>>>If the genetic program now produces another genetic program,...
>>
>>...then you have evolution, not design. Since there's no specified designed feature to achieve, whatever evolves is bug-free, because bug is the difference between expected and produced behavior. No expectation, no bug :).
>
>Hey, this thread is hijacked by philosophers! Great, I jump in. (Oh, that's impossible because I'm the Creator. Anyway...)

Creator or initiator, that is the question here :).

>Suppose God was merely a programmer, like we are, in a previous civilization... Let's call him (her? nah.. most programmers are men, just teasing) John.
>
>Now the big quest is whether John designed the evolution idea or just simply made a mistake and introduced a bug, no, many bugs. So, did John have this fantastic idea to design a program that would generate slightly different programs that would generate slightly different programs, and so on, and that some programs would survive better than others and thus would generate better offsprings? And was that an appealing idea to John? Or did he intend to design the perfect program that would generate equally perfect programs? I can't see this as appealing, by the way, rather as boring.

There are two kinds of lazy programmers...

I'd rather have a guy who tries to automate his own work with just a great idea, not sitting endlessly deciding which colors to use in his UML diagrams. So, I'd go for the guy who writes minimal code which would, in time, generate an evolving world, and not for the guy who makes a clock.