Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The teaching of evolution in American high schools has long been a source of controversy. The past decade has seen an important shift in the rhetoric of anti-evolutionists, toward arguments of a strongly mathematical character. These mathematical arguments, while different in their specifics, follow the same general program and rely on the same underlying model of evolution. We shall discuss the nature and history of this program and model and describe general reasons for skepticism with regard to any anti-evolutionary arguments based upon them. We shall then survey the major arguments used by anti-evolutionists, to show how our general considerations make it possible to quickly identify their weakest points.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Though it is not directly relevant to this paper, we should note that this early ID literature has been vigorously and effectively challenged by both scientists and philosophers (Pennock 1999, 2001b; Miller 1999; Young and Edis 2004).

References

  • Adami, C., Ofria, C., & Collier, T. C. (2000). Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(9), 4463–4468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applebaum, D. (2008). Probability and information: An integrated approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behe, M. (2007). The edge of evolution: The search for the limits of evolution. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behe, M., & Snoke, D. (2004). Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science, 13(10), 2651–2664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, R. C. (2004). The argument from biogenesis: Probabilities against a natural origin of life. Biology and Philosophy, 19(5), 739–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S. (2007). God as genetic engineer. Science, 316(5830), 1427–1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. (1998a). The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. (1998b). Mere creation: Science, faith and intelligent design. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. (1999). Intelligent design: The bridge between science and theology. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. (2002). No free lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. (2004). The design revolution: Answering the toughest questions about intelligent design. Downer’s Growve: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. (2014). Being as communion: A metaphysics of information. Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W., & Marks, R, I. I. (2009). Conservation of information in search: Measuring the cost of success. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems and Humans, 5(5), 1051–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W., & Marks II, R. (2009b). Bernoulli’s principle of insufficient reason and conservation of information in computer search. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA (pp. 2647–2652).

  • Dembski, W., & Marks, R, I. I. (2010). The search for a search: Measuring the information cost of higher level search. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 14(5), 475–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W., & Marks, R, I. I. (2011). Life’s conservation law: Why Darwinian evolution cannot create biological information. In B. Gordon & W. Dembski (Eds.), The nature of nature: Examining the role of naturalism in science (pp. 360–399). Wilmington: ISI Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton, M. (1985). Evolution: A theory in crisis. London: Adler and Adler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, S. (2014). An algorithmic information theory challenge to intelligent design. Zygon, 49(1), 42–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durrett, R., & Schmidt, D. (2008). Waiting for two mutations: With applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution. Genetics, 180(3), 1501–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, M. (1967). Inadequacies of neo-Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. In P. Moorhead & M. Kaplan (Eds.), Mathematical challenges to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsberry, W., & Shallit, J. (2011). Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s complex specified information. Synthese, 178(2), 237–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, M., & Habura, A. (2010). Using protistan examples to dispel the myths of intelligent design. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 57(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitelson, B., Stephens, C., & Sober, E. (1999). How not to detect design—Critical notice: William A. Dembski, the design inference. Philosophy of Science, 66(3), 472–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, B., & Gross, P. (2004). Creationism’s Trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, D. (1999) Proving god exists. In The saturday evening post, November–December, 59–61, 78, 80–81, 84.

  • Gishlick, A. (2004). Evolutionary paths to irreducible systems: The avian flight apparatus. In M. Young & T. Edis (Eds.), Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism (pp. 58–71). Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2001). Information and the argument from design. In R. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 575–596). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, B., & Dembski, W. (2011). The nature of nature: Examining the role of naturalism in science. Wilmington: ISI Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1993). An earful of jaw. In S. J. Gould (Ed.), Eight little piggies: Reflections in natural history (pp. 95–108). New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häggström, O. (2007). Intelligent design and the NFL theorems. Biology and Philosophy, 22(2), 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (1991). Darwin on trial. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (1995). Reason in the balance: The case against natuarlism in science, law and education. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, M. (1961). Natural selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution. Genetic Research, 2(1), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2007). Living with Darwin: Evolution, design, and the future of faith. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, B. (2012). Is there any conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics? The Mathematical Intelligencer, 34(1), 29–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loikkanen, J. (2015). William A. Dembski’s argument for detecting design through specified complexity. Philosophy and Theology, 27(2), 289–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (2005). Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins. Protein Science, 14(9), 2217–2225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R., Behe, M., Dembski, W., Gordon, B., & Sanford, J. (2013). Biological information: New perspectives. Toh Tuck Link: World Scientific.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matzke, N. (2007). The edge of creationism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(11), 566–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, A. (2009). Information and entropy—Top down or bottom-up development in living systems? Journal of Design and Nature and Ecodynamics, 4(4), 351–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, A. (2013). Information and thermodynamics in living systems. In R. Marks, et al. (Eds.), Biological information: New perspectives. Toh Tuck Link: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, S. (2013). Darwin’s doubt: The explosive origin of animal life and the case for intelligent design. New York: HarperOne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. (1999). Finding Darwin’s god: A scientist’s search for common ground between god and evolution. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. (2007). Falling over the edge. Nature, 447(28 June), 1055–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, H., & Parker, G. (1987). What is creation science?. El Cajon: Master Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, I. (2004). Evolution of the bacterial flagellum. In M. Young & T. Edis (Eds.), Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism (pp. 58–71). Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson, P. (2008). Intelligent design and mathematical statistics. Biology and Philosophy, 23(4), 545–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, H. A. (1996/1997). Darwin v. intelligent design (again). In Boston review of books, December/January, 28–31.

  • Pennock, R. (1999). Tower of babel: The evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. (2001a). The wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski. In R. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 645–668). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. (2001b). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. (2002). Should creationism be taught in the public schools? Science and Education, 11(2), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. (2007). Models, simulations, instantiations and evidence: The case of digital evolution. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 19(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. (2010). The postmodern sin of intelligent design creationism. Science and Education, 19(6–8), 757–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perakh, M. (2004). There is a free lunch after all: William Dembski’s wrong answers to irrelevant questions. In M. Young & T. Edis (Eds.), Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plutynski, A. (2010). Should intelligent design be taught in Public school science classrooms? Science and Education, 19(6–8), 779–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhouse, J. (2001). How anti-evolutionists abuse mathematics. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 23(4), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhouse, J. (2002a). Probability, optimization theory, and evolution. Evolution, 56(8), 1721–1722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhouse, J. (2002b). Rhetorical legerdemain in intelligent design literature. In A. Chesworth (Ed.), Darwin day collection one. Albuquerque: Tangled Bank Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhouse, J. (2006). Does evolution have a thermodynamics problem? Center for inquiry. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/does\_evolution\_have\_a\_thermodynamics\_problem/. Accessed 23 December 2015.

  • Rosenhouse, J. (2011). Among the creationists: Dispatches from the anti-evolutionist front line. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. (1998). Origins: Linking science and scripture. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. (2007). Doubting Darwin: Creationist designs on evolution. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schützenberger, M. P. (1967). Algorithms and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. In P. Moorhead & M. Kaplan (Eds.), Mathematical challenges to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, G. (2013a). Entropy and evolution. BIO-Complexity, 2013(2), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, G. (2013b). Entropy, evolution and open systems. In R. Marks, et al. (Eds.), Biological information: New perspectives. Toh Tuck Link: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shallit, J., & Elsberry, W. (2004). Playing games with probability: Dembski’s complex specified information. In M. Young & T. Edis (Eds.), Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism (pp. 121–138). Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2002). Intelligent design and probability reasoning. International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 52(2), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and evolution: The logic behind the science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2014). Evolutionary biology, causal completeness, and theism. In D. Walsh & P. Thompson (Eds.), Evolutionary biology—Conceptual, ethical, and religious issues (pp. 31–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Ussery, D. (2000). A classification of possible routes in Darwinian evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 203(2), 111–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulam, S. (1967). How to formulate mathematically problems of rate of evolution. In P. Moorhead & M. Kaplan (Eds.), Mathematical challenges to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wein, R. (2002). Not a free lunch but a box of chocolates: A critique of William Dembski’s book No free lunch. The TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/\#irred. Accessed 23 December 2015.

  • Wells, J. (2002). Icons of evolution: Science or myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, J. (2012). Can God create through Darwinian accidents? Zygon, 47(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, J., & Elsberry, W. (2001). The advantage of theft over toil: The design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy, 16(5), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, W. (1925). The evolution of man scientifically disproved, in fifty arguments, privately published. http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html. Accessed 23 December 2015.

  • Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M., & Edis, T. (2004). Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, 22801, USA

    Jason Rosenhouse

Authors
  1. Jason Rosenhouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Rosenhouse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosenhouse, J. On Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism. Sci & Educ 25, 95–114 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9801-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9801-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation