Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Panda-Monium — New and Improved!

William Dembski
September 21, 2005
Evolution, Intelligent Design
1
Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Thanks to our indefatigable programmers at Darwinalia Inc., the new and improved version of Panda-Monium is now out: go here.

Comments
First of all, great game. I have one of the top 20 scores and I probably enjoy playing a little too much. I am hamstrung, I think, by the fact that I play on a new and fast machine. I am toying with doing things like running disk defrag and antivirus full system scans in the background to make things slow down a bit. Also, the energy depletion at the higher levels does seem a bit extreme to me. My only other complaint is that the turret on the tank moves left to right, but it is controlled by the up and down and arrow keys, while the tank moves backward and forward, but is controlled by the left and right arrow keys. Granted, the back and forward motion of the tank is also left and right accross the screen, but I still think it would be far more intuitive for the arrow keys to be reversed. My problem is that I just can't get my fingers to learn that half the time the up arrow key moves the gun on the turret up, and half the time the up arrow key moves the gun down. When the gun is pointing straight up, the up arrow key moves it down, but when it is pointing right, the up arrow key moves it up. And when the gun is pointing left the up arrow key does nothing. When the gun is left, the down arrow key moves it up! And when the gun is up, both the up and down arrow keys move it down, each in different directions. Since the gun only moves left to right, it makes much more sense to have the left and right arrow keys control the gun. I hate having the up arrow key move the gun down half the time and having the down arrow key moving the gun up half the time. With the left and right arrow keys instead, the left arrow key would always move it left and the right arrow key would always move it right. Much simpler.theonomo
September 29, 2005
September
09
Sep
29
29
2005
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
Alright - try this one folks - I discovered the "optimize geometry" feature and I'm thinking performance should be much better now! (Perhaps I'll reduce the energy cost of firing at higher levels to compensate a bit for it being so darn hard)Giff
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Wow Anteater - sorry about that! I used a "less than" rather than "less than or equal to" in an if statement! And after all that work you did getting to level 10! A fixed version is uploaded now (make sure to delete your cache).Giff
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
If you right click on the game and set the quality to low, the game becomes fast. If you set the quality to high, the game turns into slow-motion (which is useful once you get to levels 8-9). I was surprised that level 10 did not have a new panda.anteater
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Dave - Your first problem is undoubtedly a caching issue, as the earlier version didn't have the high score screen. As far as performance issues go, there is a fixed 30 frames per second rate. It's just that flash is pretty slow and some machines can't keep up. If I could be sure everyone had flash 8 it might help a little. Reducing the framerate would indeed do what you're talking about. Alternatively, I could adjust the game detail to default to the "medium" setting. Finally, I could couch the entire game in an HTML page to fix the aspect ratio to a smaller resolution (thereby increasing the performance). But ultimately we're not giving out prizes for higher scores, and I hate for the people with fast machines not to get the full silky smooth experience they currently have.Giff
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Giff Interesting. On my home computer the high score stuff didn't appear (or I didn't notice because I was in a hurry to leave the house when I was playing but all the new pandas did. On my boat computer (which is newer and quite a bit faster) the new pandas and the high score dialog showed up at the end. What's really interesting (and I haven't yet checked to see if it's a caching of an older version of the game problem) is that the game plays probably 5x faster on one computer vs. the other and my scores are WAY lower on the faster machine. Relatively speaking I have forever to react and line up shots on the slower machine. Amongst my other experiences in the computer world I was a game programmer for an oddment of years during the past decades (my first games were written around 1980 for the Atari 2600 VCS and some other early machines and my last were massively multiplayer internet based circa 2000). Anyhow, the speed problem was one we've had to deal with since the old days when we were doing arcade game knockoffs on home console systems. The home consoles were slow compared to the arcade hardware so we had to cut corners somewhere to get the game speed more or less the same so the home experience was similar to the arcade. Sound and graphics detail was what got cut in almost all cases. There's a very similar problem today when writing games that can run on many different platforms. You might want to compromise a bit by throttling the speed Pandamonium runs on fast systems so it's similar to what slower machines can achieve. I'm not really familiar with the development environment you're using (I've only used VC++ to make downloadable executables) but I should think you have access to (at least) a millisecond resolution counter/timer that can be used to make the game run are more or less the same speed on computers with substantially different CPU and graphics throughput. Just a suggestion.DaveScot
