|
You talked about simulating the Sims, and everything coming from that, rather than necessarily being a top-down simulation.
OQ: Definitely. The bottom-up. It's worth pointing out that it's not just the Sims who are simulation elements. The buildings are simulation elements as well as are, say, the vehicles, as are the map. The important point there is that it's coming up. It's a simulation that's built of interacting parts as opposed to a modeled, top-down simulation.
At the presentation, someone did you ask about Dwarf Fortress and things like that. Has that kind of thinking had a profound effect? And it is an under-the-hood effect, or is it a paradigm shift for how things operate, in terms of the ways the players will perceive really clearly?
OQ: The main thing that it lets us do is describe a much larger simulation landscape for players to explore. If you're doing -- I'm going to call it a "monolithic", or top-down simulation in advance, you define the bounds of that simulation landscape of what the player gets to do up front. You're really not going to do anything that's not pre-defined in that.
But with this approach, essentially an object-based approach, or a bottom-up approach, as you add new components you get to do new things. You as the player get to do new things. So the simulation landscape is potentially unbounded. You just add more components and you get more things.
Lego is a good metaphor for that. So, think of the difference between, like, a jigsaw puzzle, where you've got all those pieces and they snap together in that way and you're kinda done, versus Lego, where you can reconfigure those Lego pieces in a bazillion different ways and new Lego pieces all work with your existing Lego set and extend the things that you get to do with it.
So we've been kinda self-consciously going with this bottom-up, object-based simulation -- not just because it gives you more simulation integrity. Not just because the simulation is actually localized at a sticking place, and each house or each vehicle or each Sim or whatnot. But it's also because it lets you reconfigure it. It lets you add stuff to the simulation by adding new objects. And so I just think that's just a more exciting open-ended way of defining a simulated world. New objects come into the world and the world changes as a consequence.
Is that what inspired you to do it? The sense that it would make the game more open-ended, or more variable?
OQ: It's the combination of having it be more open-ended, so that you combine things and get new behavior, and it's also the desire to have something that's got more close-in integrity. You know, by way of contrast with SimCity 4, because it was a model with top-down simulation, we wanted to tell you details about what was going in a given building or on a given block or on a given street or in a given car. We essentially had to make it up, and we had to do some smoke and mirrors tricks to try and make it so we weren't contradicting ourselves. Because that data wasn't really there.
But with this new simulation -- the simulation's taking place in a building, and there's enough integrity to what's actually going on inside that particular building that no matter how we show you the data, we're not contradicting ourselves, because it's really there. It's like the joke about why it's easier to tell the truth than be a liar. If you're telling the truth, you just tell the story, and tell it from this angle and tell it from that angle and tell it from the other angle, and it all lines up because it's fundamentally the truth. But if you're a liar, you have to keep all your facts straight in your head, right?
So, with these much, much simpler, less-sophisticated simulations that we had to make due to limited CPU resources in the past, we had to struggle to keep our stories straight about what was going on in a given building or on a given block or on a given part of the neighborhood. With this new one, any way that we want to expose the data to you as the player about what's going on in a given area on a given building with a given Sim, with a given car, we're just surfacing what the simulation's actually doing. So our problem is more a UI problem of getting the data to you rather than a game-design problem of, "Well, what do we tell them this time?" If that makes sense to you.
When you make creative decisions on this game is it about creating, as you say, a simulation with integrity and readability, and that will automatically be satisfying to the player? Or is it about player satisfaction and then working backwards from that? How do you do that?
OQ: So, we think about things that would be a lot of fun to do. Like, we know there are things that are fun to do from previous SimCitys. We know it's fun to zone and see stuff come to life. We know it's fun to see cars drive around. There's a bunch of proven, as it were, SimCity satisfactions.
So, for starters, we need to make sure that we hit those satisfactions and we design towards those basic fundamental satisfactions that come with the game. Blowing up buildings, seeing traffic jams form. Solving traffic jams.
And then for the new stuff that we're doing, we think about, well, "This is stuff that we could do that naturally grows out of what the simulation is doing. What would be some fun things to do with this? What would be some satisfying, exciting things to do with it?" That's kind of the simultaneously top-down and bottom-up thing. We get this simulation running and then we iterate on it. "Where is this taking us? This is kinda fun. Wouldn't it be cool if we did this?" Then we kinda bend the simulation towards that.
