[geocentrism] John Rennie

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:47:41 +0100

Dear Paul,
As you requested I just looked at one of the points in John Rennie's answers to 
creationists (I have read this before) and I would comment on this particular 
contribution; 
Quote
'As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those 
hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take 
as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But 
in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that 
generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters 
that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more 
like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 
iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct 
Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days. 
That sounds like a very clever and intelligent piece of programming???? How 
would nature be able to accomplish the same thing without an intelligent 
programmer? Nature has no intelligence, it is not a measurable force or 
measurable anything it is merely a name we give to that which is not created by 
man (intelligence). 
This is the most stupid explanation for evolution I have ever come across. It 
is exactly the same as R. Dawkins' 'Me thinks its like a weasel' that I 
mentioned in a previous e-mail. It just reeks of purpose, intelligence, 
direction in fact the complete opposite of randomeness. Also I suspect that the 
program was written to detect the required number of letters and their 
particular sequence. To be closer to evolution the programmer should have asked 
the computer to use the 26 letters and to randomely select any group of letters 
from 1 to 26 ( not necessarily all different - they could all be the same 
number) and arranged them in any order until he sees TOBEORNOTTOBE appear. Its 
possible he could have spotted 'cat' or rumplestiltskin' or 
'ttthonnnnntoojacdsfr' It would take a lot more than 336 iterations. The 
monkey's 26 ^13 over 78,000 years is much more like it because the monkeys 
would be behaving in randomely whereas, as he said, an intelligently designed 
program could do it in 336. You could easily write a program that would do it 
in 1! What's so special about 336? The whole thing is a nonsensical exercise 
that only shows up the stupidity of the programmer.


Jack Lewis
www.classiccarartist.co.uk

Other related posts:

  • » [geocentrism] John Rennie