Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
Why the Theory of Evolution Exists
"In the preface to the proceedings of the [Wistar] symposium, Dr. Kaplan commented about the importance of mathematics in such matters as theorizing about origins [of life]. He said that to construct a history of thought without profound study of the mathematical ideas of successive efforts is comparable to omitting the part of Ophelia from Shakespeare's play, Hamlet"
Many times students hear that the theory of evolution is a "proven fact of science."
The reality is that the theory of evolution is NOT a proven fact of science.
For example, the theory of evolution requires that life be created from simple chemicals. It requires the conversion of “life from non-life.”
Such a conversion has never been demonstrated and such a conversion has never been proven to be possible. For example, the complex chemical binding of many amino acids, necessary to create proteins, has never been demonstrated to be possible outside of cells.
Even the simplest life on earth, which does not require a host, is far too complex to form by a series of accidents. Therefore the theory of evolution requires that the first “life” was a form of life which does not exist on this earth any more. Thus, according to the theory of evolution, the “first living cell,” meaning the first living cell on this planet, is a species which no longer exists on this earth.
The theory of evolution also requires massive amounts of new genetic information form by totally random mutations of DNA. For example, the “first living cell” would have had a very simple and very short DNA strand. However, human DNA would be much, much longer and far, far more complex. In other words, human DNA has millions of times more complex genetic information than the “first living cell” would have had according to the theory of evolution.
New genetic information, including at least one new gene, has never been observed in nature, nor has new genetic information, created by random mutations of DNA, ever been accomplished in a science lab.
When discussing the probability of the theory of evolution, things get really absurd for the theory of evolution. The Wistar symposium, mentioned in the quote at the top of this chapter, which shredded the theory of evolution by mathematical analysis, should have dispensed with the theory of evolution over 40 years ago (several world-famous evolutionists were at that symposium), but of course that did not happen.
No fully functional computer program on earth has been improved upon by randomly changing and adding “bits” of information. Likewise, no fully functional DNA strand has been improved upon by randomly changing and adding nucleotides.
The truth is that any honest geneticist will tell you that the DNA of almost all plants and animals is deteriorating (this is called “genetic entropy”). “Point mutations,” meaning a mutation of a single nucleotide, are overwhelmingly negative. But even when point mutations yield a positive result, it is generally an environmental coincidence caused by a loss of genetic information.
Even though scientists have tried billions of times to create new genetic information in DNA by random mutations, they have never created any new genetic information by mutating existing DNA.
Thus, why would the scientific establishment claim that the theory of evolution is a proven fact of science; when in fact every shred of actual scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution?
It is important for the reader to understand why the scientific establishment makes such a brash, but absurd, claim that the theory of evolution is a proven fact of science and why they stand behind a theory which is known to be scientifically false. That is what this chapter is about.
Before getting into the heart of the issue, it is necessary to distinguish between a "scientist" and "science."
A "scientist" is a person who has studied the field of science. Many scientists believe in God and do not believe in evolution. On the other hand, many scientists believe in the theory of evolution and do not believe in God.
While an "evolutionist" is not necessarily an "atheist," the fact is that by looking at all the concepts claimed in the theory of evolution (e.g. that humans are descended from other primates), the only logical conclusion of someone who strongly believes in the theory of evolution would be that there is no God.
Now let us talk about the term "science." The term "science" means the "scientific establishment." Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, and magazines such as National Geographic and Scientific American, make up the "scientific establishment."
Thus, the term "scientist" cannot be generalized, because many scientists are creation scientists and many scientists are evolutionists.
However, the term "science" can be generalized because the term “science” always involves organizations which have a total and absolute support for the theory of evolution. All member organizations of the "scientific establishment" are strong supporters of the theory of evolution.
Thus, let us examine in this chapter why the theory of evolution still exists and why it is still supported by “science.”
series of television shows on evolution, UCTV (i.e.
Because UCTV allowed actual creation scientists to speak, a great deal of concepts which are hidden from the public were revealed. For example, during this series, a well-known professor of law, who is also a creation scientist, Phillip E. Johnson (author of several books, including Darwin on Trial), stated:
"Science is committed to philosophical naturalism and therefore science must assume that no Creator, and no purposeful intelligence, is behind our existence ... All that science can address is the question of: 'granted that we are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms, what's the most plausible purposeless material mechanism that we can imagine?'"
Phillip E. Johnson, author, attorney; quoted on UCTV
Read that quote three or four times very carefully, because it is a superb summary of modern "science."
Here we see a clear reference to the term "science" as representing the "scientific establishment," because many individual scientists are creation scientists. Thus, Mr. Johnson is referring to the scientific establishment.
His comments are the kind of comments a person would never hear from the scientific establishment.
"Naturalism" (Mr. Johnson actually refers to "philosophical naturalism") is essentially a way of describing how events happen by "natural" means.
Mr. Johnson uses the phrase "science is committed to philosophical naturalism." "Philosophical naturalism" is technically not the same thing as atheism, what it technically means is "by natural events, meaning without supernatural events, meaning without God." In other words, science is committed to explaining nature, including the Universe, without any consideration of supernatural events, which can only mean science does not consider the existence of God.