So, something as complicated to pull off as SimCity is, as necessarily a kind of combination of those bottom-up discovery processes. You do stuff and see what's satisfying and fun and exciting to do. And also, kind of a larger top-down vision of what you might want the player to be able to do and then how you bend the capability of the simulation toward that end. So, it's a "yes, and." It's not the crisp answer you're hoping for but it's too big a project for it to be one or the other.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
It should make it less complicated because everything is visible at a glance. A huge example is that traffic you see on the road is the actual traffic on the road - unlike previous games where you could see no traffic, traffic, and maybe one or two intermediate steps. Pollution and crime will be instantly visible. It should lead to a lot less gazing at graphs. If you want to!
It should also make cause and effect much clearer. I especially like the idea that, for example, sick people don't just randomly spring into existence, but the sims actually infect each other by contact or people get sick from things like pollution.
In theory, if they pull this off, it means that everything is much more transparent and you can focus on policy rather than minutiae.
The entire interview is about how Sim City seems to be trying the opposite of that. There are a lot of things, but they're all there in front of you, and everything you see is part of showing you how things are working and why.
"Oh, so these cars appear at these houses in the morning and go to these factories. Which means these people work at these factories!" Easy right? In other words its "complicated" but obvious what's going on if you just look.
Whereas most other games today have been ripped of every feature but murder not because those things were bad, but because they weren't presented as obviously as "murder this dude with this gun" and so people didn't know what to do with them.
Maxis just needs to make sure the game hits runtime performance goals. I cannot adequately manage New Seattle at 5 frames per second! :p
You can tell he was prepared for this question because he answered it in the most neutral way possible. But the fact of the matter is that the game assumes that global warming exists and is significantly contributed to by humankind's burning of fossil fuels. So there is really no way to stay neutral on the subject. The fact of the matter is that a large number of conservatives don't accept this idea.
In fact the entire game of Spore seems to accept the theory of evolution(even if in the game it is guided by the player - or God which is not something I would ever dispute with someone).
Politics finds it's way into any simulation. People like to think of science as being separate from politics but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of scientists are democrats or liberal independents.
"The Democratic Party also has strong support among scientists, with 55% identifying as Democrats, 32% as Independents, and 6% as Republicans and 52% identifying as liberal, 35% as moderate, and 9% as conservative." [26]
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religio
n/
Now granted, alot of scientists are paid by the government - but c'mon - use your feelings Anakin. Something's not right here.
But beyond that we are not attempting to encode our ideology into the game and force people to believe what we want them to believe in order to succeed at it."
---
I don't see anything disingenuous or evasive about his response there. Seems like an open and honest response and if that comes across as somehow "diplomatic" then so be it I guess. In the heightened political climate of our times I think we can find a way to make everything political. If someone is trying to build a model using the best available research and data and some group doesn't like the results or implications of that research, then that just cannot be helped. That doesn't make the model inherently political imo.
Beyond that, obviously everything people create is influenced by who they are and what they know (or think they know) and believe to be true. That is an inescapable reality. We don't let the fact that we don't know everything stop us from drawing conclusions, making decisions and taking action.
But I don't squawk when there are political views (separate from evolution). And I think the reason why is because frankly, no one has the right answer atm. what separates good political immersion to me is a myriad of choices.
As contrast this is the reason why Deus Ex:HR functions, while their may be 2 strong pollitcally motivated structures at play their is really the answer left up to the individual to reason out and add in as they see the world. It's the ideas being explored that is important. The ideas being demonstrated in a very truthful objective (as possible) manner that makes for a quality subjective choice.
Ad I think humility plays a role too, if someone tells me this is the way it is and screw you for disagreeing thats a problem. Or if their is too much subterfuge in game mechanics ....like
World of Tanks for instance that based it firepower superiority of the likes and dislike of Russian players, nto objective critical view points.
the other issue is of course a complete depenence on science and loss of morality, science is awesome but it is nothing more than a tool to use to measure by. It ultimately doesn't explain the meaning of the universe and can't tell us much more than we can subjectively hypothesize about our daily lives.
When it becomes something more than that, it is propaganda plain and simple. Typically where the worst offense lies is in conjuction with evolution.
@Joshua You didn't buy Spore because of which problem? That it supports evolution? Or that it supports Intelligent Design?
Cause, here's the thing, you might want to give it a try someday. Cause it supports neither. You just go around attaching legs and mouths to create your own 3D model. It really doesn't speak to much of any belief system. And it was a pretty fun game, all in all.
If nearly all people who call themselves scientists (which means they at least superficially believe in the study the natural world and base their conclusions off of actual evidence and the scientific method) are democrats or liberal independents. IDK Jacob - it should be pretty obvious to you what that means.
But what I am saying is very simple. It is not complicated at all. So I will just spell it out for you.
And it is the same thing that Steven Colbert once said.
"Reality has a strong liberal bias".
What would a Republican Simcity look like? Well, taxes would pretty much always be bad. Christian religion would pretty much always be a force for good. Islam and any other religion would be bad.
You would be better off not directly building public schools. You would do better to rely on the "free market" to educate people to have basic reading skills. Same goes for colleges.
"Scientists" and "College Professors" would promote civil disobedience in a republican SimCity as well I would think.
As I said before, I am a liberal, so I can only guess what a Republican Simcity would look like. But I would be very interested in seeing it done by someone who is actually a republican because I think that it might help alot of republicans to rethink their understanding of the world.
If science is the pursuit of truth, and the truth will set you free, then why aren't there more republicans who call themselves scientists?
And, I agree that a SimCity made by a Republican politician would look... well, very much like you described.
If you are referring to the player as "intelligent design" component in Spore, I am going to have to disagree with your understanding of intelligent design.
"One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity" -- Center for science and culture.
Spore is a demonstration of evolution, pure and simple. Which is besides the point whether it is or isn't, I believe in God.
Spore is also a demonstration ( I believe) of Darwinism, Machiavelianism (always misspell this one) as well.
all the way from a single cell organism to space invaders.
I've tested the game demo'ed I suppose, but it's brusque cause and effect is a little much for me to see through to the diamonds within.
I mean what if, just what if something "just happened", but adding player prerogative do any justice to really any other completely opposed beliefs.
It's frankly Mr' Potatoe head or centipede meets evolution propaganda, on purpose or not ... just like teaching children about dinosaurs "millions" of years ago based on layers of assumption, without any contrasting view points.
while as a game it's functionality is fascinating, and I don't willy-nilly "throw away" good ideas this one is pretty hard to seperate from it's poignant bias.
I played a race which was carnivorous, aggressive, and killed everything in its path. And I played a race that ate only vegetables, fruits, and made friends with everyone playing music all along the way. It eventually roamed the universe settling uncivilized planets until I got bored and started over.
As for the evolution, there wasn't any, apart from the "Cell" stage heading over to the "Animal" stage. Even then, you could go over to some planet and just create/spontaneously evolve/whatever some creature, sidestepping evolution pretty clearly.
Again, it was just a game. I actually wish evolution were far more a part of it, but then it would've lacked that artistic bent.
And concerning "irreducible complexity", I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, because Spore was far too game-y to speak to evolution or intelligent design on a level of functionality or natural progression. You just plop on arms and plop on some eyes. I think you might be reading more into it than should or even can be read into a game that was a do-it-yourself 3D modeler.
Being able to side step the ideas of evolution in the game, doesn't change the fact the ideas are still entirely evolutionist. It's the basic bias of it's format. Simply because it didn't pronounce itself as evolutionary doctrine with more empirical emphasis of comprehension doesn't change that again all the ideas are Darwinian or evolving from a microbe to a space invader.
If you want to believe it's just a game, ok. But it's only a game insomuch as it's 'gameplay" centers around the ideas of evolving species, and Mr.potato head. changing somewhere in the middle to darwinian survival and some play mixed in. Coupled with the previous ideas.
Again that's fine you don't have to recognize those ideas, but they are there nonetheless without a better name.
I understand he had to be diplomatic. I would be too. When you have a business - you don't want to alienate potential customers. But anyone with half a brain should see the "overt politics" in the game's mechanics and simulation assumptions.
So, game designers/marketers I can understand - but bloggers and game aficionados should understand the overt politics that exist in many games.
But whose beliefs? More pointedly, what game-mechanic reason requires that only one particular set of social, economic, and foreign policy beliefs can be encoded into a large-scale sim game? Why hardcode elements of any single political belief system when there's evidence that you don't have to?
While it wasn't precisely a sim game, I thought Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri handled politics brilliantly. SMAC's social settings imposed various socioeconomic benefits and penalties defined by its designers. For example, the Free Markets social policy had the single biggest penalty of any policy -- that was a simulation choice by the designers, which reflected a particular political worldview.
What made SMAC interesting and relevant to Maxis's Sim City is that SMAC was built to read in from external files the values defining each social policy. If someone disagreed (as I did) with the encoded definitions of any of SMAC's social (i. e., political) policies, then by editing the input files they could change the parameters of the simulation.
A good designer editing those files would also take care that any changes did not unbalance the challenge level of the game as a game. But by design, anyone playing SMAC had the power to alter the political biases behind the default rules of the simulation part of the game.
That is respect.
Today a developer might (as the Civ IV team did) store those parameters as XML rather than flat files, but the basic idea is still available to anyone, including the designers of the latest Sim City. If you're truly serious about not imposing elements of a particular political belief system on the people who buy your simulation game -- especially when you know that many of those people will see the world differently from you and from each other, that they can cite their own data and studies and philosophies and experiences to back up their belief system, and that their money spends exactly the same as anyone else's -- then why wouldn't you explicitly design your game so that players can easily try out alternate rules of reality?
For a relatively small hit in design, development, and testing costs to expose parameters, you gain the benefit of not unnecessarily irritating customers, instead demonstrating to them that you know how to put good gameplay over personal political beliefs. In fact, you probably score some of those people as long-term customers precisely because your design tells them that you respect different beliefs even when you don't agree with them.
That seems like good design and good business to me. Here's hoping Sim City is easily moddable.
Using a previously cited example, a game claiming a player *should* adopt Free Markets would be political, while Alpha Centauri's representation of Free Markets as one of many options involving detrimental ecological impact (-6 eco, if I remember correctly?) is less a "perspective" and more an acknowledged casualty of a lack of regulation.
Certainly, a designers viewpoint could create some cause and effect that is heavily biased, but simply basing game mechanics on humanity's understanding of the known world is hardly "political". The concept of global warming wouldn't be a political insertion into a game, but simply a fact of the world as best we understand it, and we understand it to a decent degree on that subject.
So, I think my point is that I see ethical problems in catering to falsehoods in the name of "balance", let alone profit. Certainly, a game generally shouldn't support one of a few equitable but opposing perspectives, but neither should designers intentionally ignore educational and social benefits that games might offer for the sake of maximizing profits or catering to political headwinds of the day.
We run the risk of not only ignoring social responsibilities (e.g. educational prospects concerning global warming), but becoming less of timeless art and more of an outmoded snapshot of a more primitive world perspective (e.g. entertainers in black-face).
The problem is Jacob, The reason republicans and democrats disagree on so much is because they have different understandings of the world. "the world as we understand it" is relative to what political party you ascribe to. Politics is not just about morals or what is "right". Because both parties are trying to do what they think is right. Unfortuately for many republicans, they think poor people are bad, lazy, beggars. Or they think people who aren't christian are immoral. But politics is also about scientifically what are the best policies to have in place in our society, that will operate under the conditions of the natural world to improve the country's well-being (and thereby hopefully its people as well).
That's only true if you listen to those guys who make careers convincing you they're right, as opposed to the guys who make careers finding out what's right. If you take away the politicians and 24-hour news channel talking heads, the only ones talking about global warming are the people who study it, who have data telling them what's up, and who say "Um, everyone, we're in a bit of a pickle". When I say "the world as we understand it", I mean "we" as in humanity as a whole, rather than isolated (if large) groups who contradict facts, data, and experts because people on TV told them it was true.
I'm going at the assumption that game designers should be researching, with real research, aspects of their games they want accurate. Physics equations if they want Earth physics, social statistics if they want a social simulation, research on psychological effects if you were making a game about individuals using non-lethal means of goal completion, etc. Rather than just typing randomly at keyboards based off of a book they read once or a news segment they saw. Just, you know, assuming (maybe wrongly) that there's some professional ethics going on in this field.
"Because both parties are trying to do what they think is right."
"But politics is also about scientifically what are the best policies to have in place in our society"
Both parties do what they think they *should* do, but this doesn't meant they have used science, ethics, logic, or any other such thing to make that decision. It doesn't even mean it's what the politicians themselves believe, if they think they can't get away with platforming on their own ideologies.
