Mathematics Professors Wanted – Believers Need Not Apply.
The new Princeton University Press book: How Mathematicians Think by William Byers a mathematician at UC Berkeley supports the extraordinary claim that atheism is “killing mathematics.” In his insightful review of the book, Gregory Chaitin one of the worlds leading mathematicians asks, “Would Euler, Cantor, and Ramanujan be welcome in the Mathematics Department of a university today?” His conclusion is a resounding “No”. These giants of mathematics would not be welcome among academic mathematicians because atheistic materialism has become the dominant paradigm in today’s universities.

Euler, who created much of the math used today, was so strongly informed by his Christian beliefs that he is recognized as a Lutheran Saint, and is commemorated each May 24 on the Church Calendar. Cantor invented, or in his view “discovered,” transcendental numbers (multiples of infinities) as a way to “better understand God.” Ramanujan, recognized as one of the greatest geniuses of the Twentieth Century for his work in Analysis and Number Theory, argued that, “…an equation is only of value if it expresses one of God’s thoughts…”

Other famous theistic mathematicians, who would now be expelled from academia, include the Sumerian priests who started it all with accounting and calculating the astronomical calendar, the Pythagoreans, who invented geometry and number theory (the foundations of advanced math) as part of their mystical investigations into knowing God, and a vast number of Christian luminaries including Descartes and Pascal. Towering above all of these are the penultimate mathematicians of all time, Newton and Leibnitz, the cofounders of modern calculus, with deeply and explicitly Christian motivations behind their mathematical investigations; they most definitely would not be welcome.

Byers and Chaitin believe that math began to die in the twentieth century as freedom of thought and creativity became constrained by an over emphasis on formulae; “…words, ideas, diagrams, examples, explanations, and applications” were all rejected in favor of a “nit-picking avoidance of mistakes.” Creativity was abandoned in favor of rigor, and this rigor has resulted in “rigour mortis.” As someone who has taught math, I was struck by the truth of these claims. It is very difficult to think of a truly important discovery in math coming after the 1950s.

What caused the creativity, imagination, and leaps of insight characteristic of mathematicians to be replaced with a stultifying and slavish attachment to formulaic rigor? It is Byers and Chaitin’s conclusion that secular humanistic beliefs about the nature of man are at the heart of the problem. Secular humanists contend that man is nothing more than an accident of nature, that consciousness is simply biochemical reactions in the brain, and that life itself is totally without purpose and meaning. “If mathematicians see themselves as machines they will behave like machines; if mathematicians think they are trivial, then they will be trivial.”

Why This Is Important

It is important that Christians know their intellectual heritage. Many surveys have been done on the religious beliefs of scientists. Mathematicians are always at, or near, the top of these studies showing that 70% to 80% of them believe in God. The percentage of believers decreases, as the field of scientific study gets “softer,” with the social sciences having the lowest percentage of believers.

The media consistently try to portray Christians as stupid, ignorant, benighted dupes, or worse. However, in the sciences, the exact opposite is true; intellectual capability tends to be highly correlated with belief in God. Christians need to know that they have been the key players in the cutting edge of mathematics, the world’s most fundamental intellectual endeavor.

Beyond the troubling damage being done to the advancement of mathematics by secular humanism, there is also the practical cost. Technological innovation, economic progress, and health are all tied to the continued advancement of math. Kill math and you kill innovation. Kill innovation and you kill economic growth and people.

Sources:

1. New Scientist, “Review: How Mathematicians Think” by Gregory Chiatin, July 25, 2007.

2. “How Mathematicians Think”, by William P. Byers, 2007, Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, NJ.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Despite their lousy name, “Slime Molds” are among the most amazing organisms in existence. During most of their lives they live as individual cells on the forest floor. They look and behave much like amoebas, spending their time scavenging for food among the detritus on the ground. They are especially fond of cow dung and rotting wood because these are rich in bacteria, the slime molds’ food of preference. However, on occasion, these solitary creatures will come together in large numbers to form a colony, called a plasmodium. Amazingly, slime mold plasmodiums look and behave like multi-cellular organisms. Some look like fungi, others like slugs. These plasmodium move about and can travel up to several feet a day.

When conditions for the colony are not favorable, the plasmodium may produce a stalk with a puffball full of spores. The puffball releases spores into the wind, which are carried off and produce more of the amoeba-like slime molds. After this reproductive action, the plasmodium may again disaggregate into individual cells that return to their solitary lives.

How is this possible? These individual cells appear to act with conscious volition. How do they communicate? How do they know how to differentiate into specialized organs?

As amazing as this cellular level intelligence is, a new, even more amazing phenomenon has been discovered at the sub-cellular level. Labeled “Natural Genetic Engineering” by Dr. James Shapiro, a University of Chicago Geneticist and Biochemist, and brought to light by Dr. Barbara McClintock in her 1983 Nobel Prize Acceptance Address, predictably, this stunning discovery has been largely ignored by the media.

