My sister is a creationist (who literaly interprets the Bible) and she does find this game quite enjoyable.

I really want to try this one!

. Which then became the new ratings system at BGG??!

Which then becomes all those Geeks who love "Ticket to Ride," "Memoir '44" and so forth. [Hey, I'm having fun with this.] p

I am a Christian and I don't have any problem playing "fiction" games. I admit that evolution is fascinating "fiction."

I too would have to disgree with your friend on dinosaurs in the Bible. It speaks of large beasts who have legs like tree trunks. But this is not the place for discussing such things.

The boardgames!

What bugs me is the Flintstones celebrated Christmas! How can that be? (Unless cavemen and dinosaurs existed 2000 years ago...)

"Christmas" is a holiday that way predates Christ. The name has just been changed (probably many times).

Creationists think the Flintstones is a documentary.

Which means that these same Geeks eventually outgrow "Ticket to Ride," "Memoir '44" and so on and so forth. pp

A week? And I thought Talisman took a long time to play...

Actually, trying to "prove" Genesis by referring to the Hebrew doesn't help clarify either point. The Hebrew "yom" has the same multiple uses as the English "day". It can mean "age", "time", "eon" or "24 hour period".

"In my day we had to wander forty years in the wilderness just to get to school every day".

Man, if the courts and politicians can't dictate science that just leaves philosophy and popular consensus (oh, and ridiculing those who disagree).

Saber-tooth cats and other extinct species found at La Brea are not dinosaurs. And dinosaurs were not depicted in cave paintings, either. There were no dinosaurs in the Pleistocene.

I prefer "cdesign proponentsists" myself.

Not a problem per se, a fossil is a physical object that must be recognized. Therefore the typical creationist jib jab is that the fossil record was set in the literal world wide flood, burying anything Noah couldn't cram in his dingy, denying the age of said objects by denying the science of radiometric dating.

Since all of the fossils in the game depect mundane once-living things, all of which are much, much less old than the billions of years old that we creation science heathens choose to worship as our own religion believe, playing Fossil with your creationist pals would be more them just patronizing our kooky mythology.

God bless the Kansas board of education, by the way.

Some people clearly have no idea what the process of scientific enquiry actually is - namely creating a hypothesis based upon evidence and then testing that hypothensis. Yup - that means making testing assumptions!

It is also ultimately self correcting as the mass of evidence develops with further enquiry. Science is open to radical theories taking over the mainstream - for example Continental Drift - as the accumulation of evidence becomes overwhelming.

In contrast World views depending on faith are essentially static.

Yeah, some people clearly have no idea how the scientific process works. At least we agree on that point. Simply portraying a strawman argument for how science works, and then attacking it, isn't very constructive or honest.

The elements of the scientific method are, at a minimum, this:

1. Investigation and data collection. Data are the worlds facts, whether a theory ties those facts together or not. Facts don't go away when a hypothesis changes to better interpret them.

2. Hypothesis. A hypothetical explanation of the known data (facts).

3. Prediction. If the hypothesis is correct, it must be able to make a number of predictions. In the case of biological evolution, one prediction would be that platypuses evolved sometime between 220 million and 100 million years ago. Why must that be true? Because platypuses exhibit mammalian and reptilian traits and science KNOWS that mammals split off from reptiles over 100 million years ago.

4. Experimentation and falsification. Certain controlled experiments can be performed with predictable results based upon the hypothesis being tested. A theory/hypothesis must also be falsifiable. In other words, certain hypothetical data (facts) must be able to invalidate that theory/hypothesis. i.e.: if human fossils 100 million years old were uncovered, then the Theory of Evolution would have to change or be dismantled in favor of a theory that incorporates these new facts into its framework.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method for more information on the scientific method.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html for more on biological evolution.

And a very nice method it is too. Any board games that use it?

Games like Eleusis, Zendo, and Patterns II all use the scientific method.

No... That's micro-evolution (variation within species)
Macro-evolution (goo to you) has no fossil evidence whatsoever!

