“Panda-Monium” — ID Enters the World of Computer Gaming

_{William Dembski

September 14, 2005

Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Thanks to a loyal ID supporter, the fledgling corporation conceived on this blog earlier this week, namely, Darwinalia, has now entered the computer gaming industry. Darwinalia’s new game is titled “Panda-Monium.” To play it, go here. A more sophisticated commercial version will be available soon.

[UPDATE: Paul Myers has just posted at The Panda’s Thumb a short note about Panda-Monium titled “I think we’re getting under someone’s skin” (go here). Presumably he means my skin. Get a life, Paul. No, I’m not upset with you and the members of your select little club. I’m laughing at you. And I will continue to laugh at you.]

Comments

Ahh well - unfortunately it's looking more like tuesday. Hopefully the new version will satisfy the need for harder levels...Giff_{September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

50,000 points, level 8, not a single hit on the Discovery Think Tank. More levels! New Pandas stop at level 6. More challenge! Just center your tank and stop it. Get the lead times down and keep track of which pandas need more hits than others. Move the tank away from center only if a panda is threatening to hit it. Fire double shots pretty much always. Two fast taps. Usually both will either hit or miss. Firing single shots gives the panda enough time to change course from the recoil of a hit. Two shots one of top of the other usually doesn't leave enough for recoil to cause the second to miss. Most of the pandas take four hits to kill.DaveScot_{September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

The next update will have a high score system, at least twice as many panda types, and probably a few other cool things while I'm at it. It'll probably be done by monday. Now if only I could get someone to pay me for this... ;-)Giff_{September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

This post is later than it should be because I just now got around to playing the game. Anyway, here's my critique of it: SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way, my high score so far is 5970. Davidcrandaddy_{September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

I responded to Perahk's reponse to little ol' me. You never know when some off-hand post you make is going to get a full-on how's-yer-father. Let's be careful out there. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/a_brief_look_at.html#comment-48305dave_{September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Version 2.0 is in production and should be out soon! --WmADWilliam Dembski_{September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

New arguments stopped at level 6. :-( Is there a way to win the game?DaveScot_{September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

I never heard you raise your voice.Charlie_{September 15, 2005
September
09
Sep
15
15
2005
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

Off Topic Mark "The Communists Ate My Patents" Perakh is off his meds again... http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/a_brief_look_at.html I got a kick out of this comment by "germline" "I wasted the greater part of several days arguing with some guy named DaveScot who just started shouting at me and then I just got kicked off." Huh? Greater part of several days? Good grief. I barely recall the guy's name and spent only the greater part of several minutes with him.DaveScot_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

We should have a posting of high scores. I got to 6430 and the "peer reviewed journal" level, but I suck at games like this :).MGD_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

I did wonder about the wisdom of having suicide panda bombers in a post 9/11 world, but it was just the easiest way of programming things.Giff_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

"Oh dear. Have you thought about this? You are shooting down your opponents arguments with gunfire. Does this mean you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have an answer? Is this the image you want to present? Is that what Jesus would do?" Just think of it as casting out the money changers..... with guns. In any case, no valid arguments were harmed in the making of this game.MGD_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

Well, I sorta gave it to Dr. Dembski as a gift, so I suppose he has the rights. His call.Giff_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

This game is going to make you rich.mechanicalbirds_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

This is excellent. I got up to "Bad design means no design" - what a total lie! How about adding a logical "shield"? Here's the scenario. You are getting overwhelmed by monster that say: "We will also have to teach the flat earth theory". This is a case of the "Straw Man" type of fallacy. (In general, many of the anti-ID arguments that I have seem, drag in a fallacy or two.) Meanwhile, 3 "power-packs" are floating down. Each power pack will protect the tank from a specific type of fallacy - i.e, "Slippery Slope", "Ad Hominem" & "Straw Man". If you shoot the power-pack that correctly identifies the type of fallacy being used, then the tank will have a shield added (eventually, of course, it would need to dissolve). The shield would only protect against the fallacy-type in question - but that would be helpful, bcz it would free the player to focus their fire on monsters using a different argument type. The difficulty here would be to make sure that there is a very clear match-up between the monster's statement and the 3 shields. Also, if you hit the wrong type of shield, then the correct shield would glow - but it would be unshootable - (or maybe just require many more shots?) Kids would probably like this. It would be a nice tool to teach clear thinking.Tim Sverduk_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Great work, Giff! May I reproduce the game on my blog?anteater_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Oh dear. Have you thought about this? You are shooting down your opponents arguments with gunfire. Does this mean you don't have an answer? Is this the image you want to present? Is that what Jesus would do?fran_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

STUPENDOUS! That is a fact like gravit is a fact.teleologist_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

that's destruct :) if I even spelled that right.MGD_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Great game! I got up to "bad design needs no designer" before I was overcome by rhetorical excess. I like the way former arguments kept turning up later in the game. So true to life. Is there a boss? If not maybe you could add a pablum puking Dick Dawkins shooting quotes at us. In the end he could shoot himself in the foot and self destuct.MGD_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

keep playing - a new argument gets added each levelGiff_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

This is fantastic! The "Who designed the designer?" background voice gets tiresome pretty quickly, but perhaps that is just an accurate reflection of the wearying nature of this over-used complaint in the debate. I didn't play too long, but perhaps there could be different pandas saying different quotes, or perhaps when you get to the next level there could be another complaint, or even a good ad hominem or guilt by association fallacy thrown in?Eric Anderson_{September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply