Why Are Mutations Inherently Incapable of Creating the Living World?

 Image source: KoolShooters / Pexels

An illustration of the definitional lim its of programming errors and the neo-Darwinian 'software absurdity.' The image supports the information-theoretic thesis that replication noise cannot generate functional information (the genome). Just like static noise on a television screen, a corrupted program code cannot give rise to a meaningful message; instead, it inevitably results in the erosion of the underlying structure. 

"Replication Noise and Information Degradation. According to the laws of physics and information theory, noise systematically erodes structure. Yet, neo-Darwinism assumes that this very same noise builds the most complex biological software: the genome."

THE EVOLUTIONARY PROBLEM OF BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS

"The occurrence of mutations is the result of random effects; the individual carrying the mutation gains an adaptive advantage only in the rarest of cases... The appearance of a favorable mutation is, of course, random, but it can also entail a significant selective advantage... However, the highly im probable occurrence of beneficial mutations is the only currently known (and recognized) causal factor responsible for the emergence of the diversity of the living world and the appearance of new traits that provide a future advantage..." /Csaba Mátyás: Forestry and Nature Conservation Genetics, university textbook, 2002. Mezőgazda Kiadó/

The Information-Theoretic and Logical Deconstruction of Academic Dogma

The Fragile Cornerstone of Neo-Darwinism

Professor Csaba Mátyás, as an academic researcher, stands firmly on the ground of mainstream evolutionary biology (neo-Darwinism). The entire axis of this paradigm turns on a single axiom, revered with almost religious respect: the assumption that blind, undirected copying errors (mutations) are capable of building new, complex, and functional biological structures over long periods of time. 

According to the theory, natural selection acts as the "filter," but mutations provide the raw material. As Professor Csaba Mátyás notes in his seminal work:

"...However, the highly improbable occurrence of beneficial mutations is the only currently known (and recognized) causal factor responsible for the emergence of the diversity of the living world and the appearance of new traits that provide a future advantage…"

Methodological Inertia: This statement inadvertently highlights the greatest paradox of modern biology and the internal crisis of neo-Darwinian logic: the entirety of Earth's biodiversity is predicated on a mechanism whose occurrence is "highly improbable" and, in reality, operates merely at the level of statistical noise.

Rationale: The model does not choose mutations as building blocks because they are mathematically or information-theoretically capable of creating complex systems, but because, according to the exclusive dogma of the materialistic paradigm, this is the only recognized option. Here, science does not provide evidence; instead, it invests its entire explanatory power into a statistically negligible, "highly improbable" phenomenon, simply because it has absolutely no other material alternative for the origin of the code.

The "Highly Improbable Occurrence" as a Theoretical Lifeline

From an information-theoretic perspective, this means that neo-Darwinism bases the entirety of Earth's biodiversity on a mechanism whose efficiency fluctuates merely around the margin of statistical error.

The Admission of "We Have No Other Ideas"

The most critical sentence of the quote is: "the only currently known (and recognized) causal factor." This is not a logical or mathematical proof, but rather an axiom accepted out of sheer necessity. The author openly admits that we believe in the creative power of mutations simply because, within materialistic boundaries, we have absolutely no other explanation for the appearance of new traits.

Why Does the Author Say This?

This clause is no longer about science, but about methodological coercion. The key word here is "recognized." This term reveals that neo-Darwinism does not select mutation as the engine of life because it has been proven capable of creating new complexity. Rather, it chooses it simply because, within the framework of the materialistic worldview, there is absolutely no other alternative.

The Logical Trap

Mainstream science commits the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam—the "there is no other explanation, therefore this must be true" dilemma. If materialistic dogma preemptively excludes external intelligence or pre-programmed information, then matter and blind chance are forced to do the work. This remains the case even when, according to mathematics, they are completely incapable of doing so.

The Definitional Limit of Program Errors (Algorithmic Asymmetry)

The first serious flaw in this foundational stance is logical in nature. Biological materialism confuses cause with effect when it treats mutation as a generative, creative agent.

The Primacy of the Initial Code

By definition, a mutation is a local failure of an existing, functional reference sequence—that is, a genetic aberration.

