Who really wrote Shakespeare's plays?

Question

1. Shakespeare
2. Francis Bacon
3. The earl of Oxford
4. Monkeys at a typewriter

We can obviously rule out number four. The reason why this question is in R & S is because it is similar to the question:
Who created the universe?
1. God
2. Allah
3. Vishnu
4. Time and Chance
An evolutionist that believes number four is like an English scholar that believes that monkeys wrote Shakespeare's plays. The origin of the universe and everything in it is outside the purview of science. Scientists should direct their attention to the advancement of knowledge rather than trying to prop up the dead paradigm of evolution.
So if evolutionists refuse to believe that monkeys wrote Shakespeare, then how can they claim that time and chance could create so much order and information?

Answer 1

Good analogy! I can add nothing else, except that evolution remains an unproven theory.

Answer 2

What the hell, I'm bored. I'll explain it to you.

Let's assume one of the options given for part 1 is in fact true. Since it's doubtfull that monkeys were able to do the task because;
-typewriters were not invented
-not enough monkeys
-not enough time.
I'm willing to leave the actual author undecided, due to some doubts posed by historians.

"because it is similar to the question:
Who created the universe?"

It's not similar, you're assuming a creator. While a book required a creator, the universe does not, it helps if you think of the universe like a human.

Take you for an example, you're a combination of your parents' genetic material, they made your existence possible, but they did not create you. When they set about making you, they did not know a) what they would get, and b) if they were getting anything. So, like the universe, you have no creator.

That seems to dry out your argument. But let's look at it some more. You give four options, none of which seem to correlate with current scientific knowledge. So another problem arises, the correct answer would be 5. physics.

Since there is no right answer, that too seems to defeat the argument.. but let's press on...

You mention evolutionist, which I assume means someone who trusts in the veracity of evolution theory? The grammatical structure is odd enough that I cannot quite comprehend what you're claiming (english is my second language). that that that without punctuation...

Let's see, You're saying;
Evolutionist who believes that number 4 is correct = scholar who believes number 4 is correct on the first example.

Right, you're again assuming a connection that does not exist... there is no need for it to be true. But let's keep going dispite.

Next you appear to switch to ranting... I'd like to just point out that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe,

And then you simply state that origin is outside the purview of science.. which you appear not to substanciate. It's an opinion, your opinion, not a fact, that alone would sink your argumentation. Yet again, let's just plunge on.

Evolution isn't a paradigm. What scientists should or should not do is most likely not based on your opinions on the matter.

And here we come to the best bit.
It looks to me that your claim is... translated to us normal people:

"If people that don't exist refuse to believe in something that could not have happened, how can they claim that another thing they don't know anything about or claim ever happened made a third, until this moment unmentoned, thing happen"

So, that's your argument?.... it's not very convincing, sorry. Try again later :)

To answer the only question I can see possible to answer; It's likely that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays, despite some claims to the contrary.

Answer 3

You have it wrong. Evolution is actually a valid scientific theory and what is dead is the debate over whether it happened or not; the result is that it did and continues to happen.

You seriously need to objectively review the current mountains of evidence. It would also help you to review the link below which shows why the claims of creationist have no basis in science. As a former creationist, I used to use many of these claims thinking that all the professional scientist had some how missed them in their considerations. Being the type of person that wants to expand my knowledge I started to research these claims (like the second law of thermodynamics) and basically found out that creationist claims are flawed.

Edit:
"An evolutionist that believes number four is like an English scholar that believes that monkeys wrote Shakespeare's plays."
Scientist, i.e. biologists, paleontologists, geologists, do not "believe" in evolution, they accept it as a proven scientific theory with massive amounts of evidence. As for Shakespeare (or evolution), it does not matter what people believe, what matters is what the evidence indicates. As there is no evidence of monkeys at a typewriter, then this is unplausable.

Answer 4

Why do you assume that time and chance is all I can come with?
"Order and information"....that's a joke. The info and "order" as you put come with time and experience. Do you honestly think that we all as a human race start the way we end? Would you like to be at the Coliseum in Rome watching two guys battle to the death. Or are you settling to watch "Gladiator" on T.V. for your entertainment purposes. I mean think about it. The only thing that is so complex is the Universe itself. In that the possibilities are endless. No God necessary.

Edit: Dude above me...Unproven theory? Are you kidding me. Evolution - an evolving; development of species from earlier forms.
Buddy, if that never happened you'd still be picking your but and swinging from trees.

Answer 5

The dead paradigm of evolution? Evolution is alive and at work as we speak.