What else can one learn from Huxley’s fatal blindness? Well do not all readers require a “language convention” in order to recognize the thoughts attached to those symbols being written? For example, It would of been a far simpler task, expending less time, energy and fuel, had Huxley’s monkeys just simply typed out “SOS” or even using two other keys which symbols express the same meaning, that is “…—…” but… since Morris code was not invented for another 45 years, the Huxleyan reader could not recognize (with intelligence) that any information was there to act upon in this simple set of sequences. So naturally, no life or response could come forth, because no Intelligence or convention was attached to match these symbols to meaning. Therefore even in the simplest of sequences, Intelligence is obviously required – and so Huxley himself, as anyone can now see, merely proved Darwinism is dead without a very well-informed reader present.
It is fascinating to me how the rebellion to embrace Darwinism is a willful blindness, that ironically keeps them from evolving out of Huxley’s fatal assumption. For what is more complex? The book or the one who reads and reacts to the book? The DVD disk or the player that reads and reacts to the disk? Life is always in the reading of the written – so it a very dangerous wager to reject the Intelligence who wrote you into existence. Information screams Intelligence and you are it’s reader – so be careful how you read and react to this information, we must judge as we will be judged.
“Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.” – Psalm 100:3