligent design advocates, since creationism is directly contradicted by the established facts, while intelligent design is consistent with any set of facts whatsoever. But now you have me digging into The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for the bit where Kuhn talks about dying theories. Be back tomorrow.

I am a staunch evolutionist. I have played the cellcraft game through to completion. Honestly, I'm a bit embarrassed by the paranoid response of the evolution community on this one. The lead programmer has commented on the issue and I see no reason whatsoever to doubt his word. The game is about cellular function not cellular origins as he said. We desperately need more games like this that can get children interested in actually learning about science and biology. The primary reason that people believe in creationism is ignorance. If this game gets more children interested in biology then as they learn more there is no doubt they will come to understand evolution.

@PZ- Could you please post a follow up and retract the paranoid assertions that this game is an assault on evolution. Leave the paranoid conspiracy theories to the creationists who believe that all scientists are secretly out to make them look stupid. We all know that they make themselves look stupid all on their own. Let's not do the same ourselves.

Cars and houses are not very cheap and not everyone is able to buy it. But, credit loans was invented to aid different people in such cases.