If we live in a simulation evolution is still much more probable explanation of the life we see than creationism. With big enough computer and interesting enou

If we live in a simulation evolution is still much more probable explanation of the life we see than creationism. With big enough computer and interesting enough set of unerlying rules you can run a simulation to see what happens and there may be life somewhere in the simulated universe. We even do similar experiments [1] right now (but the rules are very simple for now, and the generated life isn't very impressive so far). I find this much more likely than a Programmer designing not only the universal rules (relativity, quantum nechanics, etc), but also small details of chemistry, biology, and all the organisms (if not all - how comes they look like they evolved - that's LOTS of stuff to fake). I can easily imagine humanity to be able to create simulation on big enough scale to create some artifical life in future. I can't imagine all the advances in math and chaos theory and fractal design and however to even call all that fields that would be required to design artifical life working in simulated universe "by hand" in such a way, that it seems it evolved from first principles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life