Fake ‘Science’ Scenario: Monkeys, Typewriters, & Disappearing Ink!
Dr. James J. S. Johnson
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1st Timothy 6:20)
Imagine the Typing Monkeys Scenario—hordes of monkeys, randomly typing on typewriters, with unlimited supplies of time and paper! Can they “accidently” produce a work of Shakespeare, given unlimited time?
This imagined scenario (a/k/a “Infinite Monkey Theorem”) has been argued, by evolutionists, to imply that “given enough time” anything material, including physical lifeforms that “appear” to be intelligently designed (such as humans), can happen accidently.(1)
As creation science literature readers know, scientists have repeatedly debunked that “it-could-happen” analogy, exposing over-simplification flaws in evolutionist hypotheticals.(2)
However, some insist that even ridiculously small improbabilities are ultimately achievable, eventually. With infinite time, they say, any interrelated series of “lucky” coincidences can occur.
So, is infinite time the ultimate “rescuing device” for evolution’s improbabilities? Evolutionists say yes, worshipping unlimited time as a “hero” (a creator-substitute, actually) who carries the irrationally improbable into the realm of possible. But is literally “anything” is possible in our universe, given molecules-in-motion and infinite time? As applied to life’s origins (i.e., Earth’s humans and animals), the answer is absolutely NO, for many reasons.
One such reason is ENTROPY (a/k/a the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Entropy won’t go away, no matter how desperately evolutionary abiogenesis imaginations wish it to do so!(2)
The naturalistic creed of most evolutionists, however, requires them to account for complexity naturalistically. Somehow a scenario must be developed showing how a primeval chemical molecule could evolve into a replicating protein, then a complex protozoan, eventually a large beast, and finally a human being with an infinitely complex brain. …
[However], there is a universal scientific law that all natural processes tend to decrease complexity in the universe. This is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics, or law of increasing entropy… decreased energy available, increased randomness and disorganization, garbled transmission of information, etc.(3)
Our universe is always governed by entropy—biochemical compounds needed for life (including DNA, RNA, amino acids, lipoproteins, glycoproteins, etc.) are no exceptions. Thermodynamically speaking, all of these basic biochemical building-blocks, needed to construct body parts for humans and animals, are inherently and inescapably unstable.
Thus, any accidental (i.e., random, lucky, un-designed) assembly of biochemicals, if it ever occurred in a so-called “primordial soup”, would be statistically more-likely-than-not to disintegrate with every passing moment. That means that any accidental bio-assemblies (even subparts of proteins, DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.) would be ephemeral at best, inclined to fall apart, all the time, with every passing split-second—insuring that infinite time is the destroyer of accidental biomolecules, not the “hero” that facilitates preserving (much less building) them from simple to complex.
As the triple-doctored A. E. Wilder-Smith once clarified at University of North Carolina, the Typing Monkeys Scenario is a false analogy.(4)
Forgetting, arguendo, that the monkeys will die of hunger, and ignoring the problem of sourcing unlimited paper, and omitting the inevitability of typewriter keys being ground to powder (long before anything that appears “intelligent” can be accidently typed)—the typewriters themselves, if comparable to our universe’s realities, must use “entropy ink“, a type of disappearing ink!
Specifically, whenever “evolutionary typewriter” keys strike paper, the ink (representing any inherently unstable organic compound) deposited must be continuously inclined to disintegrate. In other words, the ink used, at every split-second thereafter, is more-likely-than-not to disappear off the page!
Consequently, any “lucky” words or phrases will not survive for any meaningful timeframe!(4)
Eons of time guarantee that simian keypunchers can never type out Hamlet—the imagined luck is “not to be”, pardon the pun. Time plus entropy prevents spontaneous generation of life—end of fairytale!
In sum, before “survival of the fittest” could ever become plausible, there must be an accounting for an “arrival of the fittest”. And that requires opening and reading the pages of Genesis!
><> JJSJ firstname.lastname@example.org
(1) Henry M. Morris III, “Willingly Ignorant”, Acts & Facts. 42(3):5-7 (March 2013), citing 2nd Peter 3:5.
(2) See generally Duane Gish, “Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order”, Acts & Facts, vol. 5 (July 1976). See also, accord, Jeffrey Tomkins, “The Impossibility of Life’s Evolutionary Beginnings”, Acts & Facts, vol. 47(March 2018); Henry M. Morris, “Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy”, Acts & Facts (May 1973 Impact article); Charles McCombs, “Evolution Hopes You Don’t Know Chemistry: The Problem of Control”, Acts & Facts. 33(August 2004); James J. S. Johnson, “DNA and RNA: Providential Coding to ‘Revere’ God”, Acts & Facts. 40(3):8-9 (March 2011); Brian Thomas, “Critique of ‘Primordial Soup’ Vindicates Creation Research” (2010), www.icr.org/article/critique-primordial-soup-vindicates .
(3) Henry M. Morris, “The Mystery of Complexity”, Acts & Facts. vol. 31 (January 2002).
(4) During a Q&A discussion, at an apologetics event in Chapel Hill (during the early 1980s, when I was attending law school at the University of North Carolina, earning my first doctorate), Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith explained this enlightening argument. See also, accord, A. E. Wilder-Smith, “The Origin of Conceptual Thought in Living Systems”, Acts & Facts, vol. 22 (February 1993).