And, in some cases, the reverse is also true:
Biologists are trained to use common descent as an organizing principle for all their data, and for most biologists the Darwinian mechanism comes in the same package. Evidently they don’t see much reason to doubt this mechanism. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, among biologists who have read Mike Behe or Stephen Meyer carefully. Some proponents of intelligent design believe in common descent, but not in natural selection.
On the other hand, computer scientists and software engineers are trained in design principles, and also have real experience of how complex functional systems appear and change constructively. In particular, software engineers know how complex it can be to implement a “simple” change. From this perspective, the Darwinian story is a lot less plausible. Natural selection seems just a little bit too easy.Andrew Jones, “Why We Don’t Evolve Software: A Computer Scientist Considers Darwinian Theory” at Evolution News and Science Today
See also: Does information theory support design in nature?
We don’t often hear space and time described as a quantum error-correcting code
But some argue, the same codes used to prevent errors in quantum computers might give space-time “its intrinsic robustness.” They certainly make it sound as though our universe is designed.
Follow UD News at Twitter!