No one should give any credence to computer simulations who is not familiar with what they are and what they can do.
In my work in aerospace R&D I was recently alerted to a severe problem in a computer simulation. The original simulation said that a mechanical part was half as strong as empirical testing said it was. I triple-checked all the material properties of the part in question, and ran two simulations based on the original model. Both simulations were clearly in error.
I then noticed something. The solid finite elements were modeled with four-node tetrahedrons, not ten-node, second-order tetras that would provide the requisite degrees of freedom to make the model work correctly.
I realize that what I have written will make eyes glaze over, but the point is:
If a single oversight such as I have discussed — in a computer simulation using the most advanced technology available, with the most experienced people in the field doing the work, and with all the material properties thoroughly known and characterized for a simple mechanical part — can result in a conclusion that cannot be trusted, how much trust can you put in claims made by those who produce computer simulations about what the earth’s climate will be like in a hundred years, or about how computer simulations verify that Darwinian mechanisms transformed a microbe into Mozart in 10^17 seconds?
My advice to all real skeptics — as opposed to Darwinists, who are pathologically immune to any skepticism concerning the creative powers of Darwinian mechanisms — is: Assume that a computer simulation is completely unreliable (and even worse, possibly modified to produce a result consistent with a conclusion that was reached in advance), until proven otherwise.