God in the Gaps sighting

I subscribe to Wired, but I don't always get to read it cover to cover right when I get it. As a result, I often notice sloppy nonsense (like the following) later than I should have. There was a series of articles in the February issue called "Living Machines" about the convergence of technology and biology, primarily using evolutionary biology-inspired algorithms as a means of designing "intelligent" machines, like the Sony dog. Woof. The article in question is called "The New Facts of Life", by Christopher Meyer, and it can be found here. Two relevant sections are these:

REPRODUCTION was considered strictly the purview of organisms until recently. Now computer programs procreate, too. Genetic algorithms mimic biology's capacity for innovation through genetic recombination and replication, shuffling 1s and 0s the way nature does DNA's Gs, Ts, As, and Cs, then reproducing the best code for further recombination. This technique has been used to evolve everything from factory schedules to jet engines. COEVOLUTION inevitably accompanies evolution. When an organism evolves in response to environmental change, it puts new pressures on that environment, which likewise evolves, prompting further evolution in the organism. This cycle occurs in many social systems - for instance, the interaction between behavioral norms and legal codes.

The sloppiness is not Meyer's, though. It's this guy's, whose letter to the editor was printed in the April issue, and can be found here, though the letter in full is below:

While Christopher Meyer may be right that modern advances have dealt a blow to humans' status, he ironically misses the great strides it has made in restoring God's status ("The New Facts of Life," Wired 12.02). The emergent behavior of self-organization is hardly independent of any hierarchy for planning or management, as Meyer claims; rather it shows us that the very substance of reality is, at its heart, intelligently organized and planned (even if it is far too complex for us to grasp). Don't believe me? Just look at Meyer's analysis of reproduction and coevolution. According to him, both of these fantastic functions are being copied by intelligent humans and introduced into their own creations. If God's designs weren't open source, he just might start suing us for copyright infringement. If it took human intelligence this long to implement these basic principles into our designs, then can we really believe that a brainless universe could have come up with them? Brandon Booth New Braunfels, Texas

When I first read this, I experienced the same overwhelming thoughts and feelings I had when I saw Forrest Gump: there are so many things wrong with this that I don't know where to start.  It drips fallacies.  A line-by-line examination wouldn't serve much purpose except to reiterate the same arguments found at any respectable evolutionary biology website like TalkOrigins.   This guy's letter does, however, serve another purpose, in that it's an excellent example of how to get a Letter to the Editor published.   1) Write to the publication's target audience.  For a magazine like Wired, it's important to write in a faux-technical, pseudo-knowledgeable, slightly condescending manner.  Be sure to include a few smart-sounding words or phrases ("hierarchy", "hardly independent"), as well as some smart-alecky stuff ("brainless").  Be absolutely certain to include a sentence that is modern, topical, and smug.  For Wired, the following is gold: "If God's designs weren't open source, he just might start suing us for copyright infringement."  Brilliant.  That's the kind of thing that's bound to end up on the screensavers and weblog headings of all creationism-leaning Wired readers.  I can only imagine the snickering.   2) Keep it short.  Imperative.  Editors have no time for treatises.  Even though the topic you're addressing might deserve or demand one.  And even though keeping it short often requires keeping it meaningless.  Which leads me to   3) Keep it meaningless.  This is a lot harder than it sounds.  If you are the sort of person who takes the time to write a letter to the editor, at some point in your life (or even throughout the day), you're bound to say something coherent, like, "This coffee is hot," or, "I enjoy pornography."  It takes skill to compose a letter like this guy's.  He makes a concession to the thing he's commenting on, contradicts another related thing, and then assumes his contradiction is true.  Then a joke, a smarmy, empty question and he's out!  Simple, short, and meaningless.     It's stuff like this that leads me to believe that humankind is...WAIT!  LOOK OVER THERE, QUICK!  DID YOU SEE THAT?  RIGHT THERE, IN THAT LITTLE GAP BETWEEN THE COMPUTER AND THE BOOKSHELF!   IT'S GOD!