Natural genetic engineering is the process by which cells modify their own DNA. If you are not familiar with this process, your eyes are not deceiving you, it actually happens. Cells, under challenge from something in their environment, can restructure their own DNA, thereby changing their internal biochemical capabilities. This restructuring process enables the cells to produce new proteins and other molecular products needed for survival.

Why This is Important

Dr. Shapiro has come under criticism and has had difficulty getting at least one paper published because of the implications of his work. The quotation below shows why.

“The idea of natural genetic engineering is controversial to some because it implies the existence of an “engineer” to decide when restructuring should occur.”… “The obvious problem is that it is hard to imagine material causes alone producing sentience and consciousness via random interactions. The sentience, together with messages in DNA and extrodinarily sophisticated genetic code and information processing systems, are arguably a large number of “smoking guns” for an intelligent cause operating in the system itself.”

The problem comes down to this: cells have no brains and no nervous systems to direct their activities, so where is the intelligence coming from that directs the cells to perform intricate, delicate surgery on their own genes? It would be easier for a human to perform complex brain surgery on him or herself; so, how is it possible for a cell to modify its own genetic code?

The answer of course is obvious to all except those who refuse to accept the truth glaring starkly in their faces. There are, of course, intervening natural mechanisms, which mediate these biological processes; however, God is the intelligence behind it all.

Source: http//Shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

“We do not think with our brains but we cannot think without them.” Mortimer Adler

New research not only supports this shocking claim by the greatest philosopher of the Twentieth Century, but actually goes beyond it to show that this may even be an understatement: indeed consciousness may not depend on your brain.

You have probably read of curiosities such as the well-publicized case of Phineas Gage a railroad worker who had a 3’ by 1.25” iron tamping rod accidentally shot through his brain. He recovered from the accident with little effect and no memory loss even after suffering the destruction of one frontal brain lobe and damage to the other. Okay, you say, amazing but he only lost his frontal lobes. He still had a lot of his brain left so I’m not convinced that it is possible to think without your brain.

How about more extreme cases? Scientific American in an article titled “Strange But True” May 2007 reports on a surgery known as a hemispherectomy, in which half of the brain, one entire hemisphere is removed. These surgeries are most commonly performed on patients who are in neurologically desperate situations such as massive tumors or extremely frequent uncontrollable seizures.

In a study of 111 children who underwent the surgery because of uncontrollable seizures 86% are now either seizure free or greatly improved. But even more surprisingly most suffered no memory loss or personality change. Another study of these patients found that they often improved academically. One even went on to become his state’s Chess Champion. However the outcomes are mixed, the younger the patient the better the recovery usually is. Most often there will be a substantial or total loss of arm movement and vision on the side of the body opposite the lost hemisphere. Language loss, if any, is often recovered regardless of which hemisphere is removed. Okay, you say that is even more amazing but these people still had half of their brains left.

The July 20, 2007 issue of Nature contains an article titled “The Man With a Hole in His Brain.” This is the story of a man named Lionel Feuilet, a French civil servant who was recently discovered to have about 80% of his entire brain missing. The discovery was made during a routine CT scan conducted on him following his complaint of weakness in his left leg. His brain tissue had been slowly replaced through the expansion of his cerebral ventricles by spinal fluid in a process of slow hydocephalicization. His doctors were very surprised that he was behaviorally normal, holding down a fairly mentally demanding job and raising a family.

Wow! You say 80% of the brain gone but still functioning normally - I’m surprised. It really is shocking that this is possible, but perhaps the remaining 20% is still doing everything.

Okay, then how about this one. Science magazine reported in “Is Your Brain Really Necessary” Vol. 210, December 12, 1980 a similar case. However, in this instance the person in question had received a First Class Honors degree in Mathematics from Sheffield University. After complaining of headaches he was given a CT scan. His doctors were shocked when the scan revealed that 95% of his brain, was missing, having been replaced by water. It was estimated that he only had about 1 millimeter of brain tissue left on the outer edge of his cranial cavity, barely enough to be detected in the scan. In effect his brain was literally missing. The article also discussed the fact that other such cases are out there but go undetected because the persons involved have no symptoms.

In all likelihood the mathematician from Sheffield is not the most extreme case in the world. It is very probable that there are a few people walking around right now completely oblivious to the fact that substantially more then 95% of their brain is missing and in effect have no brain.

Why This Is Important

One of the central claims of materialism is that the soul does not exist and that consciousness and all of the processes associated with thought and intellect are merely the result of biochemical activity in the brain. Destroy the brain and you destroy the conscious part of you. This argument is held to disprove the possible of life after death.

While it is true that damage to the brain (in some cases even minor damage) can have catastrophic and tragic consequences, the existence of the anomalies discussed above show examples of people with normal levels of cognitive function, who, for all practical purposes have no brain. This is very strong evidence against the materialist claim that consciousness is nothing but natural biochemical reactions. While it seems evident that the brain has a major role in cognitive functioning there is clearly more to consciousness than physiochemical processes.