# Mathematics, Science, and Darwinian Speculation

Darwinists are drunks looking for their keys under a lamppost, when their keys are not even in the same neighborhood as the lamppost.

Math represents the most rigorous of all the sciences. Without a logical and clearly defined proof, nothing in mathematics is taken seriously.

This is in direct contradiction to Darwinism, which proposes an unlimited universe of thoroughly unsubstantiated speculation, none of which is subject to any rigorous analytical scrutiny.

Yet, we are told that anyone who even questions this unlimited universe of unsubstantiated speculation is “an enemy of science.”

The reverse is precisely the case. Darwinism is the quintessential enemy of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the way things really are, and when logic, evidence, and mathematical scrutiny cast grave doubt concerning the creative powers of the proposed Darwinian mechanism, those who offer such challenges are told to shut up and not ask stupid questions.

The core of Darwinism (random errors filtered by natural selection as a universal explanation for everything in life) should take its appropriate place at the summit of the ash heap of pseudo-scientific nonsense.

In fact, it should win the grand prize in all of history for being the most destructive anti-scientific notion ever devised, with bonus points for being the most destructive of the human soul.

## 10 Replies to “Mathematics, Science, and Darwinian Speculation”

1. 1
bFast says:

Wow Gil, you do know how to call a spade a spade.

2. 2
bornagain77 says:

Although I am not that well versed in the intricacies of math, I’ve always appreciated the rigor that math has brought to science. And despite my mathematical illiteracy, I even find there to be a ‘beauty’ to the mathematical equations that I can appreciate much like one may appreciate a work of art.

Notes:

The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe -Walter Bradley – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491

The Five Foundational Equations of the Universe and Brief Descriptions of Each:

How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? — Albert Einstein

“… if nature is really structured with a mathematical language and mathematics invented by man can manage to understand it, this demonstrates something extraordinary. The objective structure of the universe and the intellectual structure of the human being coincide.” – Pope Benedict XVI

“The reason that mathematics is so effective in capturing, expressing, and modeling what we call empirical reality is that there is a ontological correspondence between the two – I would go so far as to say that they are the same thing.”
Richard Sternberg – Pg. 8 How My Views On Evolution Evolved

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.
Galileo Galilei

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner
Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
http://www.faqs.org/periodical.....27241.html

Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation – Granville Sewell – audio
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012

At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation;

‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+b^i, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’.

i.e. the Materialist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist presupposes such ‘transcendent’ control,,,

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

of note; ‘the Word’ is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’.

———-

God by the Numbers – Connecting the constants
Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler’s (pronounced “Oiler’s”) number: e*pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e*pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e*pi*i+1 = 0 has been called “the most famous of all formulas,” because, as one textbook says, “It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician.”
http://www.christianitytoday.c.....ml?start=3

I find it extremely strange that the enigmatic Euler’s identity would find such striking correlation to reality. In pi we have correlation to the ‘sphere of the universe’ as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned ‘geometric flatness’ within the ‘sphere of the universe’ that has now been found. In e we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth in math that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is ‘expanding/growing equally’ in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a ‘imaginary number’, which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, as Michael Denton pointed out in the preceding video, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler’s identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates, points overwhelmingly to a transcendent Intelligence, with a capital I, which created this universe! It should also be noted that these universal constants, pi,e, and square root -1, were at first thought by many to be completely transcendent of any material basis, to find that these transcendent constants of Euler’s identity in fact ‘govern’ material reality, in such a foundational way, should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine.

etc.. etc…

note:

Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

3. 3
GilDodgen says:

A mathematics professor at MIT, an atheist, has said of Euler’s Identity, “There is no God, but if there were, this formula would be proof of His existence.”

4. 4
bornagain77 says:

Here is an interesting story of the great mathematician Leonhard Euler, who was a devout Christian;

Euler’s Proof of God

Unknown if it is true or not there is a story in which Euler convinces a French Philosipher that God did indeed exist. This story could be an urban myth, but in reality Euler did have other published proofs that God existed.

The story is as follows: Once at the court of Catherine the Great Euler met a French philosopher named Denis Diderot. Diderot was a convinced athiest, and was trying to convince the Russians into atheism also. Catherine was very annoyed by this and she asked for Euler’s help. Euler thought about it and when he began a theological discussion with Diderot, Euler said: ” (a+b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists” Diderot was said to know almost nothing about algebra, and therefore returned to Paris.

http://leonhard-euler.tripod.com/id4.html

,,, Myself, I’ve always envisioned Euler writing down e^pi*i + 1 = 0 , in the fabled discussion and then saying ‘Therefore God exists’!.

5. 5
Neil Rickert says:

Math represents the most rigorous of all the sciences. Without a logical and clearly defined proof, nothing in mathematics is taken seriously.

As a mathematician, I will point out that mathematics is not a science at all. No science can meet the standard of rigor that we find in mathematics.

I should also point out that there is a significant amount of speculation in mathematics, and that speculation can be important. Perhaps the best known example of this was Fermat’s last theorem – that was speculation by Fermat, and it took over 350 years before it was proved.

6. 6
Joseph says:

Neil Rickert:

As a mathematician, I will point out that mathematics is not a science at all.

mathemaics: the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations (bold added)

7. 7
Michael Tuite says:

Ahoy, Gil!
Wow! There’s no doubting where you stand with respect to Darwinism. Is all of evolutionary science so intellectually vacuous? What about paleobiology? Is it possible to make scientifically rigorous conclusions about the history of life based upon the fossil record? Does ID preclude all evolution by natural selection?

Michael

8. 8
bFast says:

From BA77 post 2:
How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? — Albert Einstein
The great Einstein didn’t get that mathematics is discovery, not invention?

9. 9
bornagain77 says:

‘Is all of evolutionary science so intellectually vacuous?’

Michael, Since there is no rigid mathematical foundation for evolution to build its scientific case on, what makes you imagine that the rest of the house, that has been built upon that non-existent foundation, will have the strength to withstand the strong wind of scrutiny that comes to each proposition daring to call itself a ‘fact’ of science??

Is it possible to make scientifically rigorous conclusions about the history of life based upon the fossil record?

No, because it is obviously a historical science and not open to testing ‘in the lab’. But of what evidence we do see in the fossil record (suddenness and stasis), it is clear that Darwinism is not even close to the best explanation.