From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Son of Creationist Crapola.
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:24:04 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Sep30.022307.15291@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
>[totally brainless analogy between OOP and DNA correlation between
>species ommited]
>
>: > While my analogy may seem only tangentially relevant to those who
>: > are not personally experienced with object oriented programming,
>: 
>: I am so experienced and the analogy is nonsensical, not tangential,
>: at least as presented by you.  Do your objects randomly exchange
>: piecies when you copy them to a new program?
>: 
>
>There's a new one for the field service bullitens: "We regret to
>announce that the firmware in the Model 1234 Whatzit seems to have
>mutated into a non-functional form."
>
>Actually there has been work done on evolutionary algorithms, where
>algorithms are randomly changed, and the more successful ones are kept
>and allowed to reproduce, and the less successful ones are eliminated.
>This, of course, has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the original
>OOP/DNA comparison.

	I noted an interesting article in this weeks Newsweek, I believe
it was, which discussed evolutionary algorithms, starting with a PC
game called SimLife. A few points:


	1. Presumably, the software engineers must have to establish
the parameters by which the "evolutionary algorithms" are "selected".
This would correspond to what some folks conceive the Creator's role
to be. I personally do not have any theological problem with such
a scheme, but please read on.

	2. To use the old hackneyed Symbolics term, the Developer
has the option of creating a "World" in which he may intervene
at any point at run time. How this dovetails with evolutionary
algorithms, I am not at all sure, but to use Rushdie's pretty
neat terminology, the interaction of Creator and Creation can
take the character of "Processes to Complicated to Explain" = P2C2E.
(It is pathetically easy to take cheap shots at the ole' Lisp
Machine, but it does have a certain place in my heart :)

	3. Maybe they are Processes to Complicated to Control, too.
This is the basic argument that is going on now as to the 
desirability of genetic engineering. Is the basic lesson of Genesis
for man, "Man is in charge of the world God created. Go thou and
do likewise." or is it "The system got out of control and will 
stay that way until Judgement Day" ?


	4. If we can run "SimLife" on a stinking PC, is this a comment
on God's handiwork, or is it a comment on the shortcuts the 
developers took to get a neat, slick application on the market ?
Is the Creation all that easy, QED ? 

	5. On the other hand, I predict that we've just scratched the
surface. On the road to making Riggs a believer in evolution, I 
firmly believe that we'll have virtual nature within 10 years. As 
scientists work this stuff out, the possibilities for educational,
research, and yes, indoctrination/salesmanship applications are enormous. 
To use a slightly dishonest metaphor, we're already evolving combat systems
using virtual environments, with a good dose of AI technology to save
money. 	It is just a matter of time before science finds more
PC (excuse me - politically correct, not personal computer) domains to 
demonstrate the "evolution of created objects."
(This must be where OOP came in.)



	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.