The issue with the works of Shakespear that it assumes the composite integrity of grammar, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Even if the works of Shakespear were to by typed out by a monkey it still wouldn't actually mean anything because for this a mind is needed. Meaning is always inferred as a composite functionality of base concepts or elements. Marcel Schützenberger in the French interview after Wistar described how we only derive meaning as functionality: the function of a car, function of a battery. http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm . He echoed D'Arcy Thompson's description of composite integrity with functional integrity, revived by Behe under the rubric of IC.
- .... The laboratory biologists' normal and unforced vernacular is
almost always couched in functional terms: the function of an eye, the function of an enzyme, or a ribosome, or the fruit fly's antennae -- their function; the concept by which such language is animated is one perfectly adapted to reality......
Without a mind the monkey typing would be no different than a random string of letters. Hence *mind first* is implicitly assumed commensurate with our everyday experience: designed objects always existed in a mind before being expressed physically. For the sonnets of Shakespear to be classified as designed, the very concept of
- design* must exist a-priori before any expression in a physical
dimension(cars, letters) of such mind. With such design deriving its meaning as the opposite of random,chance. If there are more infinite options, then we would have to wait an infinite time to explore them all, off into the abyss of infinite regress. The best explanation for design is that it is the opposite of chance, therefore the explanation doesn't need an explanation or the explanation itself would need one, ad-infinitum .