|
Feedback archive → Feedback
2009
Evolutionary Spore game supporters attack CMI article and Christianity
Published: 20 June 2009(GMT+10)
stock.xchng
Our article Spore: new game allows players to evolve creatures;
should creationists be concerned? has evidently been discovered by a few
atheopaths who are spreading it around in anger. At least this seems to be behind
the influx of recent attacks, quite some time after it appeared on our front page.
The author, Lita Cosner, responds first to an antitheist
from Denmark, then to a critic from the Netherlands, and finally
to a one-liner from someone not willing to reveal a name (their
emails are in dark red, the point-by-point responses are in black).
The first is from M.B. of Denmark:
MB: This is exactly why I can’t stand religious people who
are ignorant to everything else than their own small dome. Your stupid Bible has
been rewritten and changed so many times, …
LC: If you had provided a specific instance where you think the
Bible was changed, I would have addressed it. You can allege that the Bible was
originally a copy of “100 Delicious Locust Recipes” if you want, but
the burden of proof is on you. That is, to claim that the Bible was altered, you
must produce an allegedly uncorrupted original for comparison.
To claim that the Bible was altered, you must produce an allegedly uncorrupted original
for comparison.
On the side of textual reliability, we have thousands of manuscripts that show an
amazing uniformity, apart from the small scribal errors that would be expected for
a text that was mainly copied by amateurs (in the case of the NT). Yet the earliest
copies, which date back to the 2nd century, show not the slightest evidence
of teaching anything but orthodox Christian doctrine. See also my article
Gospel Dates and Reliability.
For the Old Testament, the Qumran scrolls show that there was remarkably little
change between the Hebrew Bible at around 200 BC and
the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible of AD 1,000.
From that, we can assume that similar care was taken in the copying of texts from
the autographs to the copies we have from Qumran.
… and many of the things standing inside it doesn’t make any sense
and are completely wrong.
Your own ignorance of the Bible is not an argument against Christianity.
You see, I got a one of these fairy tale books when I was born. In the very start
of it, it says that Adam and Eva were the first human on Earth, created by a “god”.
Divine creation is only impossible if you don’t believe in the miraculous.
At least my creation story has a Creator. You’re the one who believes
everything exploded from nothing. It takes a lot less faith to believe the Bible
than it does some atheistic teachings, it seems to me.
They got two sons, Kain and Abel, and one of them killed the other, and then these
three human should be the start of humanity. Try to THINK instead of being ignorant,
and see how this isn’t possible.
Of course, genuine thinking should take account of the data not pontificate in a
vacuum. Who said they had only two sons? Genesis 5:4 says they had “other sons and daughters”.
So in future, read what you rail against so you don’t look so uninformed.
See also Who was Cain’s
wife?
But enough about that. Now I have something to say about your article.
First of all, you CLEARLY don’t even know anything about Spore.
As my article and this response shows, I clearly know much more about Spore
than you do about the Bible!
The first stage, the cell stage, starts with a meteor crashing into a planet. YES!
But if you took a look at some of the Spore sites, you should be able to find out
that they has been planning to make a stage before the cell stage, called the MOLECULAR
stage, where the first life was going to be created…!
And how is that relevant to my article, which covers the version of the game which
existed last October?
Second, you say that bacteria or small organisms/cells wouldn’t be able to
survive on a meteor. That can be true, but they could also be inside the meteor,
which may not turn very hot upon entering the atmosphere. By the way, it could also
be possible that the molecules ON the meteor were only needed to create life, but
it first happened ON the planet.
Your hypothesis would be great if it had any basis in reality or evidence to support
it. However, if you had read the article I linked to, you would have known
that 2 centimetres (0.8 inch) of rock is insufficient to protect
organisms from being burnt up when they enter the atmosphere, and most rocks
would not have gaps deeper than that to protect microbes.
Even if we allow that for the sake of argument, it just begs the question of how
those organisms originated on their home world; i.e. it only
pushes the problem back a level where it cannot be tested.
It’s always a good idea to THINK before you WRITE.
You might take your own advice once in a while. Reading some of the relevant articles
from the frequently asked questions page would also be helpful.
You also claim that the game does not replicate evolution, by saying that you just
put on parts like a tail instead of evolving them. In the game you get DNA-points
by destroying other species or by socializing with them, and these can be spent
on new parts.