To put it another way, what he is saying is that the scientific establishment (i.e. "science") does not allow itself to consider that there might be a God who is a factor in the creation of anything. They are "committed" to "natural" explanations, meaning no supernatural explanations, which would imply no mention of God, are allowed.
The significance of this is that the scientific establishment attempts to describe the existence of human DNA, and the DNA of all other species, by purely "naturalistic" mechanisms (or as he called them: "purposeless material mechanism"). This means, by definition, "without God."
Since all of the major events of the theory of evolution happened before modern society, saying "without God" means "by total accident." In other words, their goal is to explain the Universe, human DNA, the DNA of millions of other species, etc., all by totally accidental (i.e. natural) means.
Most people assume that science has carefully considered whether human DNA was designed and built by God or whether it was not designed at all. According to Mr. Johnson "science" is only considering natural events (i.e. random events) and does not consider any supernatural events provided by God.
As professor Johnson said: "All that science can address is the question of: 'granted that we are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms, what's the most plausible purposeless material mechanism that we can imagine?'"
Because science excludes the possibility of God having an effect on creation, and thus they do not allow themselves to consider the possibility of God, the theory of evolution is their "best guess" (i.e. "most plausible purposeless material mechanism") as to how human DNA, and the DNA of millions of other species, came to be.
The important point is that the general public assumes that the scientific establishment is in search of absolute truth and thus has carefully considered every possible explanation for the existence of human beings (i.e. human DNA), including the possibility that God created human DNA. But the scientific establishment has only considered one possibility; the possibility of "naturalism," meaning "purposeless material mechanisms." The possibility of God is ignored.
Thus, the public's assumption that the scientific establishment is looking for absolute truth, is dead wrong. The scientific establishment leaves a huge hole in its research by not considering the existence of God.
The superb movie: Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed addresses this very issue.
Thus, when the science establishment claims that the theory of evolution is a "proven fact of science," what they are really saying is this: "ignoring the possibility of a God, the theory of evolution is our 'best guess' as to how human DNA came to exist."
To further understand this, let us look at an official publication of the National Academy of Sciences.
The Definition of "Science"
Most students do not fully grasp the relationship between "science" and God. The relationship is easy to explain: God is not welcome in science textbooks or in science classrooms. There is no room for God in science even if He exists. This is curious, because God does exist and He is many billions of times smarter than any scientist.
It is as if the scientific establishment doesn't want any competition from God by forcing science students to worship high ranking scientists.
Let us consider the definition of "science" as given in a small booklet published by the National Academy of Sciences.
"In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science."
Science and Creationism1, Page 1
It sounds like a good definition, and in fact it is consistent with many other definitions of "science" which have been around for many decades.
But the main thing this definition is designed to do is exclude God from "science." Let us analyze the above definition.
First, note the term "limited" above. What that implies is that anything which is not overtly in the definition is excluded from consideration as being "science."
For example, if God creates something (like the Universe or human DNA), according to the above definition, it is not defined as "science" because it cannot be "substantiated by other scientists," nor can it be "observed" by scientists, nor can it be replicated with "experiments" in a lab by scientists. Nor are God's actions "empirical" (i.e. based on practical experience).
Thus there are five different ways that God is excluded from "science," by the above definition:
1) By "limiting" the definition of science exclusively to what is in the definition,
2) Because God's actions cannot be substantiated by other scientists,
3) Because God's actions cannot be observed by other scientists,
4) Because God's actions cannot be replicated by experiment by other scientists,
5) Because God's actions are not part of the practical experience of other scientists (i.e. empirical evidence).
Thus, the term science is "limited" to what scientists can do in a lab. The term "science" therefore means: "the absence of God."
However, this is a two-edged sword. Scientists cannot create a Universe in their lab, thus the Big Bang theory, meaning a theory that the Universe came to be by an accidental Big Bang, is not science, using their own definition of "science."
Scientists cannot create huge "black holes" in their labs. Thus, since they cannot replicate the Big Bang in their labs; a theory which includes an accidental Big Bang is not part of "science" either, by definition.
Thus, no theory of how the Universe came to be is technically "science" by the above definition because it is impossible to replicate the Big Bang in a science lab, whether it was accidental or carefully planned or there was some other mechanism.
However, as might be suspected, there is a double-standard in science.
The scientific establishment rejects the claim that God created the Universe via a highly controlled Big Bang, because it cannot be substantiated by scientists. However, the scientific establishment accepts the claim that random accidents created the Universe even though such random accidents cannot be replicated or substantiated by scientists.
In other words, the scientific establishment, using absolutely zero scientific evidence, considers a "Big Bang" created by a series of accidents to be "science," but a Big Bang initiated by God is considered "unscientific" and such a belief is not part of "science" and is not allowed in science classrooms.
Did you understand what was just said? If God created a controlled Big Bang, it is not "science." But if scientists have a ludicrous theory about how the Big Bang happened by a series of impossible accidents, even though they cannot replicate how this could have happened in their labs, or prove it could have happened; this theory is part of science.
