I would assume he means that an intelligent designer could have created the universe two minutes ago with exactly the set of initial conditions and laws (including all our memories, the apparent age of things etc) to produce the universe as we see it now. This might be an acceptable solution to the problem if you could somehow know the current conditions of everything in the universe and all the laws of nature (because then, to the extent that the universe is deterministic, you could predict everything you wanted to). But, given that many aspects of the current conditions can be understood to come about from an even simpler set of initial conditions (i.e. baryon mass density, radiation density, cosmological constant etc. just after the big bang) it would seem that understanding the history of the universe in this way is better since in practice I think it has more predictive power than using a 2 minute universe model, or a few thousand year old universe model for that matter (fewer initial conditions to determine, so you're more likely to find them and then you can guess that you've got them right and try to predict what the current set of conditions are that you don't know yet). <br /><br />The other point is that even if the 2 minute-old universe is right, you would never know it so long as you could understand the present set of conditions as the result of an apparent history of events that extends beyond 2 minutes into the past. This second point, I think, is ultimately why creationism (and intelligent design) is not a science - it's not refutable, your theory just boils down to the set of initial conditions and laws which the creator laid down with the creator/intelligent designer aspect adding no additional testable predictions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>