Repeating the same ridiculous statement will not make it true. You are arguing that intelligent design of a program proves random chance. Can't you see the absurdity of what you are saying??????????
Evidence for, not proof. That said, he was using the correct mathematical definition of "program". You, on the other hand, apparently are not. If you want to make a rigorous argument, you have to use a rigorous definition. I would suggest Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications (Li & Vitanyi) if you want to argue down this path. It is a good book for learning about what you are attempting to talk about.
I think a lot of interesting arguments can happen in this vein, but most people who try are woefully unprepared math-wise (it is usually graduate or post-graduate study if you are a math or a computer science major; difficult to understand and few people have been exposed to it in detail).