It would seem to almost insult the readers’ intelligence to point out that
gaining “DNA-points by destroying species and socializing with them”
to spend on new parts which the player can choose is about as unrepresentative of
evolutionary theory as one can get without simply having a Creator creating everything
in 6 days!
The way you get new parts is based on your current parts, so if you start giving
the creature a special kind of feet, it’s much more likely that the skeleton
bones you find in the game will be some feet looking like the old feet you had,
but just better, rather than you get something like a bird-claw if you had a raptor-claw.
That still raises the question: how did the old feet get there (“evolve”)
in the first place? And what mechanism in real life is available to provide
new genetic information (DNA-points, to stay with your terminology) for
the sort of changes you’re claiming?
So I can only say that that part was wrong as well. No game would today be able
to simulate evolution by evolving parts on the creature just based on the environments
anyways! That would be a simulation alone taking all the power of the computer,
and therefore not be a game.
The origin of first living cell, and the transition to multicellular life are huge
problems for evolution from goo to you via the zoo.
I can think of ways that a game might model natural selection more accurately and
still be a game. But it might be asking a bit much for a game to accurately model
evolution from a single cell, since no evolutionist can agree on precisely what
happened! The origin of first living cell, and the transition to multicellular life are huge problems
for evolution from goo to you via the zoo.
After that you claim that the creature is first an amoeba and then say it’s
a fully developed creature in the next stage. Well, if you had looked at the amoeba
for just a second in any of the games, you would know that it started out with eyes.
A one-celled organism can’t have eyes, since eyes are made of cells as well!
Well, what is the scientifically-accurate term for a cartoonish blob with
eyes? ;)
In the next stage it’s not a fully developed creature in the start, but that’s
what the stage is about! Again, Spore is a game and not a simulator, and
common modern computers don’t have the power and space required to make a
very advanced game with 20 stages showing how the amoeba turned 3% darker over the
first 100 years. Every aspect of real life cannot be added into a game.
Some of the deficiencies in the game may stem from insufficient technology, or are
inherent to making the evolutionary process into a game, but that does not make
them immune to criticism. Some of the unrealistic aspects are not necessary, though,
such as the protection against the population going extinct.
You also forget that the evolution is not going on in a week, but for billions of
years.
On the contrary; I said in the article: “One of the more curious components
of the game from an evolutionary standpoint is how quickly the creature advances.”
That is, compared to the billions of years evolutionists say that it takes for a
creature to develop similar structures.
DNA is carrying the information from the cells to the next, and mutations can in
rare situations (which is possible over billions of years) also help. Natural selection
will also automatically cause the creatures to change, because the strongest of
them will be able to survive, while the weaker of them will not. The stronger of
them are then, through their DNA, carrying the information to the next creature.
But these stronger creatures will not develop new genetic information. On the contrary,
natural selection is the result of specialization, which almost always involves
a loss of genetic information. This includes beneficial mutations, such
as eyeless fish in caves and wingless
beetles on windswept islands.
Also, the game is not intended to view an anti-christian view of the world. It’s
intended to show how it happened. And it happened by evolution, and not by an old
gnome jumping around on some clouds creating things and resting on sundays [sic].
It’s against all other religions as well as your Christianity.
You have basically said “This game isn’t against Christianity; it’s
simply modelling a view of origins that is directly opposed to it!”
But sadly we’re no longer in the 14th century where you could just
kill everyone who didn’t agree in your meanings. As our technology has developed,
our knowledge has become greater, weakening your stupid religions.
Any atrocities committed in the name of Christ were contradicting His teachings,
while atrocities are not at all contradictory to atheism.
If you’re referring to the Spanish Inquisition, then we need to set a few
historical facts straight. First, it started in the 15th century, not
the 14th . Second, the Inquisition did not kill “everyone who didn’t
agree”—it only had authority over those who professed to be Christians.
In fact, fewer than three people were killed per year — far fewer
than the secular courts of the day condemned to death, and fewer than the
state of Texas today. If you’re referring to the Crusades, the last one was
in the 13th century, and they were simply reactions
to centuries of Islamic aggression in the area which had already subjugated huge
once-Christian areas. Isn’t it interesting that you have to go back
500–1000 years to find some horrible things that people professing to be Christians
did; but in grim contrast atheists killed far more people in the 20th
century alone than all the atrocities ascribed to Christians in all of history put
together (see Darwin’s impact the bloodstained legacy
of evolution)? Also, any atrocities committed in the name of Christ were
contradicting His teachings, while atrocities are not at all contradictory
to atheism.
