<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Games for Geeks that Pack a Scientific Punch</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scienceline.org/2008/10/02/blog-mahan-geekgames/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scienceline.org/2008/10/02/blog-mahan-geekgames/</link>
	<description>The Shortest Distance Between You and Science</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:45:26 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Hocking</title>
		<link>http://www.scienceline.org/2008/10/02/blog-mahan-geekgames/comment-page-1/#comment-2218</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Hocking</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceline.org/2008/10/02/blog-mahan-geekgames/#comment-2218</guid>
		<description>Thank you Rachel for this article.  It&#039;s good to see that some games have more science substance than the heavily promoted Spore.  I was recently distressed to see Spore touted in the science section of the New York Times.  While Spore might be a fun game, it is not based in the science of evolution.  Sure Spore creatures can have differential survival and therefore evolve.  This idea of survival of the fittest has a vague resemblance to our understanding of evolution.  However, evolution has no direction and is blind (see Richard Dawkin&#039;s book &quot;The Blind Watchmaker&quot; for further elaboration).  In Spore the players select new characteristics.  While this might be fun and is likely essential for the programming of a video game, it is closer to playing God than to evolution by natural selection.  In a time when our public and governmental understanding of science is so depressed, it is important to understand if and how much real science is depicted in popular games and media outlets.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Rachel for this article.  It&#8217;s good to see that some games have more science substance than the heavily promoted Spore.  I was recently distressed to see Spore touted in the science section of the New York Times.  While Spore might be a fun game, it is not based in the science of evolution.  Sure Spore creatures can have differential survival and therefore evolve.  This idea of survival of the fittest has a vague resemblance to our understanding of evolution.  However, evolution has no direction and is blind (see Richard Dawkin&#8217;s book &#8220;The Blind Watchmaker&#8221; for further elaboration).  In Spore the players select new characteristics.  While this might be fun and is likely essential for the programming of a video game, it is closer to playing God than to evolution by natural selection.  In a time when our public and governmental understanding of science is so depressed, it is important to understand if and how much real science is depicted in popular games and media outlets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
