Ohh Kirk Cameron you're so silly!
"We are very excited about this game because it presents both sides of the creation-evolution argument, and in doing so, shows that the contemporary theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest hoax of modern times," said creator Kirk Cameron
I heard about this game coming out a month or two ago but was never able to find much more information on it until now. I'm not really sure how the game shows evolution as 'stupid' but this quote should hold you over until you want to spend the $29.95 to buy the game:
"Intelligent Design versus Evolution" is unique in that the playing-pieces are small rubber brains, and each team plays for "brain" cards. Each player uses his or her brains to get more brains, and the team with the most brains wins. It has been designed to make people think . . . and that's exactly what it does. It is evangelistic, educational, entertaining and comes with a free copy of the award-winning DVD "The Science of Evolution."
And here's a final gem from Cameron!
"This game didn't happen by accident," Cameron said in a statement. "It was intelligently designed with a specific purpose in mind, and we hope it creates a big bang in the Christian and secular world."
- Log in to post comments
The first thing we have to do is put Cameron next to Jim Inhofe and let them debate.
Cameron and his buddies' favorite reason for god existing is the fact that a banana fits into your hand so well.
"Educational and evangelistic" ... aren't those two mutually exclusive?
The pieces should perhaps be not so much small brains as narrow ones.
I'll send a letter to Mr. Harper, canada's prime minister, to be sure that they will call this game illegal !
This game should be titled "A Box Full of Ironies". My favorite 'brain teaser' card states that it was not Christians who purpetrated the Crusades, it was Catholics! (I'll let that one sink in for a moment).
Well, you can't tell unequivocally whether the universe was created 12 billion years ago,, 6000 years ago, or just before you started reading this sentence. But if it was either of the latter two, then God went to an awful lot of trouble to make it LOOK 12 billion years old. Ignoring this effort, saying "oh no, we can easily see through that" sounds suspiciously like dissing God and his taste in internal decor, and probably carries painful consequences....
There's a screwy interpretation of science out there that claims that currently-held theories must logically deny any other interpretation. There are, quite literally, infinite possible explanations for any phenomenon that hasn't been logically "proven," and since logic doesn't care about information content or probability, they all intuitively seem plausible.
The problem is in information. The reason I can claim that my glass of water is the source of all life on the planet (without creating a logical fallacy) is that I have to make a special claim: it created the world EXACTLY as it currently is. Even though the claim cannot be denied with logic, it doesn't add anything to what is expected about the world (and won't, ever). It doesn't make a difference. It's a false problem, because it contains no information... all it is, is a new way of labeling what was already understood. A rose by any other name...
You can argue that the world was created a few minutes ago, but unless that claim comes with some unique prediction about the world, it doesn't matter. This is why ID tends to be the butt of ridicule. It's not that it invokes G-d (at least, not for everyone), it's that it doesn't actually make any true scientific claims.