Global warming is a pretty solid example, as all data shows that we are in serious trouble in the future, ecologically, economically, and everything else. But one side says "Let's take short-term losses for long-term gain" and the other side says long-term losses for short-term gain. Politics is choosing which side, and making your side sound better than the alternative to garner the votes.
But those are details. My point is larger; it's that excluding widely-held public policy viewpoints you don't agree with -- whatever they are -- from a simulation is putting personal politics over good gameplay.
Here's what I mean. I'm working on a personal game (which is unlikely ever to go commercial) that lets players choose technologies and concepts for a civilization. I personally believe that communism was and is a murderously evil form of human organization... but it's one of several choices that players can make in the game. Including communism as a valid play option is not an endorsement of that political belief system, and excluding it would not give me +1 to ethics. It's in there, along with other systems, because a simulation of how people can organize themselves is more accurate and thus more enjoyable with it than without it.
Of course the gameplay consequences of choosing any available organizational form need to conform to observable reality, and that's subject to disagreement. So I plan to make those consequences user-editable (on the off-chance that anyone ever plays this thing) so that my biases aren't hard-coded.
Again: in a simulation game, it's good to try to design belief-based gameplay systems in a way that's fair to those who hold those beliefs. Most players will be fine with that. But for those who aren't, it's also good to give them a way to set simulation parameters that make the game they're paying for more enjoyable.
Bearing in mind that there are always some practical limits on how far you can accommodate people, and how parameterized you can make some parts of a simulation, "let the player change your assumptions" still seems like a reasonable design pattern to me. Is there some reason why that might be bad design or ethically questionable in a game that simulates broad areas of social and economic policy?
One other thing: good job to Christian for asking the question that sparked this discussion. Not everything has to go political (as too much on Gamasutra has these days IMO). But simulating the government of a city is an area where politics would naturally occur. Asking whether the personal politics of people at Maxis would tilt the gameplay of Sim City was good gaming journalism.
Let's stick with global warming since it seems we both agree on the scientific evidence on that subject.
"Global warming is a pretty solid example, as all data shows that we are in serious trouble in the future, ecologically, economically, and everything else. But one side says "Let's take short-term losses for long-term gain" and the other side says long-term losses for short-term gain. Politics is choosing which side, and making your side sound better than the alternative to garner the votes."
Republicans are not just saying let's take "long-term losses for short-term gain". They are saying there are no long term losses or they are saying those long term losses are not man-made or man-contributed.
As the president(Obama) once emphatically told republicans during a state of the union address - "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts".
So you see, agreeing on the facts (or as I like to call it, the scientific evidence) is a huge problem in politics and plays a large part in the reason our political system is so contentous.
It seems like you are understanding politics as specifically definition 1b. But it is also defined more generally as 1a - the art or science of governing a society(hopefully effectively).
Definition of POLITICS
1a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2: political actions, practices, or policies
3a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view
@Bart
"I personally believe that communism was and is a murderously evil form of human organization"
It depends what you mean by communism. A lot of american conservatives consider communism to be a form of government, when it is actually an economic organization. That is to say, all assets are owned or controlled by the government under communism.
But what about China? China(I think we can both agree) is a dictatorship. That is to say they don't have real elections. But most of the companies in China are privately owned. In fact, McDonalds and Foxconn operate quite profitably in China. So is China really communist? or is it actually just a capitalistic dictatorship?
So is it possible to have a communist democracy?
So, (sorry for the length) , I would agree that a dictatorship (whether communist or capitalistic) is evil under any reasonable circumstances(barring end of the world or alien invasion scenarios).
A communist democracy would just be an inefficient way to organize your economy. I would not necessarily call it evil. Capitalism is an extremely efficient way to organize your economy. It is SCIENTIFICALLY more efficient based on historical evidence. That's why democrats such as myself like it.
So in a SimCity/Civ type game, I would consider capitalism a sort of upgrade that you have to buy or possibly gain somehow through the game's mechanics.
As for your example, you're still discussing how you wouldn't want to tell a player what they *should* do. So, in doing so, giving them the option of communism, capitalism, socialism, or other options would be reasonable. However, saying, for example, that strict capitalism would lead to greater adverse ecological effects compared to other governmental/economic models wouldn't be politics. It's just fact. Less regulation over private entities that harm the environment will never be better ecologically than more regulation. Political perspectives invading game design would be some bias which cannot be fairly researched by a dominant opinion of that respective field.