September 24, 2005
September
09
Sep
24
24
2005
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
Benji - "Who won the debate between Phil Johnson and William Provine?" As far as arguments, I don't recall either side hitting a homerun, but Johnson held his own. I definitely felt that Johnson had a more sympathetic personality---Provine was kind of condescending, but I don't suppose that should come as a surprise. The video's available for sale at http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/videos/v004sk.htm.russ
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
An Idist can be a theistic evolutionist!Benjii
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Charlie: What you are speaking of is theistic evolution. I would say that most ID'ers would _not_ hold to theistic evolution, and here's why: The whole notion of Intelligent Design is that Intelligence is a causitive force _now_, not before the earth but right now, and is visible even in everyday life. Since people can make directed, intelligent choices it is an observable force, therefore scientifically studyable. If it occurred _before_ the beginning of the world, it would not be an observable force.johnnyb
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Who won the debate between Phil Johnson and William Provine?Benjii
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
HelloBenjii
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
I guess that's technically theistic evolution though, isn't it?Charlie
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
hey johnnyb, thanks for the defs. I have one concern with the mention that most ID proponents believe in a progressive evolution with intervention at major steps. What seems so often ignored is this scenario: Common descent is true - it is accomplished by 'natural' means - the specified complexity is accomplished because the inheritance follows (undiscovered) natural laws. How does this suggest design? The same way that the fine tuning of the universe can suggest design: the existence and parameters of these natural laws is unlikely/improbable/impossible without an intelligent agency. It may then be true that evolution created the bacterial flagellum, the knee joint, the eyeball, etc. It may also be true simultaneously that that these are the product of a designing intelligence and could not have arisen in a non-purposeful universe. The discovery of the laws would be worthy, and within the capabilities, of scientific inquiry, and their existence would be evidence of a designer. This is not my personal view, but I think it might be the view of many ID proponents.Charlie
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
An origins computer game could be loosely based on Contra. You could have 2 players – Dawkins and Gould – who must eliminate an onslaught of alien beings to preserve humanity’s survival! The far superior alien race must be defeated by invoking various “selection pressures” that eventually turn the tide and create an environment where humanity is the most fit to survive. The final level could be named Mount Improbable, where Dawkins and Gould use peppered moth-like reflexes and finch-like resolve to scale the mountain and reach the tippy-top of the fitness peak, thus saving the world. There is also the potential for a fulfilling plotline, with Dawkins and Gould bickering like an elderly married couple about the “specifics” of their task, but when backed up against the wall they unite to confront the “unscientific” nature of the alien race. The weaponry in this game could be quite impressive. The Transitional-Rabbit’s-Foot could be introduced to magically transform Dawkins and Gould into a variety of mythological animals so that nature can “select” them to advance to the next level. The Punk-Eek-Magic-Wand could be used to explain away any apparent difficulties Dawkins and Gould encounter. When the aliens are about to eliminate our heroes, the Metaphysical-Amulet can be used to “predict” such an outcome and thus provide Dawkins and Gould with a way out. Of course, the game could end with Dawkins and Gould finally arriving at the top of Mount Improbable and the screen fading to black . . . Suddenly Daniel Dennett wakes up in bed, looks around in a confused and disoriented state, sighs in disappointment, then yells, “Son of a B**ch!”morpheusfaith
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
