Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
The Five Pillars of Evolution
"But after [the theory of evolution] has been changed a hundred times and it is still falsified, at some point someone ought to throw in the towel."
Luther D. Suderland,
The Five Pillars of the Theory of Evolution
There are five main pillars holding up the claim of orthodox science that the theory of evolution is a "proven scientific fact." None of them have anything to do with science or truth. This is because there is no truth in the theory of evolution, thus they cannot use truth as a pillar to hold up the theory of evolution.
First, evolution is considered a "fact" because God is excluded from any discussion of science. Science has eliminated their competition by using clever definitions of the term "science." And they have used the courts to keep creation science and intelligent design out of the classrooms.
The scientific establishment has many very wealthy "friends" who think nothing of dropping millions of dollars into a court trial to make sure creation science is not taught in the classrooms.
But the scientific establishment does not just ignore creation science, it attacks creation science:
"The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. [A belief in] special creation or supernatural intervention [by God] is not subjectable to meaningful [scientific] tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of 'special creation' reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible."
Science and Creationism, page 8
Knowing that there is not one shred of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, try to count how many double-standards there are in the above quote.
Second, evolution is a "fact" because the theory of evolution keeps changing to fit the data. The theory of evolution is a "moving target" which adapts to every new scientific discovery. The theory of evolution is evolving.
Third, is the control of information received by the general public. Evolution is a "fact" because science controls what information the general public hears. The general public is carefully deceived into believing the theory of evolution has scientific evidence behind it.
Fourth, the theory of evolution is a "fact" because pro-evolution articles (i.e. no mention of God) are the only articles allowed to be published in "scientific" journals. Discoveries and evidence which challenge or disprove the theory of evolution are blacklisted and/or ridiculed. Science closely monitors their journals and (usually) only admits into publication scientific discoveries which support the theory, assume the theory is true or do not seriously challenge the overall claims of the theory of evolution. But never is a favorable mention of God allowed.
Fifth, it is critical that the research and claims of the creationists (i.e. creation scientists) are totally and absolutely suppressed. The public must never hear from a real creation scientist. The public must never hear their evidence and reasoning. In this way the scientific establishment can portray to the general public that creation scientists are a bunch of goons. That is why the UCTV series was so rare because real creation scientists were allowed to speak on television!!
These are the five pillars which "hold up" the theory of evolution. Note that "truth" or a "quest for truth" are not one of the pillars!!
Did you notice a pattern? All five of these items have to do with the manipulation of information, and have absolutely nothing to do with scientific evidence or truth.
Item number one above, excluding God, means they use their power in the media and schools to prevent any student from hearing the evidence that God created anything.
Item number two above, the moving target, refers to modifying the information given to the general public every time there is a new discovery in paleontology, biology, genetics, etc.
Item number three above, is the brainwashing of the general public with weak, misleading, fraudulent and simply absurd "evidence" that the theory of evolution is somehow scientific.
Item number four is the control of "scientific journals." Only "scientific" (i.e. no mention of God is allowed) information is allowed in "scientific" journals.
Item number five above is the complete and absolute blacklisting of the evidence of creation scientists.
The scientific establishment is like the Big Bully in the 4th grade class taking the candy away from the first and second graders every day. The scientific establishment, the Big Bully in the media and in education, keeps taking new discoveries and giving the new discoveries to their pet naturalistic theory (i.e. the theory of evolution).
The theory of evolution is looking at the rear-view mirror as it drives down the highway. When it sees something in the rear-view mirror that it likes, it then bullies its way into taking ownership of the new discovery and people think evolution was looking out the front window.
But this is not good science, this is bad science.
Either the original theory was true or it was false. It is now known that the original theory of evolution was false. But the theory keeps being revived by being constantly modified and by putting all new discoveries into its bottomless empty box.
The fact that orthodox science is "naturalistic" not only drives their philosophy; but it also drives their scientific ethics, or the lack thereof. Naturalism is driving their insatiable drive to keep the theory of evolution alive, no matter what the scientific evidence and no matter what lack of integrity which is needed to keep it alive.
The fact is that there is not one shred of scientific evidence, either by a study of nature or by lab experiments, that human DNA, or the DNA of any other animal or plant, could have been the result of accidental mutations of DNA. What scientific evidence there is is directly opposed to the theory of evolution.
Their "evidence" is based on vivid imaginations, and an insatiable desire for "naturalism," not by any quest for science truth.
These five pillars are why the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable. They control the information the general public and most students hear.
Here is an example of how the theory of evolution is a moving target. For years the scientific establishment preached that only 2.5% of human DNA was necessary for life. They used this as an excuse to claim that God did not exist, because certainly God would not have created DNA which was 97.5% worthless.
However, as scientists found out more and more about DNA, suddenly science changed their song and dance and suddenly quit mentioning this argument. The reason is that science now knows that over 50% of DNA is necessary for life, and many scientists suspect the real number is close to 100%.
Another "evidence" for the theory of evolution which resulted from thinking only 2.5% of human DNA was useful, was that "old DNA" from "ancestor species" (i.e. species, either living or extinct, from which humans evolved according to the theory of evolution) had not been purged from the DNA of humans. Thus, some or most of the 97.5% of worthless DNA was considered to be left over "junk DNA" from evolution (i.e. from ancestor species). This was a major "evidence" for the theory of evolution.
Not any more. Now that scientists cannot prove that a single part of human DNA is worthless, suddenly they quit talking about left over genes from the ancestor species of humans.
