Democritus: It is kind of hard to change the subject when the subject is so vague to begin with. David Berlinski attacks evolution and quantum mechanics, yet he refuses to state what he really believes in. He says that he is not a creationist, yet according to Benjamin L. Harville he is member of a creationist “institute”. By the way: it is hard to refute a theory like creationism if it does not make a single falsifiable prediction.
About genetic algorithms: I guess the whole concept of abstraction is lost to you. The nice thing about genetic algorithms is that they come up with solutions to problems that are not obvious to the creator of the algorithm. For example genetic algorithms have been used to create a sorting algorithm that is better than the best man-made algorithms.
Solution emerge from applying the principles of evolution to a given problem. So far evolution offers the most satisfying explanation on how complexity can emerge in large systems of simple parts. If you can come up with something better, more power to you. But “god did it” is not a scientific theory since it can not make falsifiable predictions about the future.
It is a shame that you insist in a literal interpretation of the bible, since if you want to convince a rational human being of the existence of god you will have much more success by discussing emergent behavior than by trying to convince him that the earth is 6000 years old.
