|
Introduction
to the Mathematics of Evolution Chapter
1 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" Introduction 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 is 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 in nature. 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 the first “life” was of a form 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 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.” UCTV During a
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 event 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?'" In other
words, because science excludes the possibility of God having an effect on
creation, and thus 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 say is this: "given that there
is no 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. This is curious, because God exists and God
is many billions of times smarter than any scientist. It is as if
the scientific establishment doesn't want their competition (i.e. God) to be
heard from or talked about. 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 Creationism, Second Edition, 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 of "science": 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. However, as
might be suspected, there is a double-standard. 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 both
cases, science cannot replicate or substantiate the belief or theory; yet in
one case the belief is considered "scientific" and in the other case
it is considered "unscientific." 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. About Evolution 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
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, that means that the scientists on our planet
are the brightest scientists 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. Hogwash!!! 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. |