So, I think it's fair for you to put in multiple government types and have advantages and disadvantages, and it's of course going to sway one way or another because of your perspective. But there's a problem when a designer hits the line of ignoring fact for the sake of "concern" for the "opinions" of those who ignore reality as best we can understand it.
@Gerald "Republicans are not just saying let's take "long-term losses for short-term gain". They are saying there are no long term losses or they are saying those long term losses are not man-made or man-contributed."
I realize what they're *saying*. However, this is their mindset, nonetheless. I am under no illusion that what politicians say to their constituents and what they believe are two separate things.
Science overwhelmingly shows that yes, there will be effects, and yes, they will be significant and negative. Thus, to say that regulation would harm the economy to such an extent that the data from experts does not sway them is to say that those long-term effects just aren't worth the short-term effects. I guess I'm coming from the stance of "actions" speaking louder than words, and their opinions on global warming being little more than political tactics because "Corporate profits are more important than your grandchildren's health" doesn't sound too great to voters.
My point is, then, that the science is so sound, so undisputed, that it is unethical to ignore it and not educate those who hear falsehoods simply for this strange idea that we need to take tender care of the feelings of those who embrace such falsehoods.
Global warming is a serious enough threat, but let me use another, equally serious and perhaps even more controversial example. If a game had sexual preference, you might recognize that a large percentage of your players felt uncomfortable with homosexual characters. You could, say, allow the player to erect reparative therapy centers in your city/world/whatever, and let the homosexual population dwindled. However, this would feed into a falsehood that such "therapy" is anything but ineffective and dangerous.
Or, you could simply allow a setting for "No gays". But that in itself would be offensive to a large segment of your player base, not to mention contradicting our diverse reality, science, and our social responsibility to speak beyond "killing time" with this medium. Allowing comfortable solutions to "alternative perspectives" on what science speaks of homosexuality would be no better than catering to other forms of bigotry.
I'm rambling a bit, but my point is that what some are calling "politics", I call an ethical responsibility to not concede to known falsehoods and, for what? To coddle our players? To maximize profits? To ensure customer loyalty? Be respectful of other world perspectives, but let research stand on its own, whether the question is of physics, psychology, sociology, or climatology.
"My point is, then, that the science is so sound, so undisputed, that it is unethical to ignore it and not educate those who hear falsehoods simply for this strange idea that we need to take tender care of the feelings of those who embrace such falsehoods."
Science is nothing more than a tool for measurement of things we believe we should measure.
But it doesn't explain morality, it doesn't explain good and evil, it doesn't explain why we exist and it really only ever mimics what it can measure ~ at best, it can't create. It at many points in history has demonstrated false evidence. Also the more we attempt to "solve" the more we realize how infinitely complex "existence is".
And ultimately, science doesn't satisfy the conscious soul, it only brings the inevitable conclusion that "existence" is just function, which is utterly meaningless without subjective understanding.
"And ultimately, science doesn't satisfy the conscious soul"
I never said it did. I just said it's unethical to ignore what we know of the world to cater to those who ignore data and reason for the sake of talking heads on TV.
Showing reason, meaning, or the like in a game is the artistic side of design. It's the story, the deep seeded utilization of mechanics to show aspects of life, the expression of experiences... the art.
But when you're trying to find the equation for gravitational force, or the likelihood of a given effect of global warming based on different levels of prevention, or the social effects of some event, you look to science.
Meaning is valuable, but it's the realm of art and religion, as you said. Equations and cause and effect, meanwhile, are the realm of science. A person should no more look to politicians or papal authorities for answers to how the world works as they should look to scientists for why it works.
Not everyone does that.
I don't disagree that news media is way too powerful. In fact it's the worst problem that faces humanity today, and frankly from my perspective it's a ticking time bomb from which there is no escape.
But I think if you want to convince people that "science" has more correct answers that should be agreed upon you have to speak to people on a level of maturity that doesn't justify a disapproval by association.
Part of that association is a disdain for what people believe in, right or wrong. Part of the association is actually objectively understanding that everything isn't "provable" and some things have meaning with just trust.
The catholic church pays scientists to study evolution.
Evolution is something you can determine by looking at the facts. It should not conflict with your faith in any way.
Just the simple fact that they can evolve bacteria in a specific way to create medicines should be enough to explain the existence of evolution to you; let alone the fact that they have found fossilized remains of creatures that appear to exhibit traits of humans but also have robust "ape-like" features.