Here's some more information on the evolution of eyes and the various stages required to attain a modern human eye. Each stage is very simple and, in fact, is realistic since there are life forms around today that exhibit traits at each and every stage.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_stages.html

So why would God have all sorts of types of eyes in His creatures? Maybe he was simply trying to fool science.

Schools teach evolution (actually Darwinism) which states that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Natural Selection (often called "survival of the fittest") is the main mechanism of that process. The weak die off while the strong survive to reproduce.

In these same schools the game of tag has been banned on the playgrounds because the smaller (ie. weaker) kids might get hurt.

How can they teach "survival of the fittest" and coddle the weak. Stop being nice to people, stop helping those less fortunate! It's all counter-evolutionary! We will start to devolve into quivering weak blobs of tear-stained, underwear soiled geeks who can't handle anything more physical than a boardgame and then we'll go extinct.

Aren't we being taught Darwinism for a purpose? Maybe it's time we put it into practice! Oh wait. It's been done.

Luke you should read this article as well:
http://tinyurl.com/925zs

A notable quote:
But even if his facts were beyond reproach, we would still have difficulty taking him seriously because he brings up the bombardier beetle to help prove that fire-breathing dragons may have actually existed. In the very book in which he describes the bombardier beetle (Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards), he argues that old legends, Job 41:18-21, and the bombardier beetle all suggest that the unique crests on the heads of some duck-billed dinosaurs were the chemical storage tanks for their flame-throwing mechanisms. These dinosaurs were thus the fire-breathing dragons of myth and legend!

That is an old misunderstanding.

A computer program ran through the different stages from a light sensitive are of skin (as found in primitive worms) to the mammalian eye, and each "step of the way" proved to have advantages over the earlier iteration.

A "half" eye is thus better than no eye.

Similar iterations where done for wings, another part of animals where a "halfstep" didn't seem to obviously useful.

And a cool game to boot!

I played this game once and it ruined my faith. Now I am a miserable, wretched, cigar-smoking, turpentine-drinking, wife-beating, child-molesting, demon-possessed, cannibal crack-addict.

Oh, wait. That's wrong.

It was the Ungame.

This game is about natural selection, not evolution. Players vie to dominate different types of terrain as their randomly chosen species.

Natural selection is simply one of the many mechanisms of biological evolution.

Please, let us know what you think the others are.

Does it really matter? Scientists in the field are the ones doing the work collecting data, interpreting it and developing hypotheses to explain it... not you or me. Questioning me doesn't weaken theories on biological evolution, nor does it strengthen the argument for creationism/intelligent design.

However, without further ado, I'll list a few of the known mechanisms of biological evolution. Just to humor you.

Gene flow, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, and mutation are some of the known mechanisms. And, as any biologist worth his salt will tell you, there are undoubtedly mechanisms not yet understood by the scientific community as a whole.

You can learn more about evolution, and its mechanisms, from here: www.talkorigins.org.

This creationist likes it.

Dante was a Catholic. The Inferno was social commentary. People are stupid.

Yup.

The Divine Comedy of Dante describes the Journey of Dante through Inferno, Purgatory and Paradise to see Beatrice, his long lost love.
Dante describes in detail the structure of Christian afterlife (or, better, HIS view of it). There is no promulgation of Inferno, nor Paradise, except if you remark he is happy to go take walk in the paradise.
The most interesting book of the trilogy is "Inferno", though. "Paradise" is really, really, boring. Maybe the fact that a book about Paradise can be boring made this person uneasy

greuh.

How does this offend Creationists? Do the souls in Hell evolve into higher beings?

Remember, technically Creationists could be non-Christian- although I suppose that actually makes it easier for them to be offended by 'Christian-themed' board games...

One of the best multi-player, back-stabbing power politics games available. A different dose of the People's Opiate, but quite fun.

Yep -- took the trouble to buy this highly underproduced, overpriced masterpiece from the Netherlands, and I dont regret it -- its challenging, diplomatic, and a lot of fun. The artwork on the cards is great, and Ive gotta get this board mounted.

Based loosely on Dante, but in this game you are really trying to succeed as a team of demons. This one would go over like a fart in an elevator with your local bible-brains.

