cellcraft

[dragonstar57]

there is a video game called cellcraft that many people are claiming is a method of pushing creationist views.

i have played it and it was a cool game about cellular mechanics. I don't see any creationism in it at all.

but maybe i'm being naive.

so could someone look at the facts in this game and confirm or dis-confirm them?

and could someone tell me what about this game is incorrect unverifiable or strays out of mainstream science in anyway?

 

I get that some creationists worked on it but it seams like it would be easy for a non-creationist to review it and make a conclusion based solely on its content on weather or not it is a viable teaching tool for teaching MAINSTREAM high school curriculum biology.

heres a link http://www.cellcraftgame.com/Home.html

 

ps. creationism vs. evolution is outside of the topic of this thread, as is weather the established curriculum is correct, as is the question of weather or not a creationist bias to the game is a problem, as is asserting that if a creationist worked on a project their views surely affected the finial product. this thread is just about weather this game conforms to mainstream science or weather it has a creationist bias. so now that we are clear about what is and is NOT the topic of this thread feel free to start threads discussing the topics CLEARLY stated as another topic and link to this page. (unless a moderator says not to and as long as you have a comment about THIS topic as well as your link)

Edited August 30, 2010 by cipher510

[Mr Skeptic]

Eh, it's vaguely accurate. As for the "creationist" aspect, if anyone takes the suggestion that we were created by extraterrestrial platypuses seriously, well, I don't know what to say. Actually, panspermia and made by ET are possible secular theories for the origin of Earth life (though not of the first life). They're just not very popular because it just moves the question elsewhere.

[cypress]

Necessary simplifications abound, but I don't see anything that is inaccurate. I don't see how creationism could be worked into cell biology or any description of how cells function.

[ewmon]

Lars Doucet is a Christian and the founder and lead designer of Brain Juice Games that produced CellCraft, and he says

My name is Lars Doucet. I spent hundreds of hours programming CellCraft, and I’m going to set the record straight once and for all: Despite the private beliefs of some people on our support team, CellCraft is NOT intended to be a “Creationist” game. For the record, Anthony (lead designer) and myself are STRONG proponents of evolution. Hear that? We believe in evolution. We don’t believe in creationism. Evolution wasn’t “removed” from the game. It was a design decision to focus on the inner workings of the cell, not the development of the cell.

True, CellCraft has nothing to do with the Biblical God-spoke-and-it-happened creationism. Doucet claims to focus on the internal workings of the cell; however, CellCraft also involves an agency, including the player, that provides forethought, knowledge and life-saving solutions with a let’s-create-the-solution-just-in-time-to-fix-the-problem mentality. More of a tutorial than a game, it gets the little parts right, but the overall picture wrong.

[Mr Skeptic]

True, CellCraft has nothing to do with the Biblical God-spoke-and-it-happened creationism. Doucet claims to focus on the internal workings of the cell; however, CellCraft also involves an agency, including the player, that provides forethought, knowledge and life-saving solutions with a let’s-create-the-solution-just-in-time-to-fix-the-problem mentality. More of a tutorial than a game, it gets the little parts right, but the overall picture wrong.

 

So what then? Should we have it so that the player does nothing and the cell pre-adapts to some things millions of years in advance and is completely too late to adapt to others? Your idea sounds like so much fun, I'll go take a nap.

 

Also, the game does correctly have the endosymbiont theory (note how mitochondria and chloroplasts are acquired externally whereas all the other organelles just appear in the cell).

[dragonstar57]

but are the functions and names of the organelles correct? I am planing on trying to skip biology (which I can, if I can pass the finial exam without taking the class) so is this a good way to learn some cellular mechanics ie. how cells work on a biology 1 level?

I started a new thread here about the skipping biology part

-drum role please

 

and heres the link

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51558-high-school-biology/

[Mr Skeptic]

It is a game, you play it for fun. If someone wrote 1 page on the organelles, that would probably be better information quicker. The game's info is mostly accurate, but it is extremely simplified to the point that there are also inaccuracies. How about you just check out wikipedia, and skip over the stuff you are familiar with?

[dragonstar57]

I was always told that Wikipedia is not a accurate enough resource for basically anything

[Mr Skeptic]

I was always told that Wikipedia is not a accurate enough resource for basically anything

 

Wikipedia is very good, especially in science. Some people don't like you using it as an academic reference (in fact it isn't). However, wikipedia does require people cite sources for what they write, so odds are you can quote one of the sources in wiki's list of references. (Just wondering, did you think those people would consider computer games more accurate than wikipedia?)

[dragonstar57]

yes my English teacher once went so far as to say that there was no accurate fact on Wikipedia at all

Edited August 31, 2010 by cipher510

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh, and do people consider this an accurate resource?: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

 

yes my English teacher once went so far as to say that there wan no accurate fact on Wikipedia at all

 

Then I wouldn't consider your English teacher an accurate resource Should probably stick to teaching English.

[ewmon]

Your idea sounds like so much fun, I'll go take a nap.

What idea? I was merely factual. As I said, CellCraft gets the little parts right, which is perfectly wonderful, but its just-in-time cell development involves external, intelligent agency (player, Spike, Sydney, Jeeves, Supreme Overlord, etc) — yet is neither creationism nor evolution as we know them.

 

The designer's himself stated that he did not intend to deal with cellular development, yet the tutorial teaches cellular development as occurring through external, intelligent agency. The game's success/failure is based on the cell's ability to adapt to changing environments, both internal and external, and the needed parts are merely added or generated by various external intelligent agencies.

 

I love tutorials, especially interactive visual tutorials such as CellCraft. I've used them in the past, and I'll use them in the future. They can be very educational. CellCraft is very educational about individual parts of cells, and I will continue to play it.