From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:40:29 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

ken@sycraft.com (Ken Richardson) writes:
>Well, I appreciate your conviction.  But "confirmation" is a bit strong.
>
>I mean, consider for a moment: If you were the Creator, and you were about
>to create life, what techniques would you use to put order and simplicity
>into the task?  Object-oriented techniques!
>
>What are object-oriented techniques?  They are a philosophy and approach to
>computer programming that promote code re-use.  And computer programs are
>not unlike DNA programs.
>
>In fact, object oriented programming makes reusing code easier than *not*
>reusing code.  So extending this to its natural conclusion, I would expect
>the process of creating life to be a more simple and orderly process by
>reusing DNA rather than not.
>
>So while at first sight it may seem astounding that chimps and humans have
>99% similarity in their DNA, I would be surprised if that were *not* the
>case, considering the similarity of the overall "systems".  Assuming, of
>course, that object oriented techniques were applied in their creation.
>
>While my analogy may seem only tangentially relevant to those who are not
>personally experienced with object oriented programming, those who *have*
>used those techniques will surely see the applicability of the analogy to
>the discussion of "How could chimp/human DNA be 99% alike?"

I have used such techniques, and I find OOP completely irrelevant to the
issue, and of extremely dubious worth in claiming that living things are
designed by a God.

1)  Implies that the new, trendy method of programming is THE WAY to really
do things.  Programming practices have changed drastically over the past and
will continue to do so in the future.  Ya can't have God using inferior
methods, now can you.

2)  The *biggest* reason OOP is used today destroys the analogy to design by
God: economics

	* Does OOP make the task of programming easier for a single programmer?

	No.  OOP does nothing to reduce the complexity of a program in any way.
	It only re-arranges the compexity within the program.

	*If OOP doesn't reduce the complexity, then why use it over other
	methods?

	OOP is advantagous for a programming TEAM.  OOP can rearrange the
	complexity by shoving most of it into objects, which can each be written
	by a single programmer.  The complexity of an object is hidden inside,
	and the other programmers need know nothing about it.  With older
	programming methods, every programmer had to know how every part of the
	program works.  OOP relieves that burden, and breaks up the complexity of
	a program into bits that programmers can manage.

	The result of this is that programs can be written, debugged, and updated
	much faster.  This translates into a much lower cost for programming,
	therefore it is much more economical to use OOP.

So, OOP has its greatest benefit when used by a team of designers (or Gods).
(Hey, what was that that just hit the theological fan?)  It also has an
almighty God using methods developed to work around the limits of us puny,
limited, little humans.  Your analogy leaves much to be desired.

3)  A major concept of OOP, multiple inheiritance, is not found anywhere in
living things.  The only relationships are single inheiritance.  Even things
that appear to preform the same function are inheirited from their parent
class, and not from a sister class.  Take the flippers/fins of fish,
ithycisarus (sp?), penguins, and whales.  They are all structures inheirited
from their respective classes, and are quite different from each other even
though they preform the same function.

4)  DNA coding is very different from computer programs, esp. OOP programs.
DNA isn't even a program or a blueprint.  It's more like a recipie.  If you
change part of the DNA code, it affects the rest of the organism.  This is
one of the major things OOP is supposed to eliminate.  Also you can't take
part of a DNA code, stick it into another type of organism, and have it
produce the same effect.  The DNA code is affected by all the other DNA
codings, and will act differently in different organisms.

5)  Code is never seen to be re-used.  The flippers example above is a case
in point.  Another is that for many proteins that preform the same function,
like hemaglobin for example, are different for almost every single species
on earth, and even show varients within a species.

>There is, after all, a high degree of similarity between DNA programs
>and computer programs.

Not at all.

>--------------------------------------------
>Ken Richardson		SyCraft Software
>ken@sycraft.com		Colorado Springs, CO


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |