Replies

The conflict is not with religion; the conflict is between mathematics, often called the queen of the sciences, and evolution which ought to be called the knave or joker of the sciences. Evolution is basically an ideological doctrine masquerading as a science theory. It requires an endless series of probabilistic miracles and posits that you should view your neighbor as a meat byproduct of random processes, rather than as a fellow child of God.

In real life, our living world is based on information and an information code more complex than C++, Java, or any other information system which man has yet devised:

What makes you think that the study of evolution is completely divorced from mathematics? They go hand-in-hand; without the heavy use of mathematics, there would be no study of evolution. This paper on the (independent) evolution of electrical systems in fish, for example, relies on some pretty heavy-duty mathematical analysis. Although the mathematical formulae are not presented in the paper, they are referenced.

Calling evolution an "ideological doctrine" rather than a basic theory of biology is nothing more than a malicious misrepresentation of what science is about. One needs look no further than organizations such as "Answers in Genesis" who promote "creation science" to realize the truth of that. To date, there is not a single FDA approved drug or medical treatment that was developed as a result of examining the Bible.

In real life, our living world is based on information and an information code more complex than C++, Java, or any other information system which man has yet devised:

In real life, the information code that organisms use is based on the four letters of DNA. That's all. Everything else is just the biological mechanism of converting that information into structure. And I really don't want to watch a 45 minute video which is most likely nothing more than an oversimplified version of what I spent years learning. The problem with simplification of science is that, often, it loses accuracy along with detail. I do not, as a rule, watch science programs aimed at lay people.

From what I could learn from that article, the fish are still fish. The data analysis, whether it proves convergence or divergence, is just a tool. The same for the time line regressions. The product of the tool is no better than the assumptions that went into its use. I'll take the article at face value proving that beneficial traits can be enhanced in similar species over some period of time. It is not a rigorous mathematical treatment of the time line because it is dependent on assumptions for initial conditions and regression rates. Choosing the right assumptions, I could use those formulas to prove the fish changed in one week. I don't belive that, but my perfect math would lead to ridiculous conclusions.