Replies

DMZ, mathematics IS science. It’s patently clear why evolutionists ignore probability. Just imagine the odds of three incredibly complex tissues within a body, muscles, bones and tendons, “evolving” at the same time in such a way that all three became functional to an organism. Obviously, unless all three vital cogs were randomly “completed” concurrently, the entire mechanism collapses! Do you *really* imagine that there existed a time when organisms flopped around gelatinously, like fish in a frying pan? C’mon! Bob

No, mathematics is not science.

Mathematics can be applied to science, and to the extent that it models the variables correctly, it can produce useful results. But that's the key--did that mathematical model use the correct variables correctly, and did it weight them correctly? Mathematicians are good at math, but not necessarily at biology.

Here is a counter example, a biologist who is pretty good at math. And he comes up with entirely different results:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

How are you going to deal with that?

Coyoteman is exactly right about mathematics.

The central activity of mathematics is applying strict formal rules of logic to produce theorems from arbitrary human-invented axioms. Theorems are proven, and once proven are eternally valid.

The central activity of science (as I understand it) is applying the scientific method to produce theories from data gathered in experiments. Theories are tentative, and are eventually replaced by "better" theories.

I say this mostly as an excuse to point out a particular idiocy of the idiot Karl Priest. From his monumentally idiotic lesson plan:

"1. Students will comprehend that the science of mathematics proves that life could not have developed by natural (evolutionary) means.
...
4. Discuss the scientific method (use the school’s science book definition). Emphasize that evolutionists have failed to follow the scientific method. Middle school teachers will see a cross-content teaching opportunity here."

So this Priest, this harebrained hairball, contends that biologists have failed to follow the scientific method. But somehow his remedial grasp of the subject he claims to teach has prevented him from realizing that the scientific method shows up nowhere in mathematics. How can any semi-educated person swallow this bull excrement?

And some biologists are absolutely amazing mathematicians: Ronald Fisher.

Mathematicians are good at math, but not necessarily at biology.

Here is a counter example, a biologist who is pretty good at math.

In the video that you linked, the biologist giving the lecture had his formal education and training in mathematics (he has a Ph.D.) and has 13 years experience as a mathematics professor. Perhaps instead you could say that he is a mathematician who is pretty good at biology. :)

The author of this article, on the other hand, is a middle school teacher. The difference in competence between the two is not limited to the biological sciences.