Astronomers, to get published in official scientific publications, must explain the existence of the Universe without mentioning God. In other words, astronomers who believe God created the Universe are not allowed to voice the reasons for their views in "scientific publications" (i.e. literally translated via the above definition: "publications without God") because God is not a scientist.
Thus, the above definition of "science" is only designed to do one thing - exclude God from science. Other than being used to exclude God, the definition is largely ignored.
Like an accidental Big Bang, the theory of evolution has not been replicated in any lab and it has not been observed in nature (without assuming the theory of evolution is true), but it also is considered "science."
The bottom line is that the term "science" is carefully designed to exclude God from being considered as the Creator of anything. This is one way they get God kicked out of "science classrooms" (i.e. literally translated: "classrooms without God").
It is interesting that in court trials, the evolutionist side of the trial try very hard to get creation scientists to admit that "intelligent design" is an admission of God. But on the other hand, they refuse to admit that claiming that humans are descended from other primates is not an admission of atheism. This is another double-standard.
Biologists are equally required to explain the existence of human DNA, etc. as the result of a long series of accidents - if they want to get published. No mention of God is allowed in official science publications because God is not a scientist, nor would such a paper be considered "scientific," meaning the paper would be considered "unscientific."
Because science does not allow itself to consider that God created anything (i.e. they do not allow the consideration of "supernatural" events), therefore they must find some reason to claim that "nature" created everything (i.e. this is the definition of "naturalism"). They are required by their own rules to try and explain how the incredible complexity of DNA came to exist by a long series of accidents. They have set the rules, and science will not diverge from their chosen path.
Thus, the only reason the theory of evolution exists at all is because of the two step process which science has defined for itself:
1) Science has a complete and absolute commitment to "naturalism," meaning a supernatural God is not allowed to be considered as a causal factor for anything.
2) Given that God is not allowed to be considered, what is the "best guess" explanation that science has for the existence of human DNA? This is the question posed by Mr. Johnson above.
This is the key: science has not carefully considered whether God exists or whether God created anything. This was not in their plan. Their plan all along was, as professor Johnson stated: "granted that we are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms [i.e. naturalism], what's the most plausible purposeless material mechanism [i.e. purely naturalistic explanation] that we can imagine?"
Their answer, which excludes God by definition, is the theory of evolution.
That is why the theory of evolution exists and that is what the theory of evolution is all about.
Many individual scientists have considered the possibility that God exists, or may exist, and have looked at the evidence. Many of them have concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly favors the theory or belief that God is a far better explanation for the existence of the Universe and the existence of human DNA, than the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution, respectively.
But such views cannot be published in "scientific" publications.
Has science proven that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact? No, all they have demonstrated is that if you ignore the possibility that God exists, the theory of evolution is their "most plausible" explanation for human DNA.
It is also interesting that the above definition of "science" does not mention any type of quest for absolute truth. A quest for absolute truth would force a person to consider the existence of God. Such a quest would be repulsive to the scientific establishment.
So why does the theory of evolution even exist? It exists because the leaders of the scientific establishment don't want any competition from God. They know they (i.e. the scientific establishment) did not create the Universe or human DNA, so the next best thing for them to do, to look smart in the eyes of the general public, and to pretend to be the smartest people in the Universe; is to tell the general public that the theory of evolution is a proven fact of science (thus eliminating any higher intelligence than their own).
By telling the general public the theory of evolution is a proven fact of science they are essentially saying: "we have proven there is no God or that God did not create anything meaningful, thus we scientists are the highest form of intelligence in the Universe."
Copernicus and Galileo would roll over in their graves.
In the days of these two great scientists, the powers that ruled the world wanted the earth to be the "center of the Universe." If the earth was the center of the Universe, then the smartest and most powerful people in the Universe were the smartest and most powerful people on this planet (since we were the center of the Universe.)
Nothing has changed. Today, even though astronomers know that our earth is not the center of the Universe, by "science" claiming that all phenomenon in the Universe which they did not do, was done by a long series of small accidents; means that the scientists on our planet are the brightest scientists and smartest beings in the Universe.
The things that scientists can do are called "science"; the things that scientists cannot do are called "accidents"; and the evidence of the creation scientists is called "unscientific."
In other words, our "scientists" are the center of the Universe in terms of knowledge and intelligence.
The real goal of "science" is to put our scientists at the top of the food chain of intelligence. It is nonsense, absolute nonsense.
Not only does God exist (and He is billions of times smarter than any of us), but there are no doubt billions of scientists throughout the Universe who can design DNA as easily as we can use Lego® blocks to design plastic buildings.
Sorry, but we are not the center of the Universe.
Knowing that the scientific establishment claims that the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact; and knowing that this claim is nothing but gibberish to claim that the theory of evolution is their "best guess;" what would happen if someone were to consider God or consider that the "best guess" of the scientific establishment is scientific nonsense? That is what this book is all about.
1) Science and Creationism - A View From the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, Washington, DC 1999