Blog

by Charlie Wolcott

One of the critical details about the monkey-typewriter argument that by chance it is possible to reproduce any work of man is the nature of information. This is another detail that it appears Evolutionists still have yet to grasp. It is also one so obvious that a child can understand it, and yet so complex even the most learned men have a difficult time explaining it. I want to address the nature of written language in this post. A few years ago, I addressed the topic of “Telenomy” which I wrote on the heels of reading A.E. Wilder-Smith’s The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (a book which has been argued against but still has no refutation, despite being written in 1975). I want to take another look at this issue.

Perhaps the simplest language out there is binary code, also known as computer language. How is that simple? There are only two letters: 0 and 1. In an actual computer it is 5 volts or 0 volts passing through a reader. This physical detail makes it impossible to introduce a more complicated language for computers. All computer scientists have been able to do to create a more complex language for computers is group the binary code into certain length segments. We can represent any letter of the English Alphabet, with CAPS, numbers, and symbols with a set of 8 0s or 1s. If you have heard of ASCII Code, this is what that is.

One of the major computer architecture languages is called MIPS, and it puts the entire programming language into sets of 32 ‘bits’ (or 0s and 1s). Every letter, number, symbol, memory location, mathematical operation, logical operation, color, or anything a computer does is defined and set by groups of 32 bits. Now, this is critical. It is absolutely impossible for any computer programmer to take a plain set of binary code and tell you what it does UNLESS they know what context it is being used for.

Now there is absolutely nothing inherent about 5V and 0V which indicates anything resembling a code or language. It is something installed by programmers onto the voltage; we give these voltages meaning. The same concept is true for many different things. Wilder-Smith gives a very simple example of code being installed onto an object. He took a rope and he tied three knots into the rope. Each knot in its location was to mean something. So someone who understood the intention of the code could feel the knots on the rope, access the spacing, and get the message.

We do the same concept with flashes of light. Two kids will use a mirror to reflect light in a particular pattern that only they can understand. To anyone else, the pattern has no meaning, though someone outside the “circle” can judge that a pattern is there, therefore someone is behind the pattern. Any government spy agency understands this. During WWII the Germans had a special code system called Enigma that was virtually unbreakable, until the British code breaking agency Ultra found out the secret. Prior to that, the British knew and understood that information was being passed on between the Germans, however it was gibberish to them and did not make sense until with the help of Alan Turing, the Ultra Program broke through to decipher the code.

Letters in a written language convey information. We are taught these letters from infancy but we really do not grasp what a “letter” is unless we study information theory (even if indirectly through other language studies). An “A” in this blog post is not a ‘letter.’ It is a collection of pixels on a computer screen organized in a particular way that any person who can read the English language can understand to be the letter “A.” A letter in written language is just a symbol which represents a given sound in spoken language. Just like a written “number” like a “9” or a “4” is not a number; it is a symbol which represents how many objects are being discussed. Because you are able to read, you can take the vast arrangement of pixels, organized in patterns and structures, and you are able to understand what I am thinking. Language is what gives us the ability to pass on and understand each other’s thoughts. But that language must be understood by both parties or the information contained in those letters does not come through.

One of the great flaws of the Monkey-Typewriter Theory is that the typewriter already has information packed into the device itself. It is already designed and programmed to be able to read and deliver combinations of the 26 letters and ten numerals along with symbols. So when the ape (or computer) randomly puts out letters, yes eventually something will come resembling the 23rd Psalm or the works of Shakespeare. However, this is actually cheating, because in order for this set up to even be possible, you need an intelligent mind designing the typewriter to produce a text AND you need an intelligent mind able to READ the text and get something out of it.

If Thomas Henry Huxley’s argument were to be more accurate to the position he held, he would have to argue that you take infinite amount of ink and infinite amount of paper and throw the ink on the paper randomly so that when it dries it will be organized to land precisely in a such a way that a letter will be recognizable, let alone an entire passage. Any thinking person would know that such a notion is utterly ridiculous. And even if one were to argue that the ink could land in such a way to produce a readable text, the problem is that the text itself has to have information instilled onto it for anyone to make sense of it being text. If ink were to fall in such a way to produce “BOOK,” how would anyone have a concept that this collection of ink had any relation to a written collection of words UNLESS they already knew and understood what each symbol of “B” “O” “O” and “K” meant? To someone who has never seen English and only seen Chinese, there would not be any “information” received because they do not have the software to understand it. Any person is able to recognize that ink splashed on paper will NEVER produce organized “letters” by itself. He will know that someone intelligently put it there and may seek to find out what it is and what it means. This applies to an English-speaking person looking at Chinese or any person looking at a foreign language.

Now, Huxley made his argument well before the discovery of DNA. Each point I made here has a relation to DNA and such notions are completely destroying any hint of salvageability of Darwin’s model of Evolution. Next week, I’ll dig deeper into how Information and DNA work together.

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.