I'd like to begin my response with a few definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary.

rhetoric: The art of using language so as to persuade or influence others; the body of rules to be observed by a speaker or writer in order that he may express himself with eloquence

ideology: A systematic scheme of ideas, usu. relating to politics or society, or to the conduct of a class or group, and regarded as justifying actions, esp. one that is held implicitly or adopted as a whole and maintained regardless of the course of events.

You are clearly indulging in ideological rhetoric. Yes, science can be used for political and/or economic reasons and some scientists can be swayed by monetary gain. One horrifying example that I'm sure you know of is the continuing use of food additives that have been shown to cause brain damage in non-human animals. I'm speaking of the use of excitotoxic amino acids and related compounds. In this case, academic scientists documented brain damage, while industry-funded scientists didn't: It is a travesty. But we're supposed to be discussing evolutionary theory, so let's.

DNA is not strictly analogous to a computer program. Papers reporting on self-modifying algorithms are fascinating to read, but the field is still too young to be considered to provide a strong analogy for how evolution works. This is due to the fact that most focus on "natural" selection as the sole force, and there are many more that have been developed since Darwin's time. Furthermore, any extension to modeling a whole organism would have to take epigenetic and developmental contingencies into account.

Let's come back to data. One of the most easily conceptualized examples that most people can understand concern data from the mitochondrial genome and Y-chromosomal DNA (the non-recombining portion). Both of these systems do not recombine or shuffle the genetic information, and so the same sequence of each is passed down from parent to offspring (mother to child in the case of mitochondrial DNA and father to son in the case of the Y-chromosome), unless a mutation occurs, and then that is passed on to the next generation. There are many texts interpreting the data, and the data are freely available if you'd like to examine them for yourself. If you're interested, a graphical representation of the distribution of mitochondrial variation is available at www.mitomap.org under the illustrations link. The tree encompassing mitochondrial variation has been deduced, and the root is in Africa with more recent variation found out of Africa. The most parsimonious explanation is that modern humans arose in Africa and then spread throughout the world. A similar pattern is also seen in the Y data, in other parts of the genome, and the fossil record. Can you think of a better explanation than that humans arose in Africa?

If you simply reply with more heated rhetoric, I fear that this conversation is futile to continue. I remain open to rational arguments and examples of useful alternatives, but it's not helpful to just yell "Conspiracy!"