Our engineering department often gets feasibility-study contracts. The client has an idea, but wants to know if he should pursue further investment and research into a proposed solution to an engineering problem.
Our team goes to work. We use all our resources and experience to evaluate the suggested engineering solution.
Our team recommends three possible avenues of approach:
1) Based on our analysis, the probability that it could work is so small that no further investment of effort or resources should be made.
2) Based on our analysis, there is a reasonable chance that this engineering solution could work, but we’ll need to build prototypes and test them. In addition, our analysis suggests that further design modifications should be made so that the proposed mechanism can work as suggested.
3) Our analysis suggests that your engineering proposal has an extremely high likelihood of succeeding. We’ll build a prototype, test it, and empirically validate that our analysis is correct.
A Darwinist comes into our engineering department. He asks for a feasibility-study concerning the following:
Darwinist: I have this microbe here. I propose that by zapping it with random mutations and throwing out the bad mutations and keeping the good ones, I can turn this microbe into Mozart in 10^17 seconds.
Engineer: Are you freaking out of your mind?