Sam, Sorry about that.  You're absolutely right; we shouldn't go into the
faith issues.  

I meant to question technical merits of evolution, as opposed to other
mechanisms describing organic system formation, with the goal of doing
simulations in Squeak.  I am intrigued by a system capable of negotiating
distributed meta-services with feedback mechanisms to drive configuration
and activity.  John Holland developed the original "Selectrons" system that
used a blackboard and a bucket brigade feedback mechanism.  He was
simulating thought processes.  

Rob

PS.  is there an essay on comparative religion from an Islamic perspective
about?  That would be interesting!  

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Adams [mailto:ssadams at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:06 AM
To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Squeakland Evolution project thingy


After carefully reading the many recent posts on this topic, I would like
to strongly suggest that those on the list who want to discuss matters of
faith, and that includes the faith in evolution, chaos, complexity, or God,
please take them to another forum.  As I understand it, the Squeak
community is one based on a common interest in using and advancing certain
software technologies, not personal ideologies (scientific, religious, or
otherwise).  It is one thing to discuss astrophysical simulation (at any
scale) or generative variation/selection (evolutionary) algorithms, but
this "we, the enlightened of science" vs "they, the endarkened of faith"
kind of discussion presumes a uniformity of belief on this list  and
presses a defacto statement of faith on its membership.  I do not think any
of us either believe this uniformity exists or want this result, so please
have some consideration for those of your Squeak "brethren"(and "sistren"
!) who may not share your ideology or wish to discuss it on this list.

Do we really want this already very full list to be cluttered with such
things?  If you quote Dawkins or Kaufman (both of which I read), not for
technical reference but in defense of your ideology, how would you react if
others quote Jesus, Paul, or selections from Ecclesiastes (which I also
read, and believe) with equal force in defence of theirs?
Innapropriate for the list?  "Go and do likewise" - Jesus

As for the *content* of applications that some member of the list *uses*
Squeak to create, I do not believe the list should stand in judgement as an
open forum.  What anyone posts on BobsSuperSwiki, like any swiki, is their
own responsibility, unless of course the swiki master sets and enforces
limits.  This should be true for the 8 year old in an open school, the
members of SqC or anyone else.  How would you react to a long discussion on
the list of the literary and spiritual merits of an interactive essay on
the book of Philippians or, say, an interactive essay on comparative
religion from an Islamic perspective?  But would that essay be allowed on
the SuperSwiki as an example use of Squeak technology?

My point is this.  If we succeed in creating a truly wonderful environment
for dynamic and interactive media, and succeed in getting many in the world
to use it, they will create there own content without our permission or
ideological agreement.  As a technologist, that is what I expect and that's
good enough for me.  As a christian, I choose to take my stand on matters
of faith in other forums.  Go and do likewise.

Sam S. Adams, IBM Distinguished Engineer, IBM Research
tie line 444-0736, outside 919-254-0736, email: ssadams at us.ibm.com
<<Hebrews 11:6, Proverbs 3:5-6, Romans 1:16-17, I Corinthians 1:10>>