Why?

I mean, wargames can be played by people who don't like the aspect of killing. Demons do not go against the Creationist theories at all.

Just because you're a Creationist, it doesn't mean you don't like to play the bad guy.

Demons are not thought of as omnipotent, usually. Having one omnipotent being causes enough logical paradoxes, having more than one, not too good really.

Pascal is basically making the same point about God that most people make about 'reality'. Its mightily more convenient to beleive in it than not. And gamesplayers should understand why a strong bet on one number is better than betting on no number at all.

It is logically impossible for there to be more than one omnipotent being....

Pascal's Wager is simply about the choice of whether or not to believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, not about a specific religion. That would be step #2.


I think the only major religions which say this are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; all of which worship the same God.

Plenty of christian, islamic and jewish fundamentalists would disagree with you. I seem to recall seeing an educational comic script that claimed that islam is really worshipping Baal

In that strip, did anyone laugh like this: "HAW HAW HAW!"

Yeah, but maybe cause it's so silly (but fun) it gives evolution a bad name.


What your cow-like creature just grew fins?

This is funny. Obviously not too many biologists reading this.

Sea mammal's most likely evolved from land mammals. That's been a well accepted theory for quite some time.

The reverse assertion is what would "Make reasonable sense" ... right? If life is said to have evolved from the sea, then makes sense that mammals evolved there too. I mean - it seems reasonable.

But that's the problem. Human reason isn't always right. Many real demonstratable phenomenon go against human reason. Take for example on of the most famous scientific experiments of all time - attributed to have been performed by one of the most famous blashpheming geniuses of all time. Drop 2 balls from a high distance, one heavy, one light. Which one will hit the ground first?
Human reason born from our observed experiences says that the heavy ball hits first. Most uneducated people will STILL choose the heavy ball to reach the ground first (US education rant later).

This concept is what makes scientific explanations of our universe more believable to me. What "feels" right and what "seems reasonable" is not always true. Science can't answer everything - there are still a lot of "unknowns", "maybes", "probablys"... and there probably always will be, this is it's nature. Still - it's probably the best real explaination of the universe we have going.

In any case, the actual direction of evolution makes no difference in the game of Quirks, where the pictures simply represent characteristics (for example, a cow might represent a leathery hide). The goal of a game is to build a creature that is strong (due to its characteristics) in various niches, and if it is weak, to mutate it into something stronger.

It's actually quite a good game (don't believe me? Come to the next Southern California Games Day and we'll play it), but it suffers from a learning problem (you can memorize what the good cards are).

What did a duck-billed platypus evolve from then?

Concerning the platypus: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

Interestingly, biological scientists knew that the platypus' ancestry must be ancient since it appeared to be a mix of a reptile and mammal. Scientists also knew that mammals evolved from reptiles. So, putting those two facts together, they knew they should be able to find some ancient platypus=like fossils. Sure enough, guess what they found? You just have to know where to look.

I think the list's title should have warned off the creationist and let us evolutionists have some fun. We poor freethinking rationalists are always getting bashed.

In conclusion:

"Isn't it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be part of it?"

Shawn,

3) and 4): Many people with strong religious views are extremely uncomfortable participating in an activity that's based on an opposing viewpoint. I know several people who would refuse to have a game like Evo in their house.

Drew,

As a fairly fundamentalist Christian and creationist, I know that -I'm- enjoying the list I also see how some people would be...perturbed...by it, but they'd probably also agree that they wouldn't play these games.

Rob,

Creationists have fun too, y'know

Jason,

That last quote from Dawkins, which I assume is intended to say "You should think about the world around you", strikes me as rather ironic in that it's also something a strongly religious person might say, since many religions discuss the reasons that we were born.

I chose the Dawkins quotes at random. I also must reiterate that I am not an atheist.

I know exactly why I was born. My parents had sex without a contraceptive and decided having a baby was a good idea for them, so no abortion. That's when they used medicine to help make sure I was a healthy baby.

Then again isn't it possible that they got the Nicean creed 100% right in spite of the struggles to hash it out?