taciturnus: Just FYI, you are using your terms slightly wrong. A designer overlooking the process is NOT theistic evolution, it's actually progressive creation. Here are the terms: Theistic evolution - God set up the initial conditions, everything else ran from there. Some theistic evolutionists allow God to perform miracles _after_ the arrival of man (like Kenneth Miller). Progressive creation - Most ID'ers fall into this category, though ID itself is technically agnostic on what level of involvement the designer had. Universal Common Ancestry is true, but the major steps are accomplished by God. Old Earth creation - mostly the same as progressive creation, though sometimes this is distinguished by rejecting universal common ancestry, and the fossil record showing a sequence of separate creations Young Earth creation - Depending on who you ask, this can mean that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, or just the geologic column. In Ariel Roth's "Origins" book, he classifies pretty much anything that believes that the geologic column is less than 10,000 years old as being a young-earth creationist. The "units of creation" in YEC is roughly at the family level. The fossil record is a record of the flood, sorted by (a) ecological zone, (b) hydrodynamic sorting, and (c) differential escape. Following the flood was a period in which most biodiversity arose, but by natural means. Biodiversification is happening at a slower pace today, because of the downgrading nature of mutations are getting in the way of the biodiversification process.johnnyb
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Giff: "Can anyone verify that this exe is nice and safe?" It's safe, tested on a dozen computers, runs fine. It's Pacman with choice audio quotes I dug up last night from Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, and Dawkins. And when you eat a fruit, Dembski will speak. You start with 5 Dembskis, extra Dembski every 10000 points. hee hee. Hit -ESC- anytime during the game to return your full screen to normal.PhilVaz
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Scanned it with AVG. Nothing detected. It's just pacman with the ghosts replaced by the faces of certain people.Gumpngreen
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Can anyone verify that this exe is nice and safe?Giff
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Phil, Can't look at your game uncommon dissent game here (can't download it), but I'll check it out when I get home. In hoc signo vinces (I checked out your website), Dave T.taciturnus
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
Phil, I think you are on to something here. Let's flesh these levels out (so to speak): Creationism Level: The gamer populates the Earth with a variety of creatures of his choice and design. However, young Earth creationists think the Earth is about 10,000 years old, compared to the 4.5 billion that mainstream science accepts. Since the typical gaming experience lasts about 2 hours, and 10,000 / 45000000000 = 0.00000022, the gamer would only have 2 x 0.00000022 = 0.00000044 hours = 0.0000267 secs to complete this level. Check my math. This level is a real test of the gamer's twitch reflex. ID level: The gamer populates the Earth with a variety of creatures of his choice and design, based on whatever he wants to accomplish in natural history. He secretly picks a set of creatures that he predicts will be alive at the end of natural history. The game simulates natural history, and at the end points are awarded/subtracted for the accuracy of the gamer's original prediction (points added for creatures alive at end as predicted, subtracted if some creatures survived that gamer did not predict.) During the simulated natural history, the simulation injects minor variations (like varying bird beak size) that spread through the population (or not) by natural selection. Theistic evolution level: Game starts with a few single-celled creatures. Simulation injects variations like the ID level. The gamer is allowed to adjust environmental parameters like climate, volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. to help evolution along. If creatures get stuck and only seem to vary in a minor manner within type and without major and novel structural changes, gamer may zap a creature into an entirely new form, or a whole bunch of creatures at once, like the Cambrian Explosion. Victory conditions the same as ID level. Blind Watchmaker level: Same as theistic evolution level, but screen is blank and gamer not allowed to force major structural changes. He still has control of the environment and can send in meteor strikes, change the climate, or fire up volcanoes, but with no visual or audio feedback on what the effect is. At game end, screen turns on and the end state of the Earth is compared to the initial state. If final state is little different than original state, gamer loses. If new creatures have appeared with novel structures, the gamer wins and is awarded a Nobel Prize.taciturnus
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Hold on, you haven't seen Uncommon Dissent the new game by PhilVaz http://www.bringyou.to/games/UncommonDissent.htm Phil PPhilVaz
September 23, 2005
September
09
Sep
23
23
2005
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
