Spore might be suitable for its own thread to discuss. As some playful teachers say to students in some circumstances: “Go nuts.”
It provides a great example as well as illustration for the guided vs. unguided, front-loaded vs. unloaded, epigenetics, concurrentist discussions. On the ‘good design/bad design/any design’ topic, it’s a bit boring. The guy speaking in one of the videos below is one of the game’s designers, after all. It’s just not Intelligent Design Theory built on the PR-advertised brilliance of the ‘Isaac Newton of information theory’ that helps us to understand agency that designs.
“Nurture your own creation … evolution as a sentient species” (if you’ve got 17 minutes for gameplay or click ahead to creature editing for main idea)
Spore - Gameplay - Beginning
“A wide variety of creatures you can create” - Will Wright, game designer (2 1/2 min)
This was the video sent previously in response to @Revealed_Cosmology telling of kids playing the game.
The game raises many questions relevant to this conversation. Sure, it is not Avida. Instead it involves a free will component that includes designing & making digital creatures. Each person will likely find their own point of contact with the game vis-a-vis Peaceful Science themes, even if they are not a ‘game player’. Just watch it like a video & skip to the main parts of interest to you.
If there are any mathematicians out there, can you come up with any idea of the total number of creatures that could possibly be created in this game, based on the combination of choices of size, shape, structure, type, etc.?
If you really want to stir the conversation about Adam for the digital era (as if telling atheist geneticists and naturalistic TEs that they shouldn’t turn their noses at Genealogical Adam weren’t simple enough!), this video will let you know “how to make a human”