Well, yikes. USA Today has an article about Spore creator Will Wright. It’s a Q&A, and it has this bit (emphasis mine):
Q: There has been some discussion online about whether the game promotes evolution or intelligent design. What would you tell people interested in either side of that discussion?A: I think the game is really trying to give an overview of evolution in a way that is very toy-like and caricature-like. We put the player in the role of an intelligent designer. When we first started the prototypes (of Spore) that wasn’t the case. We had the game carefully mutating things and it just was not emotionally engaging. When we put the players in the role of intelligent designer then people were much more emotionally attached to what they made.
But if you step back from it, you see creatures over many generations get more advanced. All this happens over billions of years. So, however you slice it, is definitely not a creationist universe. You might say it has aspects of intelligent design.
So what’s their title? “’Spore’ creator inspired by intelligent design, social networks”
Sigh.
I don’t see how it was inspired by ID from that answer, and it seems to me Spore has little or no relationship with it. They added in the user as designer to make the game more “emotionally engaging”, and not through any scientific (or antiscientific, in the case of ID) impetus. Caveat: I have not fiddled with Spore, so I don’t have first-hand experience. Anyone who’s played it want to comment?
Also, we know that ID = creationism. That’s what the Dover trial was all about. Wright specifically says Spore’s not creationism, so that’s something to keep in mind.
Let’s see how quickly the folders, spinners, and mutilators at the Disco ‘tute can run with this. Grrrr.
