Ever hear the evolutionists argument against the infinitesimally small odds that evolution could ever happen? ‘Take an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters and they would produce all the works of Shakespeare’. I guess my basic argument with that statement is that if you need an infinite number of anything in order to overcome the problems with your theory, your theory is probably wrong.
But can using an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters be an apt example of the evolutionary process? I don’t think so. Let me ‘splain.
The more complicated something is the lower the probability that it could happen by randomness. The modern discovery that simple life is in fact quite complex has thrown a curve ball to the evolution fraternity which has built their entire scientific edifice on the false hypothesis of Darwin that simple life is simple.
The truth that a single self-replicating cell is as complex as a large city with the ability to unpack all city plans and designs, copy, repack and make another city just like it, is a dagger through the heart of evolution. To say that something on that order of complexity could happen at all is staggering but to say that it could happen more than once is preposterous.
Therefore an infinite number of monkeys is not necessary. One will do.
And what does this wondrous primate accomplish with no conceptual intellect, no tools, no goal? Why . . . everything! He paints the Mona Lisa. He builds the Roman Coliseum. He makes the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. He constructs the Pyramids of Giza. He designs and makes the Hubble Telescope, the Space Shuttle, Large Hadron Collider, iPhone, Ferrari etc.
Surely if “nothing” can make amoeba to man then a monkey can make all those things? He just needs enough time. Does anyone reading this actually believe that? If you do you have some serious issues to deal with. Your grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
But they must believe that very assumption on some level, even if it’s only subconsciously, and that creates an interesting philosophical question. Of what merit is the genius and ingenuity of man if all he has done and accomplished can be reduced to X = monkey + time, where X is any achievement you can think of. Intelligence becomes nothing more than nature’s fast forward button.
But it gets even worse. For if our intelligence was created by ‘nature’ then it was created by nothing so that the equation becomes even more simplified and brutal. I = nothing + time, where I = Intelligence. Many would argue that nothing should be replaced with randomness but this doesn’t help them any because randomness is not a force to act on something but rather a process and therefore subject to mathematical probability.
The smartest person on the planet is incapable of doing anything that a monkey could not do on a longer time frame. Nothing more that nature’s fast forward. How humiliating is that?