In a recent article here at Mind Matters News, “Horizontal Innovation Requires More Than Novel Outputs,” I argued that there is a fundamental difference between searching a predefined solution space and producing genuinely new functional outcomes. Search algorithms — even highly effective ones — operate within constraints that already define what counts as a valid solution. They do not create those constraints. But what about randomness? Could an algorithm use randomness to produce genuine innovation? The classic example is the “monkey with a typewriter.” We are told that, given enough time, a monkey randomly pressing keys will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. Recently, I watched Stephen Meyer discuss why randomness is unlikely to generate new functional information. He uses the analogy of guessing the combination of a lock; the more complex the lock, the longer random search is expected to take before finding the correct passkey. Likewise, a monkey randomly striking keys is extraordinarily unlikely to reproduce Shakespeare within any practical timeframe. I agree with Meyer’s conclusion, but I believe there is a …