As I've said before, when Daniel Miessler is right, he's right.

His latest post (well, the latest that I've read, anyway - I'm about 4 days behind at present), is a response to Scott Adam's lunatic idea that the Big Bang is proven to be intelligent by the fact that I'm writing this post.

Daniel saith:

Anyway, here’s my response to one of his key paragraphs in his latest post. Scott says,

So, does the universe have the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge? Clearly it does, because the big bang caused evolution (say the scientists), which led to creatures with brains, and those creatures acquire and apply knowledge while remaining part of the universe.

…and my response…


Ah, I think I found it. You used the word “caused”. You said, “the big bang caused evolution (say the scientists)…”, and that word leans heavily toward thought and design.

I think when you choose a more precise wording, say, “resulted in”, you end up with a more accurate picture. This picture shows that randomness and time are the guiding forces, and that all ordered things that result from it “just happened”.

They weren’t “caused”. They aren’t linked to the big bang in any way other than to say that the big bang must have happened for them to take place. And certainly not in the direct way that you speak of — where the randomness of the universe “gathers and applies knowledge” because something in it does.

See? He nails it. This is why I read his blog, and you should too.