« My Political Compass | Main | Get Your Teen Freak On »

May 28, 2003

It Ain't Hamlet, That's For Sure

What happens if you put one right-wing Christian* primate at the keyboard and give him a deadline? This.

Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog") is said to have come up with the most famous defense of the atheist belief that life was created by chance, not God. In a debate at Oxford, he is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge.

Not all atheists use this argument, but it accurately represents the atheist belief that with enough time and enough solar systems, you'll get you, me and Bach's cello suites.

Actually, Dennis, it doesn't - you see, in order for the analogy of monkeys banging on the typewriters to work, anytime the monkeys put a letter in the right place, we'd keep it - and anytime they did something incorrect, we'd erase it. The analogy also, of course, assumes that the monkeys know to hit the keys (and the recent for-fun experiments reported in the news show that - duh - they don't). Apply the same thinking to the evolution of life in the universe, and you'll be on the right track.

This belief has always struck me as implausible.

Argument from personal incredulity. Your score remains zero.

The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.

Uh, genius, the only claim of "infinitely complex intelligence" that I've heard comes from theists, not atheists. And you're the ones that argue that it came about (or has always existed) without any input from anywhere or anything else. Do you even know for which side you're arguing?

I fully acknowledge the great challenge to theism – the rampant and seemingly random unfairness built into human life.

Well, yes, there's that - and then other pesky problems like the logical contradictions that arise when you invoke omni-traits. And the lack of evidence. But, hey, minor points there, Dennis.

But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism – the existence of design and intelligence.

One intellectually honest atheist checking in - I see no evidence of design in the universe, aside from that which man and other animals have made. Intelligence is easily explained by the physical brain (which, you'll note, also generates those designs we see and recognize). And let's not even begin to get into the issue of "the world is sooo complex, it must be designed" while you conveniently let your even more complex designer get away with having always existed. It won't fly.

But a just reported English University experiment has convinced me that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant. Psalm 23, let alone Hamlet, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing.

Yeah, we covered that already. The fun thing about analogies is that they are useful within a given context - and outside of it, not so useful. So, if the monkeys don't type, it doesn't say anything about God, evolution, or why so many men wear tighty-whities even though it, so I'm told, turns off every woman in the world.

...The instructors hastened to note the study was not scientific, given the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, but some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of our view of the "enough monkeys for enough time" argument for random creation.

Wow, it must be tough being such an intellectual juggernaut that you can't distinguish between an analogy and actual science. Tell us, Dennis, do you have a "socks first, then shoes" sign by your bedside?

There are many intellectually honest atheists, and there are many intellectually dishonest believers in God.

Wow, we agree on something. Scary.

Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator-Designer.

Or we could just believe that the universe has always existed in one form or another (since the Big Bang was comprised of something) and that the physical laws of the universe happened to be such that life was made possible in our small corner of it - and maybe others - through a successful amalgamation of stepping stones, and not the equivalent of a tornado in a junkyard building 747s (but feel free to invoke that idiotic example too if you like).

In his book "God and the Astronomers," Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. In fact, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it. Why? Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe – and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.

Uh, no, it doesn't imply a creator at all - it implies a starting point from some other state of existence. That is all, whether that starting point is a singularity or the anus of some deity.

This led Jastrow to the sobering conclusion that many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs, especially the non-existence of God. For some psychological or emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, one will type out a psalm.

I stopped believing in god because I didn't want to respect his authority. Oh, and because bad things have happened to me in the past. And, um, there's a god-shaped hole in my heart that can only be filled by Jesus. Did I miss anything? Guess what, Dennis - wrong on all counts.

But neither math nor science argues that all came about randomly, without a Creator.

No, but science has yet to identify a need for one - and if you wish to hypothesize one, please let us know how your experiments go (and when you finally realize that intelligent design isn't scientific, we'll be here to pat you on the back).

Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief, a belief that should be laid to rest beneath a large pile of monkey doo-doo at Plymouth University, England.

Well, I'm convinced.

If this is what passes for mainstream apologetics, atheism should, I hope, see a glorious growth in the coming years.

Amen.

* Possibly Jewish according to a commenter - but the points remain.