Evolution is basically change over time. I don't think change over time should conflict with your faith.
You are right when you say that there are some things that science will never be able to explain - and that only you yourself can answer spiritually. But when science can explain something - you should not let it conflict with your faith.
I would compare it to all the religous people who refused to believe that the earth orbits the sun back in the old times.
n/
I found this article looking for good information on the net about evolution and God. I would really like to some article that has a strong evidential argumentation for evolutionary theory. Most of the stuff I was able to locate was about Darwinian species jumps. Or blogs about biases.
the 2 things I find more fascinating are this,
1 The idea of dating which doesn't seem to necessarily support or not support either side and seems "mostly" neutral in it's application.
2 Evolution is widely accepted and debated as to how it works. while there are a lot of blogging "support groups" there doesn't seem to be any really unarguable evidence supporting it.
Either way to me the more important issues of the human condition. What these ideas cost us and what we gain in recognition. If "change over time" is important to the human condition, does creating an "anti-faith" around it help humanity?
"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable."
icr.org is the website for the institute of creation research. The word "creation" implies an inherent bias in their research. It is related to the word "creationism". It would be like someone naming their organization - "The Institute for the Study of How the Earth is the Center of the Solar System" - and then go on to have a disingenuous debate about whether or not the earth goes around the sun or vice versa.
Carbon dating is actually not extraordinarily complicated. You understand the concept of radioactivity and radioactive decay correct? Do you understand what the word "half life" means? The name of the famous valve game.
Basically all plants on earth absorb an isotope of carbon from the atmosphere called carbon-14. They do this through photosynthesis. Carbon-14 is a slightly radioactive isotope of carbon. It has a half life of 5,730 years. Since we know that all living animals contain carbon-14 in amounts that correlate with the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere - and we know that they stop absorbing carbon-14 when they die - we can use basic math to determine when an animal died by observing how much carbon-14 their fossilized/preserved flesh or bones contain. Scientists will take a sample of a fossilized/preserved dead organism's flesh or bones and observe the ratio of carbon-14 to the carbon-14 decay products that are present.
Carbon dating is accurate up to 58,000 to 62,000 years.
Other radioactive isotopes that have a longer half life can be used to date much older fossils and just how long ago stones were formed in general.
Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates. - This is how they date dinosaur bones.
"Either way to me the more important issues of the human condition. What these ideas cost us and what we gain in recognition. If "change over time" is important to the human condition, does creating an "anti-faith" around it help humanity?"
You are farther gone than I thought.
Are you saying that people who accept and study the theory of evolution are "anti faith"? Are you saying scientists are "anti faith"? Are you saying change over time is "anti-faith"?
I have a quote for you Joshua.
Jesus said "...you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32
If you don't believe this then this discussion (and really any discussion with you) is pointless. If you want to bask in your ignorance of the natural world because you think that is what Jesus wants, then go right ahead. Just don't go around preaching your BS to other people.
Actually, yes "generally" having an anti-faith is synonymous with evolution "believers".
Maybe not you though right?
So anyways, evolution isn't answered through carbon dating isotope 14 or radiometric dating. Not that they aren't very strong arguments for a general timeline of things, they simply don't support evolution.
If there is some information you would like to disclose on evolution that refutes the gap problems (or even your theory) I would love to read about it. Or perhaps the problem of second thermo law, or whether natural evolution is even demonstratable.
Also Gerald, your particular disdain for creation is apparent, your bias is clear, however, evolution whether you want to believe it or not is a belief system, and from the amount of constant unquestioned belief in it, it demonstrates moreso as a religion.
The gap problems are exaggerated by the creationism community - basically it just means that we will continue to improve our fossil record when it comes to finding more. The fact of the matter is that we have humanoid fossils that range all the way from what you would probably call an "ape man" all the way up to modern humans. Everywhere in between - but we will keep looking for more.
All you have to do is Google "famous anthropology fossils" and you can look at them all for yourself.
How do you explain a fossil that appears to be humanoid but not quite human(in fact rather ape-like)?
I actually don't have these discussions with people to change their minds(as I know from experience that many people ignore factual evidence in favor of their own misguided ideas even when it is blatantly obvious). The reason I have these discussions is to find people that I don't ever really have to pay attention to. I can basically just pass over all your future comments as those of a rather confused person.