tacit: "makes it sound like we are talking about theistic evolution rather than evolution as hardcore naturalists imagine it." I myself have been thinking about a creation-evolution game. Several levels that get increasingly harder: Creation, ID, Theistic Evolution, and Blind Watchmaker level. The game starts at the Big Bang. At the Creation level you can pop creatures into existence at will, but at Blind Watchmaker level, you stare at a blank screen for hours, and nothing seems to happen. Much harder to evolve things at this level. Looks like SPORE is coming to PC first. Various reviews from GameSpot http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/spore/ Phil PPhilVaz
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
I LOVE the new version of Panda-Monium. Just one question, though. What does the injured panda say? I can't quite make it out. Oh well, gotta get back to killin' pandas. Yowie! Davidcrandaddy
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
Phil, I checked out your link... this could be a very cool game and the early reviews certainly sound positive. Given that evolution is supposed to run entirely autonomously, and certainly without any intelligent intervention, what there is for the gamer to do is an interesting problem. I can't wait to find out how the gamemakers solved it. This review comment: "Imagine a game that starts with single-celled microorganisms and allows you to control the evolution of a species all the way to galactic conquest." - GameSpy.com - E3 2005 Roundup makes it sound like we are talking about theistic evolution rather than evolution as hardcore naturalists imagine it. The only other way I can see for the gamer to be involved is by intelligently designing the process of evolution itself, in which case the game is a demonstration of the "fine-tuned universe" argument of creationism. It may be that the game will backfire on evolutionists by demonstrating that, for the process to be interesting at all, it's got to have intelligent intervention either in the process itself or in the design of the process. Anyway, it's hard for me to imagine how you could have an interesting video game about evolution without intelligent intervention of some kind, since the gamer is an intelligent agent and he bought the game to play it, not watch it run by itself. But these game creators are a lot more clever than I am, otherwise I'd be rich, and I would not be surprised if they have come up with some clever idea that remains faithful to purely natural evolution. Cheers, DTtaciturnus
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
SalMon: "I am actually anxious to see a game produced by the evolutionists where the player can design their own gradual, detailed, fully-functional biochemical pathway that results in an irreducibly complex entity found in biology." Being done, its called SPORE, produced by the same people who brought you The Sims. Even in the video game world, the evolutionists got it all wrapped up. Sorry folks. And it isn't some rinky dink "Flash" game, its fully 3D and coming out for the Xbox-360 The site below is the official site. We've evolved way beyond Space Invaders and Galaga. ID game programmers need to catch up, but good effort anyway. I make games myself. http://spore.ea.com/ Phil PPhilVaz
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Add 'Boss' Levels to the game. In between each round, you would have to fight 'bosses' like Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott and Daniel Dennett.David
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
jboze said: " i just can’t even begin to understand where science took the turn down this road. i’m no scientist, and common sense tells me, this doesn’t make a shred of sense, yet if i told a group of scientists this worldview, most of them (maybe ALL of them depending on the venue) would call me a fool." My wife and I were at a doctor's office the other day and passed an abstract painting of three large squares on a black background. Only after passing the "art" a second time did we realize that the squares were glue residue where the actual art had been "unstuck" and removed from the frame. The art world has descended to such a place that normal, even educated people can't tell the difference between art, and random splotches. Perhaps the same thing has happened to the science establishment. By their ideological insularity and devotion to materialist dogma, they have departed the realm of common sense in which the rest of us live.russ
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
People who support ID are actually losing jobs, having careers threatened and professional reputations destroyed for doing so. If the side that is doing this is offended by a video game that lampoons their arguments and ideas, then they are pathetic.russ
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Alan Fox "Remember they also laughed at Bozo the clown! " FYI - While this is commonly accepted as true, I have been trying for years to find anyone who actually laughed at Bozo the clown. I have been unable to do so.Watchman
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Taciturnus - Try the "p" key... I guess I ought to tell people about that, huh.Giff
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply