I'm not big on video or computer games, I just can't see myself sitting in front of one for hours when there are all kinds of other things I want to do with my time. So it might be a bit of a surprise for me to mention a computer game, especially one that I haven't and don't intend to play. But, like a lot of things I write about there are some interesting ideas lurking in the background.
The game is Spore, a brainchild of Will Wright, who also created SimCity and The Sims. The game (or at least the part important to this discussion) allows a user to construct a creature, allow the creature to interact with its environment (probably also constructed), and watch how the creature changes through the generations.
So the game teaches evolution. Yeah, but it also teaches Intelligent Design because an intelligence (yours) constructed the critter in the first place and is allowed to change it and the environment as the game proceeds. So why mention it?
One gamer, after a few hours, realized something else. Evolution is less emotionally engaging and compelling. All you can do is sit and watch it. And if a change has no effect in one environment the watcher may see nothing until the environment changes, which could be a long wait.
There is also another big difference between evolution and creationism. Scientists are quite willing to say, "We don't know," though they imply it will be fascinating to figure out some day. In the meantime and until there is something they can test they are comfortable living with uncertainty.
But many religious people aren't. They need that certainty. And if something might disrupt that certainty it had better not be investigated and should probably even condemned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A friend responds (eyes fully rolled):
ReplyDeleteRome Public Crier, late medieval period...
"Heliocentric View of Universe Decried as Simplistic and Emotionally Unsatisfying"
A leading church authority, in a recent interview (granted off-the-record because he is not authorized to speak for the Pope on astronomical matters), decried Galileo's recently suggested heliocentric concept by which the earth revolves around the sun in these memorable words:
"Galileo's idea is simplistic and emotionally unsatisfying. We all see the sun revolve around the earth every day. Everyone, I'm sure, finds that fundamental to his life rhythms and of great emotional significance. Its true, the astronomers are aware of several irregularities in the sun's motion and must perform difficult calculations to predict sunrise and sunset accurately. The sun's motion around the earth may be complex, but computing it is their job, not ours. Galileo claims that work is greatly simplified by assuming heliocentric motion, but that's simplicity in the devil's service. Terracentric motion is clearly the only satisfying reality. It's always my liberal and tolerant view that the better idea will prevail."
When asked to comment, Galileo agreed in part: "Yes, the better idea will prevail."