[medved]

But even then, there will be those in the Evolutionary camp who cry that life evolving from inanimate matter (i.e., the first step in the whole process of life - AKA "abiogenesis") is not part of Evolutionary Theory.

Why look stupid trying to defend two untenable ideological doctrines (evolution AND abiogenesis) when, if you act arrogant enough about it and get good enough with the ad-hominems, you can get off with one?

Perhaps there are even those who would cling to Evolution regardless of the math against it, and might be tempted to try many such ruses in order to steer clear of mathematical truths. Due to popular and political considerations of those who refuse to accept the math on natural abiogenesis, it's probably going to eventually take math on the probabilities of mutations forming, surviving, and being successfully transferred to other organisms before anyone can say with certainly if Evolution is or is not mathematically feasible.

It isn't.

The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion.

That's BS. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be Rastifari and Voodoo.

The real dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

The biggest group of disbelievers in evolution is, in all likelihood, mathematicians and not Christians. You had a collosal face-off between leading evolution proponents and some of the world's best mathematicians in the late sixties at Wistar; the mathematicians told the evos they were FUBAR and the evos have been in denial ever since.

The Wistar Institute Symposium was a milestone meeting held in Philadelphia in April 1966 to discuss the statistical possibility of Darwinian evolution. The conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize. By 1966, computers had progressed enough to determine statistically if random mutations alone could account for the level of evolution seen in organisms after five billion years. After a heated debate and several meetings, the Wistar Symposium deemed this statistically impossible.

Furthermore, many of the scientists at Wistar came forward to state that the fossil record did not support evolution. Few fossils showing transitional stages between species had been found. Arguments also came up about advanced organs such as the eye and that 5 billion years was not enough time for these organs to evolve.

For more details about the Wistar Institute Symposium, see the following links:

• Wistar Destroys Evolution
• The Anti-Darwinian Scientists

[Southack]

I hate to be a wet blanket, especially when someone is trying to agree with me, but a simple internet search on google will reveal that there have been numerous attacks on the Wistar Conference, most notably that only one mathematician, in only one paper, even came close to saying what most anti-evolution sites say was said by the mathematical community at that conference.

That being said, I feel comfortable attacking the myths against evolutionary theory simply because I am so certain of the reality of the real mathematical evidence against Evolution.