You can redeem yourself though. You just have to look for your own answers based on factual evidence.
So I did some homework (using your idea) despite your behavior and I found this.
Something else I've noted is in every find (I think), volcanic activity was present.
While there seems to be some interest in actually studying the truth, a lot of these studies and articles seem to center around hypothesis .. like "no fire /burn marks in soil" means not a cave dweller ect.
Which is interesting, but it's just hypothesis.
If you would sink to my level once more is there a particular site that demonstrates some conclusive evidence that isn't disputed? Google isn't all that direct, generally just pop tpoics .. like this month it's about brain finding in the skulls ect.
in particular which of the "links" are the central focus .. can only find Lucy and Arda the monkies.
If you are truly interested in changing your mind on the subject; I would recommend an anthropology book on the subject.
If you want a dry but highly informative textbook, I would recommend:
Anthropology - William A. Haviland - Paperback ... 4th Edition
This edition literally sells for a dollar(not including shipping) There is probably a much newer edition by now.
If you want something more entertaining(and free but not as reliable) I would recommend reading Wikipedia. And if you want to you can spend time on Wikipedia looking for links to books or articles.
This would be a great place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
If you dislike or distrust Wikipedia I would recommend:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/2 50596/The-foss
il-evidence
When you say "disputed" what do you mean? If you mean disputed by other qualified and respected scientists then none of the vital facts are disputed. If you mean "disputed" as in it is disputed by the creationism community then all of it is disputed.
If you want to find a scientific book that will even consider creationism - you will have a tough time. Most scientists just want to move past that old debate and get on with the questions of what does it mean to us; not whether or not it happened.
If you find the idea of human evolution to be too disturbing then start with animal evolution in general. Work your way up to it.
Just thought I'd pop in with a link to an overview of Evolution, and a youtube-personality named AronRa who has a ton of videos concerning Evolution. AronRa may be a bit abrasive, as he has no love for Creationists, but I hope you can see past that! The youtube-link is to the first series that came to mind.
I think the Theory of Evolution is fascinating stuff, and unless you're a fundamentalist religious person, I don't see why Evolution should be so divisive to you? I guess it would be a lot clearer why you dislike Evolution if you would elaborate on your beliefs. If you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible (assuming you're christian), particularly the account of Genesis, then that is an obvious point of schism.
Overview:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
AronRa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91UAzMNUDLU
I personally prefer and would recommend walls of boring text. But if you want something that is more combative and exciting then AronRa might be a good choice.
You might need a little bit of tolerance to watch AronRa though - he seems to be a little bit abrasive indeed. But the information he presents is interesting and informative nonetheless.
While the answers I am certain by faith are not in evolution, this does not mean that a pursuit of changes in life in it's many forms isn't a valid pursuit. I think though to limit our understanding to evolution is a serious crime against scientific pursuit itself, and it being only 1 of many faith based ideologies to be in offence of freedom of religion to other belief system as well as its own endeavors.
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
I also found this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8
This is 2010 I believe, and not swept under the carpet as I was led to believe. nonetheless thank you for your interest in my learning it was very kool. =)
I suppose as a direct statement of what I believe would be that Jesus Christ died for our sins.
The reason why this is such a critical statement of faith and the proceeding action upon it is there lies an acknowledgement that this one critical belief about the nature of God determines the fate of my eternal soul.
This may seem to a modern atheist as a fairy story, but the moral truth is indisputable. the knowledge of good and evil, the nature of women and men in circumstances when confronted by choices, and conscious existence in and of itself cannot be explained by genes or anything scientifically provable.
The question comes to me like this as example, if I choose to look for God, which direction do I choose (up,down,all around)? If I don't choose to look for God, what am I missing out on? And if I do choose to search for God in people, the earth and the stars. Does it make sense to search for the same answers I have already found?
And I can tell you from my experience that I have never felt so at peace than when I have relinquinshed all my fears and troubles to God.
I am pretty undecided about creationism vs. intelligent design. If I were forced to argue it I would probably side with creationism. As I do believe in miracles, specifically biblical ones.
I think a game like Spore shuts out the possibility of the unknowable and this conceit shuts out the imagination by association. Which is ironic.
Water distribution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHR06lIPUFc
Economic loop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mbzb1rU7xE
Fire!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gv5XxEkcrQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpVNMpVAVj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ79RvO3Fkk