Yet, the virtually perfect human DNA, and the massive complexity of human DNA, somehow is twisted into a "proof" for the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is nothing but a chameleon.
When geneticists make the final determination as to what percentage of human DNA is necessary for life, and it will be close to 100%, this conclusion will be put into the box of evolution without a single shred of scientific evidence to support it and without a single comment about their "old" theories!!
An unfalsifiable theory should not be part of "science," it should be part of religion. "Science" should only deal with falsifiable theories which do not constantly change. Again, we see an exception for Darwinism because it is the best "naturalistic" theory they have. And science will always have a "naturalistic" explanation for everything.
The Obvious Question
Let us assume, for a moment, that God did create the Universe and all living things? If that were the case, should this fact be omitted from science classes?
In other words, should "science" be a quest for truth or should it be a quest for naturalism?
Ponder that ethics question for a couple of minutes before reading on.
According to the NAS booklet, the answer is that any mention of God should be omitted - no matter what. Anything that mentions God is not science and should not be taught in science classes, even if God did create the Universe and everything in it.
Thus, "science" is not looking for absolute truth; science is looking for theories to explain things as long as the theories exclude any mention of God.
Science has a huge hole in it - the lack of interest in truth.
Most people think that "science" is a quest for "absolute truth." Not according to the NAS definition of "science." Nowhere in their definitions is there any mention of absolute truth (which would of necessity, should they be truthful about their quest for absolute truth, include a consideration of God).
The NAS clearly states that "science" is limited to what "scientists" are capable of doing in their labs.
Here is another quote from this booklet:
"Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of lack of evidence."
Science and Creationism, Page ix
This quote is a blatant lie. It is a claim by the NAS that science has carefully considered the possibility that God created the Universe and human DNA, etc. They have not. That is forbidden.
The possibility that God created the Universe and human DNA is millions of times more logical than the theory that the Universe and human DNA resulted from a series of mindless, purposeless, directionless random mutations of DNA.
Thus, what is the "lack of evidence" they talk about in the above quote? Well, since they haven't considered the possibility that God exists, then it must mean a "lack of evidence" that God created anything.
According to their logic, if you assume God does not exist; then you have "evidence" that He did not create anything. In other words, if you assume God does not exist; then there is a "lack of evidence" that God created anything.
Certainly evolutionists and creation scientists have the same physical evidence from fossils, rocks, DNA, etc. Thus, the "lack of evidence" is not physical, it is philosophical. The philosophy of science is that God does not exist or that He was not part of any type of creation. Thus, the "lack of evidence" really means the "lack of evidence" (from their perspective) that God lives or that God has done anything meaningful.
What "evidence" does the evolution establishment have that God does not exist and God did not create anything? How can you prove that God didn't do something? How can you scientifically prove that God does not exist? Yet they claim to have done that.
Let us continue the above quote:
"Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses."
Science and Creationism, Page ix
This quote really gives away their clever definitions. They state: "the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes ..."
This can be translated: "the claims of creation science are not naturalistic ..."
In other words, to talk about God is not acceptable because only "naturalism" (i.e. "natural causes") is acceptable in a discussion of "science." To qualify as a "scientific hypotheses," only naturalism is accepted.
The message to creation scientists is clear: If creation scientists want to be accepted by the scientific establishment, they must quit talking about God and must start talking about "natural causes" of everything. God is not acceptable to the establishment. This quote makes this very clear to the creation scientists.
In other words, a belief in God does "not qualify as scientific hypotheses."
They are excluding creation scientists as "scientists" because they are not "naturalists," meaning they exclude creation scientists as "scientists" because they believe in God. The reason? What God did cannot be "subject to meaningful tests" and thus are not "scientific hypotheses."
But is that really the reason? Does the real concern of the scientific establishment have anything to do with "scientific hypothesis?" No, their real concern is the preservation of "naturalism." Everything else is window dressing.
Creation scientists represent the "enemy," meaning those who are trying to expose the flaws in their assumption that all of nature was the result of a long series of fortuitous accidents.
The term "science" must exclude any reference to God, even at the sacrifice of truth.
The Art and Science of Brainwashing
Very few people truly understand the goal of brainwashing. Most people believe that brainwashing is designed to repeat the same thing over and over again and suppress any opposing viewpoint.
While this is true, it is the objective of brainwashing which needs to be understood.
Read this next quote several times until you understand every word of it.
"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance."
Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
This "uniform pattern of public utterance" is exactly what the scientific establishment has achieved. Any time the word "creation science" is uttered in a scientific classroom, students are brainwashed into an immediate dissonant response which is manifest as an immediate episode of laughter.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
The average person has absolutely zero clue how powerful the media is and how effective their carefully crafted brainwashing tactics have become.
For example, suppose the media told a lie (in other words, suppose they were on the air). They can lie to millions of people in an instant. They can brainwash scores of millions of people within a few days. They have produced a mind-numbing "uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance" over virtually every citizen in the United States on a large number of issues.
So let's suppose someone told the truth. The media would not mention it. The media would blacklist it.
So what is the person going to do, start a website? Who is going to read that website? There are many billions of web pages on the Internet. How many "hits" do you think this new website of yours would get? I will tell you - none. It will take years for Google to put it in the top 100 sites for any common search string, and that assumes you have hundreds of web pages to attract "hits."
The sooner a person understands these facts, the sooner they will be able to see the real reason the theory of evolution survives. It has nothing to do with truth, or even the quest for truth; it has to do with the control of the media, the control of the universities, the control of the scientific journals, and so on.
The war about evolution is not about science, it is a war about information, meaning getting "press."