I agree with Hk.  If believers in "Intelligent Design" were rational enough to follow this simulation, they wouldn't buy into their own theory in the first place. 

I like the anti evolution example of placing a thousand monkeys at typewriters and letting them type until they type the Bible, which, of course, would be never.  However, if we treat the work of the monkeys the way nature treats mutations, it could happen rather quickly.  Simply keep only those keystrokes typed in the correct order, just as nature rewards winning adaptations and disposes of those offering no competitive advantage.  It would only be a matter of time until the great book of books is completed.

The simplest argument against Intelligent Design is pointing out all the extinct species that were not designed well enough to survive.

Outhere, I believe my response to Sofie's posting is also relevant to this thread, as well.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Suck my clock! Rule 34! NSFW!

Tee hee.

Very clever, but ultimately proving the fellow has quite a bit of time on his hands to code that, run it, and break the results down so even a 12 year-old could understand them. Of course, the problem is not the logical fallacies that ID enthusiasts proffer in a pseudoscientific attempt to validate their nonsense, but the fact that--if backed into a corner like this--they'll revert to "faith" as evidence. Creationism is, by definition, not empirical; ergo, it should not rely upon any scientific method to be demonstrated. The "Watch Trick" is an experiment, but obviously not one with a serviceable hypothesis.