These were my words, now please write back so I can shoot down the rest of your
horribly weak arguments after I’ve burned some of your smelling holy books!
You have yet to shoot down one. You’re welcome to write back, but
please try actually reading what the site has to say about the subject
before showcasing your ignorance.
And I do respect religious people, I know religious people, both IRL and on the
Spore forums. But I do NOT respect religious people like YOU who write such crazy
things about a game that shows more truth in one second of its gameplay than your
rotten religion has done since before the first part of it was told by a poor old
man who just didn’t have science to explain how everything really happened!
So you respect religious people, just not the ones who actually believe
what their religion teaches? But if our religion is so rotten, then why respect
its holders? Of course, Christianity has done an immense amount of good for the
world, such as founding modern science, ending slavery, building orphanages and
hospitals. Conversely, as for where your own evolutionary faith was most consistently
applied, your fellow atheist Sir Arthur Keith said:
‘To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously
to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942.
We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution provides the only real basis for
a national policy. … The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained,
is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform
to the theory of evolution.’
See also The Darwin Hitler connection and
What good is Christianity?
The next email is from Jelle P, of the Netherlands. While his
tone is considerably more civil than M.B.’s, there are still several misunderstandings
about the article.
JP: After reading the article, which was clearly written by a biased
person, …
LC: Of course I was biased. Any rational person with an IQ above
that of a toaster is biased. You’re biased too, just in the opposite direction.
The issue with bias is not whether one is biased, but whether that bias is correct
or not.
I must first ask you this: Why should you be concerned? Will Wright himself has
commented on Spore and the ideas behind his inspiration to design this
game on numerous occasions and as far as I am aware has never considered Spore to
be an accurate model for evolution, …
But, as I said in the article, many people do think it is an accurate representation
of evolution, and Wright does see parts of the game as “very Darwinian”.
So why do you care enough to launch a tirade against this article and Christianity?
Seems like we hit a nerve, which proves my point!
… but this raises a question in my mind: since it is obvious you (the author)
do not support evolution, then why do you even care if those who do support it get
misinformed by games such as Spore (which is indeed by no means a good way of “promoting”
the evolution theory)?
Because the people who will be misinformed by games like Spore are not
informed evolutionists, but impressionable kids. While the game does not give an
accurate representation of evolution, it could serve to condition kids to accept
evolution.
Surely, misinformation would only weaken the grounds and arguments we would have
for our conviction?
Also, I would like to ask you why you seem to think it is a bad thing for evolutionists
to profess their ideas. What gives creationists more rights to spread their views
then evolutionists?
I don’t think it is a bad thing for evolutionists to put their ideas out there.
In fact, CMI’s position is that it would be beneficial for people to learn
more about evolution, not less (i.e. warts and all). But what I have a
problem with is that evolutionists often present their ideas in a way that is quite
frankly deceptive (sometimes intentionally so), especially
when these flawed presentations are aimed at children who may not be able to discern
whether the presentation is accurate or not.
You will notice that I never said, “Creationists should not play Spore,
or purchase it for their kids.” Rather, I advocate being informed
about what influences may be sneaked into media that people consume, including computer
games.
Lastly I would like to quote a sentence in the article: “It is tempting to
think of it as ‘simply a game’, but evolutionists are not above using
what they know to be faulty evidence to try to persuade students that evolution
is true.”
While this may be true, I must point out that creationists have made themselves
guilty of this as well, on numerous occasions in history, and in many occasions
have absolutely no scientific evidence to support their claims, while many evolutionists
actually do.
If you had an actual instance (as I did) of deception, I would address that. As
it is, there is nothing for me to answer because you haven’t made an actual
argument. CMI, of course, does not excuse using faulty arguments in support of creation;
hence the page on arguments creationists should NOT use.
Maybe I reason too much (because part of faith is not to be rationally convinced
something is true, but “feel” or “trust” in the existence
of, say, a higher being) …
Not so. Rather, faith is trust and/or faithfulness (the Greek word πίστις
(pistis) is used either way) based on God’s own faithfulness to us.
There is even an aspect of forensic proof to the word; there is nothing blind or
irrational about biblical faith; it need not even be emotional. Of course, if you
had bothered with the most rudimentary search of this site, you would have found
this, e.g. in the article Loving God with all your mind: logic
and creation.
