…and this is a 
Discover Magazine is running a contest: make a video that explains evolution in two minutes or less.
Can you communicate the most important idea in biology, and one of the most controversial ideas in our society, in a mere 120 seconds? Think you can convince even the most hard-headed creationist that Darwin was right? If so, show us--and that creationist--how it's done.
Your task is to create a video of no more than two minutes that will get the idea and significance of evolution across to an educated lay audience. Along the way, you can touch on points like how evolution works, how we know it to be true, the evolution of humanity, and the future of evolution.
They've done this before, with string theory, so you can see examples. You've got until 1 June to come up with a scintillating and creative lesson in evolution, so get cracking!
Comments
Posted by: DAVE | April 3, 2009 12:59 PM
I'm just sending in the "How to not be seen" sketch by M. Python et.al
Posted by: cervantes | April 3, 2009 12:59 PM
Well okay, but wouldn't it be nice if we could instead assume that the average person has an attention span of, oh, 4 minutes?
Posted by: David Raikow | April 3, 2009 1:00 PM
They should have chose 140 seconds and called it a Finch Tweet.
Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 3, 2009 1:04 PM
"an educated lay audience" - how educated is the average creationist anyways?
Posted by: JD | April 3, 2009 1:05 PM
How about in less than 2 seconds? Goddidit!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 3, 2009 1:07 PM
Watch for IDiots saying that this proves that Darwinism doesn't even need 15 minutes to learn, it only takes two.
I am wondering what the point is, even if it's an interesting challenge.
Of course, the evidence of taxonomy, genetics, and the many fossils demonstrating evolution won't convince most creationists, since they have thinking processes that block the necessary synthesis.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Hoonser | April 3, 2009 1:10 PM
I'm throwin' my hat in the ring.
Posted by: Qwerty | April 3, 2009 1:35 PM
"the necessary synthesis" GlenD - that sounds like a book title. What blocks "the necessary synthesis" is their unwavering belief in the Genesis myth.
Posted by: Christopher
|
April 3, 2009 1:46 PM
"Your task is to create a video of no more than two minutes that will get the idea and significance of evolution across to an educated lay audience. Along the way, you can touch on points like how evolution works, how we know it to be true, the evolution of humanity, and the future of evolution."
Shouldn't "how evolution works" be the video, not something to be touched on? And do they really expect people to be able to explain how evolution works to creationists in two minutes, and still have time to show the evolution of humanity and where evolution science can lead us?
I know it's simple to say, "The Bible is God's Word, and God's Word is inerrant," and be done. But science just doesn't work that way.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
April 3, 2009 1:50 PM
Once again, the dumbing down of America by pandering to short videos instead of comprehensive scholarly works.
The winning string theory video is garbage. The images add nothing to the audio. Little explanation behind the theory was given.
Next will be the 6 second description of how the world works.
At this rate, Americans will be specialist at the sound bite: "Want fries with that?"
Posted by: J-Dog | April 3, 2009 2:00 PM
And in other news..
The Discovery Inastitute is having the SAME contest - but they have a winner already. It's Lying Liar Casey Luskin for his approved reading of Genesis into the camera from the Secret ID Science Lair.
Posted by: terrylong | April 3, 2009 2:01 PM
Many monkeys banging the rocks together.
Posted by: Randy Randy | April 3, 2009 2:01 PM
I think a single video may be the wrong sort of media for this.
How about a video mashup (to use one of those buzzwords) service, where everyone enters a two minute video. People then take the parts they like, and using a few simple fixed rules, construct new videos to enter into the population of videos.
Over time, the best video will... um, what's that word?
Posted by: James F | April 3, 2009 2:03 PM
Florida Citizens for Science is also sponsoring a stickman-style drawing contest, Stick Science.
Posted by: uppity cracka | April 3, 2009 2:05 PM
two minutes? hell, i can do it in two words: bull and shit.
how 'bout this: evolution is a vast liberal conspiracy to turn perfect little aryan children gay by telling them there is no god. 'sall you need to know.
Posted by: Randy Randy | April 3, 2009 2:06 PM
Oh, and I forgot to specify a few other constraints:
1. Videos have short generations of a day or so.
2. The fitness function should specify informative, not just entertaining. Actually, though, if there is a big enough population of reviewers, the video population will maintain several lineages (not quite species, since interbreeding is not controlled).
Posted by: Randy Randy | April 3, 2009 2:09 PM
To finish my train of thought.
This would be a more interesting demonstration of evolution that a 2 minute video would be. Show how videos can evolve with a few simple rules, to produce a better video that any of the intelligent designers were able to.
