Homeworld and the nature of this one

Starting close to home: or rather, Homeworld. Which was the videogame I worked on back when the idea of writing a novel had yet to even occur to me. The folks at Relic News did a little sleuthing a couple weeks back and realized that I was the same guy who received co-writing and story concept credits on what went on to win PC Magazine’s Game of the Year for 1999; earlier this week, a more comprehensive article appeared in gaming blog The Big Download, in large part as a result of their efforts, I’m told. Thanks guys!

Moving into the news: the Louisiana Senate has passed a bill which essentially acts as a trojan horse for creationist teachings. (Thanks to the inimitable Pharyngula for the tip.) The thing that always boggles my mind about this kind of thing is that believing in Christianity doesn’t automatically entail believing that the Earth was created five thousand years ago. Nor does it mean that one has to subscribe to a world in which dinosaur bones are all part of some elaborate scheme to test our faith.

Because otherwise faith in the next world will inexorably undermine our position in this one. The New Scientist reported last week on the speech of Nobel laureate David Baltimore at the first World Science Festival, who commented on the damage that creationism is doing to the U.S.’s international scientific stature. There’s no doubt this fear is totally warranted; there’s also no doubt that this issue is very much THE issue in the culture wars now underway. Virtually everything else admits of compromise; this one does not. This is at the heart of what kind of nation we’re going to be in the 21st century.

‘Nuff said for now.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Homeworld and the nature of this one”

  1. Herbert Says:

    Yah √úberjumper is awesome like that.

  2. David Williams Says:

    you got that right.

  3. Wired Says:

    What especially weird about the Creationist movement is that it pretty much contradicts the whole development of theological and rational thinking *of the Church itself* between the High Middle Ages and now. Thomas Aquinus and the scholars following him were fundamental in formulating the thesis that by using the humans’ reason one could deduct the “Laws of God” (meaning the way the world works, thus laying the foundation for empiricism). It’s kinda sad that a guy from the 14th century was intellectually more developed that the Creationists are…

    Btw, got your book yesterday, I’m in the middle of “Immersion” right now.

  4. David Williams Says:

    It’s a great point. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I think you’re right. I think the only way to read modern Creationism, really, is as a Luddite movement: bombarded by future shock, and unable to #$# deal, they’ve lapsed into an elaborate fantasy world.

    And glad you’ve got the book! Keep me posted . . . let me see, the middle of Immersion .. hmm, I think the shooting is JUST about to start.

  5. Zack Says:

    The manual for the first Homeworld was probably one of the most brilliantly conceived pieces of sci fi I read at the time. I think I spent more time reading it then I did playing the game–which was equally great, mind you. I’m very eager to read your novel–my local Borders let me down, but its on its way. If I ever take a crack at writing, the sort of world building you did in Homeworld would undoubtedly be a significant influence. And based on your site I see that you’ve put in the same effort building a very plausible, if depressing, future world.

    I’ve added your blog to my google reader and I’m looking forward to more!

  6. David Williams Says:

    Awesome, thank you sir. . .!

    I think from a writing perspective, the biggest challenge with world-building is knowing when to stop–i.e., how deep down the rabbit-hole do you need to go? It’s a tricky balance to strike.