RTOD 01MAR2009 – Creationism Vs. Evolutionism: A Programmer’s Perspective

RTOD – Creationism Vs. Evolutionism: A Programmer’s Perspective

As a person with very open idealisms, I get to enjoy hearing all sides of arguments and be able to formulate my own ideas. There are many different things that this makes me fairly privy to. Automotive. Entertainment. Religion and their information. One of them I feel a need to compare is the oft-attacked ideas of how the world and everything on it came to be. The obvious two big contenders are Creationism and Evolutionism. Now, we all know that Creationism deals with the idea that the universe, our world, and all the creatures on it in approximately a week. Evolutionism follows the idea that the universe and earth were created over billions of years in a big explosion and subsequent swirling of matter and anti-matter, eventually creating systems of planets, stars, and meteors, which evolved over years and eventually at least one created a sustainable life form which changed over millions of years to what we have now. Now, I want to show how these would both wind up being used in an ongoing and easily manageable format: A Virtual World, through the eyes of a programmer.

Now, I know that the programmer is only the person to turn the art into code, and makes certain that that code doesn’t affect other lines of code, but it’s a perfect basis, since both point can be easily illustrated.

In the idea of Creationism, the programmer would be the person who wrote everything in the universe, every living and non-living thing, and all laws of the universe. Now, the first, and most logical issue, is that that’s a lot of information to get in one shot, even spread over several months! Second, the intricate cycles would need constant adjustment until they were finally right. Am I saying that an all-powerful entity couldn’t arrange this? No, but it would still require some modification as things went on. Lastly, it would require that the programmer be exceptionally good with designs and programming. This is a program that would need to last a lo-o-ong time on one release. As most of us know, that’s rarely the case.
In the idea of Evolutionist, the programmer would start a program as, say, a few very short simple lines, and then add lines as needed to make a specific idea occur over the course of years, all the while having attached an AI to the system, allowing it to randomly affect the universe as needed. This AI would change graphics, modify code structures, and adjust placements as required, even remove poorly-performing objects, or edit them to make them fit a bigger scheme over an extended period. The first issue with that is that it would require a pre-existing rule set to work initially. What do I mean? Simple: In order for Evolutionism to work, the laws governing the universe would have to be in effect beforehand. Second, it would be excruciatingly time-consuming, and the project would never truly leave a beta-stage. Now, some programmers would argue that that isn’t necessarily the case, since a lot of games can receive updates and modifications to add, remove, or otherwise modify the coding. This presents a third issue, the releasing of beta-platform modifications in-world as a test device, which could be thought of as mutations. There aren’t enough mutations that become long-term for that to hold logical appeal. Also, the very nature of outright random modifications of lines of code make it virtually impossible to verify the integrity of the code, and impossible to ensure that all laws as written can be followed, since an attempt to add more may interfere with the coding in-hand.

Now, logically, neither argument holds much water, since they require very specific occurrences in order to work, first off, and second, because there is enough room for error in both that it makes both independently not plausible. However, combined, they have a much better chance of functioning correctly. Allow me to use the previous arguments to illustrate. Say the programmer starts with the few lines of code and said AI for random modifiers. As the lines of code modify and/or grow by the AI’s functioning, the programmer can adjust or modify that code, and add additional coding or remove coding as he saw fit to allow the program to finally display what it was he was aiming for. The AI could affect the code’s initial programming, and the programmer can add or remove coding accordingly, and even shape certain aspects of that coding to allow more changes along their planned lines, adding better or just different graphics, more or less creatures, plant life, etc. The AI can still introduce more randomized coding, which can allow more internal changes, and, again, the programmer can adjust it also. The cycle continues, and can always allow changes.

Using that process, you can have a generally acceptable balance between Chaos and Stability, which ultimately is what all life and matter cycles are. So, I prefer to think that neither actually is the end-all, be-all, and that it is an unusual combination of both.

Explore posts in the same categories: The Random Thought of the Day

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: