The Truth About Computer Science Education

I was planning on doing an April Fools’ Day post, but I don’t think I’ll have time for that after catching up with everything I put on hold while preparing for last night’s big improv show. Nevertheless, there’s been something weighing heavily on my conscience for a while now, and I think the best thing to do is to get it out there for everyone to see, even if it’s going to jeopardize my chances of graduating with a degree.

I’ve been at Purdue studying computer science for six years now, first as an undergrad and now in the masters’ program. And through all the classes I’ve taken, I’ve come to the inescapable realization that the computer science program here is fundamentally flawed. And worse, as I’ve talked with computer scientists elsewhere, I’ve discovered that the problem isn’t specific to Purdue’s program. In fact, it’s endemic throughout all of ivory-tower academia.

The problem can be stated simply, but its impact is far-reaching. Computer science as taught in this country is devastatingly one-sided. It is based entirely on information theory, to the exclusion of Intelligent Development (ID).

Computer science has its roots on information theory. Information theory is a theory, not fact; there is no scientific evidence that information exists. People who believe in information theory, or Shannonists, will tell you that the fossil record, dating back to 1835, proves that information is true. However, the fossil record only shows devices that purportedly process information, but not any actual information! If these machines process information, then where are all the transitional states?

I’m from Missouri, the Show-Me State. If you want me to believe in information, you’re going to need to show me a picture of information. But ask a Shannonist for one, and they’ll start talking about entropy. If information is real, then why do they always try to change the subject to thermodynamics? Talking with them is all noise and no signal.

Furthermore, mathematics proves that information cannot exist. For example, consider my laptop’s hard drive, which by current standards is a modest 55 GB. A gigabyte (GB) is defined to be 1024 megabytes (MB), each of which is 1024 kilobytes (KB), each of which is 1024 bytes, each of which is 8 bits. Therefore, the hard drive contains 55 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 8 bits, or 472,446,402,560 bits. Each bit is defined to have one of two states: on (1) and off (0). Thus, there are 2472,446,402,560 = 10142,226,559,114 possible states — a one followed by over 100 billion zeroes. (For comparison, the universe contains “only” 1080 electrons.) For information to be stored on the disk, each of these bits must be in a particular state. Therefore, the odds of information being stored on the hard disk are 1 in 10142,226,559,114 — a probability so astronomically tiny it is for all practical purposes impossible. Therefore, disks cannot store information, and information does not exist.

Shannonists also claim that software is of human origin, but their very definition of “software” stands as evidence to their lies. As any computer scientist will tell you, software takes in input and returns output. The key question to ask is this: where does that input come from? Why, they claim, it was the output of some previous execution of a software program. Thus, it must surely be the case that modern-day output can be traced back along its inputs, and their inputs, and their inputs before them, all the way back to some First Input.

Before progressing, it is worth observing that the software itself is the output of other programs (called “compilers”). Clearly, then, software is never truly created, but merely modified into incrementally improved, later versions. This successive refinement of software is performed on “microprocessors”, and is commonly accepted. However, this fails to explain how entirely new software comes about. No one has ever seen Pac-Man turn into Excel, for example, as such a transformation could only be performed on a “macroprocessor”, and none of those have been shown to exist. If they did, then we would surely see half-Pac-Man, half-Excel software, which is nonsensical.

So, back to the First Input, the progenitor of all modern so-called “information” (which we already proved doesn’t exist, but for the sake of argument we’ll pretend it does for the rest of this exposé). Where did it come from? Computer scientists will claim that it must have come from some primordial, pre-information material. While they name this hypothetical process “adatagenesis”, it has never been proven, and never can be, for spontaneous generation of information has long since been discredited by Francesco Redi in his famous “one thousand monkeys and a typewriter” experiment in 1668.

So, if computer science is incapable of explaining the origin of information, is there anything that can? Yes! The answer is Intelligent Development (ID), the scientific theory that an intelligent Developer exists who created the First Input. Mountains of irrefutable scientific evidence the size of Mount Rushmore exist in support of ID theory. A growing number of developers support ID theory, although their views are typically suppressed by the Shannonist orthodoxy, who threaten to flagellate anyone who disagrees with their computational dogma. While they believe their academic systems immune to criticism, a critical analysis of their claims proves it to be a sham. It is evident to any individual, be he educated or not, that ID is an important theory that belongs in the classroom.

The evidence for Intelligent Development is all around us. For example, suppose you were browsing a w4r3z site and found a download completely free of viruses or spyware. Knowing that such a zip file does not naturally occur on such sites, it is evident that it must have been Developed, and thus proves the existence of a Developer.

Shannonists often falsely compare Intelligent Development with the earlier Compilerist movement, which claimed that God compiled the First Software and entered into it the First Input, thus creating computer science. Compilerists point to the Gospel of John to support their claim (recall that “word” is computer science shorthand for “four bytes”):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [John 1:1-3]

Intelligent Development, despite computer scientists’ claims, is not “Compilerism in a cheap tuxedo.” Compilerism is clearly a religious doctrine and cannot be taught in public schools, but ID theory makes no claims as to the identity of the Developer. The Developer could be the Compilerist God, but it could also be a purely naturalistic entity, such as space programmers. From space. Intelligent Development is a Big Ten[t] theory, capable of accomodating secular ideas about the First Input as well as Little Endian Compilerists (LEC) and Big Endian Compilerists (BEC) alike.

Supporters of ID theory are not claiming that Shannonist computer science should not be taught in public schools, or even that equal time should be given to ID and Shannonism. ID theorists simply want students to be taught the controversy, that they should be presented with the evidence both for and against information. A recent poll indicates that 100% of the public agrees with the statement that “both sides of information should be taught.”

But we must be swift. Decades of domination by the Shannonist orthodoxy have wreaked untold harm on modern society. For example, al Qaeda did not even exist before computer science was first introduced to public schools; surely this is no mere coincidence. Additionally, Alan Turing, one of the leading figures in the development of computer science, was gay, proving that computer science was created to push the homosexual agenda on our children. Furthermore, even now researchers are working on so-called “quantum computers,” in which can be both 0 and 1 at the same time. Clearly, this is just the liberal elite pushing their corrupting brand of moral relativism down to the level of individual entangled particles. Left unchecked, the teaching of computer science will result in the destruction of the moral fabric of America.

I understand well that, now that I have made these revelations to the public, I will surely soon by expelled from the computer science program at Purdue. But fear not for me, for I have already signed a contract to become a fellow at the Disk Recovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization devoted to furthering the cause of Intelligent Development theory. Soon I will be relocating this blog to, where I will be posting articles on the application of ID theory to computer security.

8 Responses

  1. In case it isn’t obvious from the posting date and the subject matter, this is a parody of your standard set of pro-Intelligent Design arguments.

    As it turns out, they sound a lot more plausable when you apply them to computer science.

  2. *scowl* I hope you read this and lose the game.

  3. Nice post. It is rare that the skeptics circle directs me back to my alma mater, let alone back to a CS grad student, as I once was. Once again good work.

  4. Thanks for the laugh! Well done. :)

  5. Man, I love you. Marry me. Have my babies.

    Um, don’t tell my husband I said that.

    Seriously, you made my morning.

  6. I have been interested in the size of the universe for some time now. So just where does the figure of !0^80 for the number of electrons come from?

  7. According to Wikipedia, it’s based on assuming about one electron per cubic meter of space, on average. I have no idea how good an approximation that is, however.

    Of course, in this context I’m just aping creationists’ use of scary-looking big numbers to make it look like “unlikely” means the same thing as “impossible”. Humans are pretty bad at having an intuitive understanding of big numbers — we certainly don’t come across numbers like 10^80 in day-to-day life! (For example, 1 out of 10^166 seems almost impossible, but that’s just the probability of any particular ordering of two decks of cards shuffled together.)

  8. Lovely stuff.

    Big fan of using great, big numbers to intimidate the rubes. At least in comp. sci. they have actual applications. Somewhere among my apocalypse collection, I have one fellow who “discovered” that the odds of Gorbechev not being the anti-christ were over 10 trillion to one, and he had the mathematical equations to prove it!

    Still could be, I guess, but it’s not looking good…

Comments are closed.