… but just claiming that there is a God, based purely on a two thousand year
old collection of texts …
We believe the Bible is inerrant and authoritative, yes. But there is enough proof
of God’s work in creation to convict even the person who does not have the
witness of Scripture (Romans 1:18–32). The Intelligent Design folks deduce
the necessity of a Creator simply from the complexity of life on earth and the conditions
which had to exist for it to be possible.
… (which have been re-interpreted and translated on unbelievably numerous
occasions, making them prone to forgery and misinterpretation) …
How could you possibly know that an interpretation of the Bible was bad unless there
was a good interpretation for comparison?
I don’t understand your argument here. Of course there have been bad interpretations
of Scripture; CMI combats many of them on this site, and there are others dedicated
to matters outside CMI’s purview which handle matters of interpretation of
equal skill. The fact that some people interpret the Bible wrongly does not mean
that it is impossible to interpret it rightly. Indeed, how could you possibly know
that an interpretation of the Bible was bad unless there was a good interpretation
for comparison?
While it is advantageous to study the original languages, it is by no means necessary
to gain a good understanding of the message. This is because while we believe the
actual words of the original languages were inspired, we believe that the message
is able to come through in any translation, such that any faithful translation is
as much the Word of God as the text in the original language. Note that inerrancy
extends only to the autographs, as we have explained before, and why this is no
problem for Christians (Does the Bible teach error?).
… rather than actual tangible evidence, is of course very BAD evidence in
itself.
On the contrary, I would regard the existence of an internally consistent collection
of texts, written over thousands of years, by people in vastly different social
positions who lived in different societies, to be excellent evidence for divine
inspiration of those texts, and therefore evidence of the existence of a divine
Being who inspired them.
And before you bring up one of the boring old lists of ‘contradictions,’
try reading what apologists and Bible scholars have to say about them before expecting
us to reinvent the wheel (start with the articles under Bible
contradictions and errors : What Biblical errors do skeptics claim to have found?
How can these claims be answered?).
On a closing note, I would like to add that I am no Atheist, as much as I am an
Agnostic.
In practice, there seems to be very little difference between the two.
I do not disrespect your faith in your god by saying he/she/it does not exist, …
The Christian God is referred to with the male pronoun because
that is how He has revealed Himself.
I simply cannot know, because as humans, we cannot (yet) understand all aspects
of the world and universe we inhabit.
As humans, we will never understand everything, because only God has omniscience.
But it is fallacious to claim that you cannot know that God exists if you do not
know everything. God has revealed Himself in Scripture
and through the Incarnation of His
Son, Jesus Christ. But, logically, one would
have to be omniscient to conclusively prove that God does not exist, which
would be proving a negative.
But based on the evidence that evolutionists have, compared to that of creationists,
I tend to want to consider myself on the side of Atheism and evolutionists.
When I fairly compared the evidence of the evolutionists to that of the creationists
years ago, I came to exactly the opposite conclusion.
The third email, very brief, came from a respondent in the United
Kingdom who identified themselves only as “You’re stupid”:
Creationists make me laugh…..none of what you have said makes any sense.
LC: Is such elementary name-calling supposed to make me change
my position? Just as the above atheist’s ignorance of the Bible is not an
argument against Christianity, your inability to comprehend my article is not an
argument against it. With rhetoric of this level, it is no surprise that
evolution is not gaining a foothold in public opinion. And this is despite
having huge amounts of money coerced from taxpayers to indoctrinate
students, fund the National Academy of Sciences evolutionary
agitprop and public broadcasters.
Comment on this feedback response
J.M. from Australia writes:
I just read Lita Cosner’s response to the pathetic arguments from Spore supporters,
and just wanted to say how fantastic her rebuttal was. I was laughing the whole
way through at some of the vitriol that these people come up with! Seriously, arguing
with uninformed evolutionists/atheist/agnostics or whatever they want to call themselves
is like arguing with teenagers with attitude — they don’t listen to
what you’re saying, but persist with illogical, misinformed, childish arguments
which have no basis in reality, and continually think they are so smart and creationists
are so dumb. I’ve given up debating these people on forums because they really
have no idea what they are talking about. Actually reading the Bible and what creationists
believe would help. I would probably get a more reasonable response by arguing with
a brick wall. Anyway, I just wanted to congratulate Lita on her response, I thought
it was very concise and logical. Keep up the good work despite the garbage you have
to put up with from some people who are too old to be playing computer games anyway.
|
Further reading
Related resources
|
