OK, I have
blogged about Spore a couple of times so far. Now I will look at it from a different point of view.
In my last posting I admitted that it is a toy. But, it claims to have an evolutionary model. So, two questions:
1) Will the game cause more kids to be interested in science? I think the first stage, the Cell Stage, is really the only part of the game that has scientific value. The graphics, with water particulates and the slightly out-of-focus background, are reminiscent of looking at the beasties in a sample of pond water in a microscope. I fondly recall High School Biology class, looking at paramecium through the 'scope. Therefore, I think that the first stage of Spore could be used in Science class, perhaps playing Spore and then looking at real creatures in the microscope.
In addition, Spore could be used to show how adding different characteristics to the creature adds a variety of different results. As you add flagella, or spikes, you see a definite change in the behavior of the creature and the advantage or disadvantage it brings in the environment. Add a spike on the back or sides of your beastie and you will die less. Add extra flagella and you can swim faster. It is crude, but it is interesting and can provoke some conversation about microevolution. It is also very helpful to introduce the difference between a herbivore and carnivore and the behaviors of each. (although the game significantly favors carnivores and I can't imagine how to progress in the game as a herbivore).
2) That said, is the game an evolutionary model? (well, at least the Cell Stage). Would Richard Dawkins agree? Thinking of Spore in this way is interesting, for the aforementioned reasons, but it poses some problems also. Spore shows very quick changes and variations. You eat three or four big pieces of food and you exponentially grow in size. Spore is, after all, a game/toy. But evolution is really small variations over a very long period of time. There are also no evolutionary dead ends in the game.
Spore also stresses choices. You choose what parts you want on your cell. This underscores the popular misconception that evolution is fast, that it is always progressive, and that it is deterministic. Stephen Jay Gould probably would have had a slight problem with this, especially since he wrote extensively against this misconception, especially determinism, in The Mismeasure of Man and Full House. Gould favored chance in evolution, and also pointed out the frequency of evolutionary dead ends.
Finally, Spore allows you to make choices and design your Creature. It is, after all, a god-game, and you are the Creator. It could just as easily be used to teach Intelligent Design - "this extra flagella allows the creature to swim better than its predators". Dawkins may bristle at the suggestion.
All this may be too heady for a "game", but with all the hype surrounding Spore in the last month, claiming it to be everything to everybody, I think it is appropriate to ponder these questions. What would have happened if the game included chance? What if it included the possibility for crazy, unexpected mutation?