Posted by: zaardvark | April 3, 2009 2:10 PM
Aw, no prize. Couldn't they get Phil Plait to sign a pair of his boxers, or something?
Ehh, that might actually be worse. I'll probably enter anyway, but only because I know I could win. Trash-talking the losers will be my reward.
Wow, ever stop and realize that you're a complete jerk? Me neither!
Good luck, all.
Posted by: Desert Son | April 3, 2009 2:12 PM
My hope is that the short previews will inspire further delving into the subject. Obviously evolution (and string theory, certainly!) are vaster in scope and complexity than two minutes can adequately define.
At the risk of sounding concern-troll-ish, I do worry that, as NewEnglandBob points out, the "sound byte" world of modern marketing may reinforce the idea of knowledge as sufficient at superficial levels, and I agree that the winning string theory video was not particularly effective, in my opinion.
Still, I remain hopeful that many people, recognizing that their own day-to-day lives are complex, will also conclude evolution is also complex and that two minutes does not encapsulate its explanation (two minutes better serves supernatural gap explanations of things, it seems to me). Whether they seek to learn more is always a challenge, especially if so many other things are competing for attention.
One risk with marketing is if it tells consumers how easy things are, when in fact, so few things in life are easy at all.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Randy Randy | April 3, 2009 2:16 PM
James F #14 wrote
So why don't they just read xkcd?
Oh, and to whore my previous posts more...
Evolve the evolution video, no need to design it.
Posted by: James F | April 3, 2009 2:21 PM
Then there's the Summarize Proust Competition, only 15 seconds!
Posted by: Marc Abian | April 3, 2009 2:22 PM
I can't make videos, but I think this would be easy to write at least.
Posted by: Hoonser | April 3, 2009 2:27 PM
Changed my mind about entering this thing. Why is it these contests always require entrants to hand over the rights to their hard work over to the people running the contest? I'd rather make a free video and put it on youtube than hand over the rights to my work to anybody.
That's a real scumbag move on Discovery Magazine's part.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | April 3, 2009 2:27 PM
I'm definitely doing this. I've been meaning to make a collaborative video listing all the evidences for evolution anyways. This will be fun. :-)
As for a reward, being recognized by PZ is a big enough honor for me... maybe I could get him to give me a letter of recommendation too after I finish my Master's.
Do you know a lot of people in the bioinformatics field, PZ? :-)
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | April 3, 2009 2:29 PM
Tonight on cnn, Jenny McCarthy
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
Posted by: Rachel I. | April 3, 2009 2:39 PM
Dang, I wanna do this, but I'd be afraid of messing up the mechanics.
Eh, it's an excuse to figure out how to model and animate DNA and a frog and stuff... if that goes well then I guess I'll put it in a video.
Posted by: TigerHunter | April 3, 2009 2:42 PM
I will be participating.
Personally, I don't have a problem with compressing the idea into a two-minute video. The bare basics of natural selection aren't really that hard to understand, and can encourage people to delve further into the subject. (I'm considering ending my video with a list of books they can read for more on the subject.)
Posted by: Hakobus | April 3, 2009 2:51 PM
Damn, the contest is only open for residents of the US and Canada :(
Posted by: Alex | April 3, 2009 2:52 PM
I think thunderf00t needs to know of this. He's got some pretty good material, and the experience with scripting these things.
Posted by: Steve | April 3, 2009 3:14 PM
"Can you communicate the most important idea in biology, and one of the most controversial ideas in our society, in a mere 120 seconds?"
Well, first I would point out that evolution isn't an idea..
Posted by: Woody | April 3, 2009 3:25 PM
Posted by: Hakobus | April 3, 2009 2:51 PM
Damn, the contest is only open for residents of the US and Canada :(
you can send yours to me and I'll front you my address...New Mexico IS a state, iirc,...
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | April 3, 2009 3:28 PM
NewEnglandBob (@10):
What is this "instead of" of which you speak?
zaardvark (@18):
I see KemaTheAtheist has beaten me to this, but it bears repeating: Being chosen by PZ should be prize enough.
Posted by: Christopher
|
April 3, 2009 3:37 PM
@32:
"I see KemaTheAtheist has beaten me to this, but it bears repeating: Being chosen by PZ should be prize enough."
It depends. Is being chosen by PZ the designation that the winner shall be first or last to be the victim of the cepholapod overlords?
Posted by: Rosie Redfield | April 3, 2009 3:47 PM
The Vancouver Evolution Festival is running a similar contest, but open only to undergraduate students. We haven't had many submissions yet, so if you're in college in British Columbia we'd love to hear from you.
Posted by: kryptonic | April 3, 2009 4:20 PM
Susie Smartypants explains the evolution!
Posted by: kryptonic | April 3, 2009 4:25 PM
Off Topic, but have you seen the awesome Barack Hussein Action Figures over at HuffingtonPost?
Posted by: JackC
|
April 3, 2009 4:25 PM
If I can figure out the Video software (I am NOT a video wiz here, more like a video whizz...), I just might take a crack at this. Here is my plan
120 seconds
30 fps
3600 total frames
One frame per text "presentation"
yeah - I just might be able to make it fit...
Won't be much to watch though. Probably make you sick.
Hey! Maybe that is a "feature" :-)
JC
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | April 3, 2009 4:29 PM
Hmm, I have some time to kill while waiting for work to start again, maybe I can animate this. :)
Posted by: bobxxxx | April 3, 2009 5:01 PM
Think you can convince even the most hard-headed creationist that Darwin was right?
That's impossible. If a creationist was able to understand anything, he or she would have thrown out magical creation a long time ago. Stupid can't be fixed.
Posted by: Bruce Gee | April 3, 2009 5:17 PM
Here's how I would do it if I had the means, a degree in biology, and access to good pictures.
I wouldn't even use any words.
The whole anti-evo argument hinges on one point: that one of what they call "kinds" could not be related to another "kind."
Just show a fossil recreation of the skeleton of an early mammal. Then show two sequences, side by side, of two different sets of descendents of that skeleton -- say, from different areas. Each fossil should clearly show kinship to the one before it and the one after it, so that any idiot can see the direct descent.
Finally, at the end, are two obviously different species, like squirrels and racoons or horses and camels. Wouldn't that do it?
Posted by: Bruce Gee | April 3, 2009 5:20 PM
Here's how I would do it if I had the means, a degree in biology, and access to good pictures.
I wouldn't even use any words.
The whole anti-evo argument hinges on one point: that one of what they call "kinds" could not be related to another "kind."
Just show a fossil recreation of the skeleton of an early mammal. Then show two sequences, side by side, of two different sets of descendents of that skeleton -- say, from different areas. Each fossil should clearly show kinship to the one before it and the one after it, so that any idiot can see the direct descent.
Finally, at the end, are two obviously different species, like squirrels and racoons or horses and camels. Wouldn't that do it?
Posted by: zaardvark | April 3, 2009 5:27 PM
@Bill Dauphin, #32
Where does it say PZ is judging? Or are you assuming he'll name his favourite, and everyone will flock to vote for it? Doesn't seem likely...
Priiiiiiiizes please.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
April 3, 2009 5:47 PM
Bill Dauphin @32:
I can cite a dozen books that superbly represent evolution:
Why Evolution Is True By Jerry A. Coyne
Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body By Neil Shubin
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals A Universe Without Design By Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene By Richard Dawkins
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life By Daniel Dennett
Those are at the top of my list.
Posted by: Kel | April 3, 2009 5:53 PM
I just might do this, it should be an interesting challenge.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | April 3, 2009 5:54 PM
zaardvark:
Did you click through to the actual contest announcement? I assume PZ didn't mention it only because of his well known excessive modesty.
NewEnglandBob:
Well, that was pretty much my point: These short videos you seem to decry won't be "instead of" anything, but rather in addition to the "superb" works you mention.
Posted by: Riman Butterbur | April 3, 2009 5:56 PM
If anyone takes up P. M. Magazin on its P.M.-DARWIN-Rätsel offer, please let me know how it turned out.
(I'm not going to try, myself; German is my 4th language.)
Posted by: Mikael Seamus | April 3, 2009 8:33 PM
Hi guys, and mr Myers. I just wanted to point out a small error in your post.
"most controversial ideas in our society"
Was the line that disturbed me. You see,I do not live in a Third World Country like you do Mr Myers (United States), but a highly advanced and civilized society (European one), and there is no "controversial" thing about the fact about evolution....
Only in United States and some other, rare, third world backwards nations. Reason I am pointing this out? Well, please, make a distinction between your pathetic, violent and backwards nation, and the rest of the world. Actually, I have been to third world countries where they are aware of evolution very well, Americans, on the other hand, are way waaaay behind.
Education education education, thats whats needed. Other then that, enjoy your blog.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
April 3, 2009 8:54 PM
Bill Dauphin @ 45:
Don't kid yourself, most people have the attention span of a fruit fly. If they have a 2 minute video then that is all they will watch.
How many people read a computer manual when there is short online help available? Even when they know the better information is available.
Maybe the video should be a talking head listing the deep scholarly treatises on the topic.
Posted by: bobxxxx | April 3, 2009 9:07 PM
#47:
Mikael Seamus, as an American I have to agree with you. Most of our population believes in angels, devils, and other childish nonsense, while only 14% of our population accepts evolution without invoking a magic fairy to guide it. We really are one of the most backward countries in the world.
Posted by: Defaithed | April 3, 2009 9:25 PM
"Think you can convince even the most hard-headed creationist that Darwin was right? "
But... Darwin was *wrong*! New Scientist magazine said so!
: /
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | April 4, 2009 12:37 AM
NewEnglandBob (@48):
Well, hell, Bob... if your going-in position is basically "people suck," then it hardly matters how you talk to them, does it?
I'm not quite that cynical, though. The people who would never pick up a book because there was a 2-minute video available would've never picked up the book in the first place... but some of the people who see the video might get inspired to pick up a book afterwards.
There've been fears that "new media" would wipe out reading ever since Marconi, but it hasn't happened yet. If you walk into a Borders or Barnes & Noble sometime and take a look at all the new product on their shelves... and the lines at the cash registers... you'll know it isn't happening now, either.
Ahh, but it's always going to be easier for some people to believe that "people suck," isn't it?
Posted by: blf | April 4, 2009 3:36 AM
Video? Video? What's with this new-fangled transient crap? It's got no staying power, the noise disturbs the neighbours, and you can't even clean up the dog mess with it. The contest should be using proper multimedia. Papyrus. With coloured inks. Practical, hard-wearing, quiet, and environmentally friendly.
Posted by: rufustfirefly | April 4, 2009 8:35 AM
When creationists say things like "there is no evidence that would make me accept evolution because it would make my God a liar"; or they're on a mission trip to Kenya and see a "monkey" with its face in another monkey's ass and say "I'm not related to that", what's the use of a two minute video?
Posted by: blf | April 4, 2009 9:01 AM
* Sharpen the edges on the CD and honourably disembowel yourself?
* Job creation for unemployed electrons?
* Keeps filmmakers and other dangerous critters off the streets?
Posted by: Theropod-X | April 4, 2009 3:37 PM
This mostly guarantees professionals won't enter:
"you will not post your submission on any other website, or otherwise publicly perform, distribute or display your submission, without the express permission of Sponsor"
Posted by: JMk2 | April 4, 2009 4:33 PM
I almost agree with some of the other commentators here that this is a pointless task - the man-in-the-street creationists I've met seem to think that the response "Evolution is a lie of your father the Devil" is an end to any attempt at instruction. (Guess it's just a theological way of saying "La, la, la, I'm not listening"!) They then ask you to read some verses or a chapter of the Bible. I've never known quite what to do in this situation. I've tried "I've read that [true] - what evidence do you have that this is not simply mythology?" The usual response is an impassioned evidence-free plea for the safety of my "immortal soul", accompanied by much emotional blackmail - a hand being placed on my shoulder, much use of my forename, offers of emotional security in their church etc, and finally threats of "hell" when that has no effect. Their technique would often make an espionage interrogator proud. The whole "heaven" or "hell" thing seems simply to be a game of "good cop/bad cop", in fact.
The only response that I've found that works (or, at least, causes doubt-seeding confusion!) is to demonstrate that some particular just-presented point of their belief is an easily-verifiable misrepresentation - in a couple of cases, a demonstration that one of their preacher/antievolutionist heros has managed to misunderstand some point of science which they had been using to support their evangelism. I think that more such instructional videos would be of great use if well enough done and widely propagated. (There are some I've seen aired here already.) The creationists I've met have been very righteous - show them that they've been lied to, and their world-view takes a big hit. You'll never get a creationist to spend a relatively long time reading a "devilish" book, but you might just catch them with a short video.
Posted by: Alec | April 4, 2009 11:37 PM
I don't know about a 2-minute video, but it can be explained in a 2-sentence comment:
1. All animals have parents.
2. The animals that lived on the earth in the past were different to the ones that live here now.
Posted by: Dentroman | April 6, 2009 11:43 PM
I'm on it! Sounds fun actually!
DENTROMAN
Posted by: Hal Laspe' | July 16, 2009 1:05 PM
Discover this: I invested in submitting your requested evolution-in-120-seconds video prior to the required deadline a month and a half ago. If the contest is failed I need to know so that I may recover my legal rights to my submitted work.