Monkey Typewriters, Part 2

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Friday, September 7, 2018 8 comments


by Charlie Wolcott

Last week I introduced a central argument to the Huxley-Wilberforce Debate of 1860, including an analysis of a central argument to the debate, the Monkey-Typewriter Theory by A.E. Wilder-Smith. I believe Wilder-Smith had a good argument to make in answering Huxley’s charge that given enough time, a monkey could reproduce the 23rd Psalm by mere chance. However, in the short time he had, I believe there are other points he could have made and I will dig into those here.

One Evolutionist argument I keep hearing lately is that they do not support the idea that all life came about by change because the laws of science, namely natural selection, prevent it from being completely by chance. I would suggest these Evolutionists read more of the history of their own model because ‘by chance’ or rather ‘by time’ is absolutely central to their entire position. It’s not just Huxley who used this argument. Numerous Evolutionists pin everything upon time. That is why they are so virulent against a young earth model. Remove millions of years and everything they believe falls apart. The key is time. Give it enough time, and it is bound to happen. That is why so many of them will fight as though their very lives depend upon it for “millions of years.” They will be open to question any detail about their models EXCEPT millions of years. And when one dating method fails to produce for them, they dismiss it and move onto the next one without ever changing their mindset. I read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and while he mocks the very notion of God, he effectively replaces God with “natural selection,” giving it descriptions and jobs that it nowhere comes close to carrying out.

I actually laugh at the notion that Evolution is not guided by chance but by “natural forces” (namely natural selection) because they are shooting themselves in the foot. Pure random chance is actually BETTER odds for them than otherwise. Why? Because the laws of science we know are in place actually make the job they need to get Evolution going go against what they need to happen. As I mentioned last week, in order to get and maintain amino acids to create RNA and DNA, there needs to be a controlled mechanism which can lock the acids in place, prevent the reversible reactions from taking place, and keep their orientation correct.

A very popular Creationist argument against the origins of life is the 747-tornado analogy. If a tornado were to fly through a junkyard for long enough time, it would produce a fully functional 747 airplane. That is what abiogenesis sounds like to a Creationist. It’s utterly foolishness. However, there is a detail often forgotten in such an analogy. This analogy assumes all the parts to a 747 are there and already designed to do what they are supposed to do. Evolution has to account not just for the organization of the 747, but also the origins of the pieces of the 747, able to be placed in the correct location and with the right number with the right shape and size to make the plane work.

The typewriter analogy fails to apply to the Evolutionist position because while typing at random can mathematically produce a completed piece of literature, it does not account for the typewriter itself. How, by chance, could a typewriter come together, ready and able to produce 26 English letters, not counting 10 numeric digits nor spaces nor symbols? The Evolutionists needs the typewriter BEFORE he can start looking at paper. With genetics, the Evolutionist needs the cell which produces the DNA BEFORE it can start looking at amino acid order and structure. It’s a Catch-22.

This is the reason why Evolutionists are so determined to divorce Evolution from Abiogenesis. They know that WE know they have no answer to abiogenesis, and we also know that abiogenesis is the engine that drives Evolution. They say it doesn’t matter how it got started. It did, and biological evolution is all that matters. I’m sorry but that logic does not fly. My favorite analogy to this is trying to talk about the dealings of a space shuttle orbiting earth but not being concerned about the launch. If you have no launch, you have no orbit. Wilder-Smith uses electrical power for his analogy in his book The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. You can talk about individual outlets all you want, but unless the mains are on, you will get no power. No abiogenesis, no Evolution… PERIOD! As far as I am concerned, trying to separate the two is a dishonest admission of defeat.

The Evolutionist has a quandary to solve. Many are honest enough to admit they don’t know how it all came together, however, these things are central to the very theory they are calling absolute fact, and they mock us for not buying it. We are not asking for every minor detail, however, we are asking that if you are going to call it science, then the general mechanism you are citing should be doing what you claim it is doing. The Evolutionist does not like us citing God because God is obviously more than capable of doing whatever he wants. But the “God Hypothesis” is able to do the job. Can the Evolution Hypothesis get the job done? So far, it has yet to produce anything to show for it. Maybe the scientists haven’t figured it out yet? I’m okay with that, but don’t call it fact or “settled science” until they do.

A funny side-note on this Monkey-typewriter theory is that this actually was put to the test. They put some typewriters in a cage with a few chimps to see what they would do. They bashed them with rocks, flipped them over, and in actuality did nothing remotely indicating typing. But for argument’s sake, put a computer there instead of an ape and the core argument is still intact in that regard. However, I still want to see a text-producing device show up without intelligent input BEFORE I hear this argument being used again. Speaking of which, next week I’ll get into what information is because that alone is still another problem for this theory and all Evolution.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

8 comments:

ashleyhr said...

'Numerous Evolutionists pin everything upon time. That is why they are so virulent against a young earth model...'.

The overwhelming weight of evidence shows that the universe (if you choose to ignore planet Earth) simply cannot be just 6,000 years old which you mean by 'young'.

I think I mentioned asteroid/comet Oumuamua before. Funny how you continue to shrug it off. Who' really pinning everything on a lack of time?

'They will be open to question any detail about their models EXCEPT millions of years.' Indeed so.

Charlie said...

Did you read that correctly, Ashley? You agree that the scientists will question any detail except millions of years? Is that your final answer?

ashleyhr said...

Delayed response as I was expecting my comment to be censored.

I was speaking for myself when I said 'indeed so'. I personally have more faith that a 6,000 year old Earth and universe is wrong than that Darwinian evolution (with or without a God) happened. It probably did - but scientists do revise their evolutionary models from time to time. They don't (other than very slightly) revise their models of the age of the Earth or the universe.

Charlie said...

Well, Ashley, you didn't throw an insult, you didn't whine about being censored, and you posted on topic. There was no reason for me to censor that comment.

It still seems you agree with the sentiment, but I'm not convinced you actually understand what you are agreeing to.

ashleyhr said...

I just saw this by the way:
https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2018/09/13/is-the-earth-old-or-young-questions-for-creationists/

Charlie said...

Irrelevant article, but I allowed it so you would see that. It read very much like an article Tyler Francke wrote which Steve Riser easily tore apart a couple years ago. Rather juvenile not just in content but in writing skills. He thinks he sounds smart but he really provided NOTHING of value to even address. Just the same old straw men that someone who had only read what other atheists have said about YEC and has absolutely no clue about it without any education would say about it. If that article is all I had read, I would question if he even graduated high school just on his language skills. So, I'm not impressed. It's irrelevant to the topic here so I have no obligation to address it further. I have no need nor reason to address every article written about us. So this is all that will be said about that article here. Now if you would please return to seeing if you can actually address what I wrote about and if you have a problem with it, please try to provide a logical, coherent answer...if you can.

ashleyhr said...

He's not an atheist. Which strongly suggests you did not examine the article, or at least the site it is on, carefully. (I'm letting Roberts know, under his article, what you have said in response to me flagging his piece.)

Meanwhile there is nothing you wrote above that I have failed to address. So I have nothing further to add.

Charlie said...

Ashley, I know who he is and have engaged with him before. I did not call him an atheist. I said he speaks like he has only read from atheists. I know he claims to be a Christian yet everything that comes from his mouth gives a very different message.

You hardly addressed anything I said which tells me clearly you had nothing to say about it anyway. The only thing you actually did say is agree with me and that's not a compliment for you or any scientist who does that. Your call.