The Ontological Trap

We cannot speak of a copying error where there is nothing to copy. Logically and ontologically, the very concept of mutation presupposes the prior existence of a highly specified core program.

Conclusion
An error rate cannot be the source of the core program that suffers the error. Noise cannot give rise to a meaningful message.

The Causal Enclave: DNA Repair as a Prerequisite 

The second major flaw in the neo-Darwinian narrative concerns the gradual, step-by-step development of complex biological systems. This explanation completely collapses, however, when we examine the necessary conditions for the stability of the genetic code.

The Analogy of the Car Without Brakes

For a DNA-based genome to exist at all, and to mutate across generations without instantly disintegrating, a complex, multi-layered proofreading and DNA repair enzyme system must be present right from the very beginning.

Error Catastrophe
Without this sophisticated line of defense, the mutation rate becomes so destructively high that genetic information is annihilated before natural selection can even come into play.

The Self-Contained Causal Trap

Natural selection could not have generated this repair apparatus because, in the absence of functional DNA repair, there is no surviving genome for selection to act upon in the first place.

Information-Theoretic Entropy and the Paradox of the "Creative Error"

The third fundamental flaw stems from the immutable physical and mathematical laws of information theory (grounded in the pioneering work of Shannon and Wiener).

The Photocopier Analogy

If a highly detailed blueprint is photocopied repeatedly, the machine's minute defects—acting as replication noise—will eventually render the drawing completely illegible. Noise systematically erodes information. The accumulated errors of a photocopier will never spontaneously draft a more modern, complex building.

The Darwinian Absurdity

Neo-Darwinism asserts that an increase in copying noise (algorithmic entropy) results not in destruction, but in a net increase of functional information. This is equivalent to claiming that if a software code is corrupted long enough, the accumulated errors will eventually give rise to a brand-new operating system. 

Game-Theoretic Summary: The Biological Perpetuum Mobile

Ultimately, the root of this flaw can be traced back to the fundamental dichotomy between the rule and the process.

The Chessboard Analogy
According to game theory and formal logic, no dynamic system is capable of generating its own operational rules. The movements of the chess pieces—representing the process—cannot create the rulebook of chess; the rules must inherently exist before the game can even begin.

The Intellectual Perpetuum Mobile
Materialistic evolutionary biology conceptualizes a biological perpetuum mobile: a material structure that supposedly constructs itself out of the absolute absence of its own operational and transformational framework of rules.

The Final Conclusion
If there are no fixed rules of inheritance and reproduction, the evolutionary game cannot exist. If, however, these rules do exist, they could not have been generated by the evolutionary game itself.

The Overwhelming Majority of Mutations Are Harmful or Neutral

Laboratory and field observations unequivocally demonstrate that random genetic typos almost always degrade the viability of the organism or yield no measurable impact. The overwhelming majority of mutations (over 99%) are either completely neutral or explicitly deleterious, causing disease and structural destruction. A truly "beneficial" mutation that yields a new function is so rare that it remains virtually invisible statistically.

Imagine a software development company where, instead of engineers, a random computer virus overwrites the source code. If the virus keystroke occurs, the probability of the program crashing is immense. The chance that, as a result of this error, the software would suddenly become capable of executing a completely new task is highly improbable. Professor Csaba Mátyás acknowledges this exact mathematical and information-theoretic reality. 

Positive Mutation Is Extremely Rare 

A mutation that genuinely adds a new, functional, and adaptive capability to an organism possesses a "highly improbable" statistical probability, even in theory.

Methodological Coercion Since the materialistic paradigm preemptively excludes external intelligent design or pre-programmed information, biologists are forced to designate mutations as the sole engine of evolution—even though, based on mathematics and physics, this engine is almost entirely ineffective.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

THE THEORETICAL CORE OF MAINSTREAM EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY

The theoretical core of mainstream evolutionary biology is underpinned by an internal contradiction that the highest academic authorities themselves are compelled to acknowledge. The official evolutionary platform of the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), states with raw honesty:

"But in the real world, beneficial mutations are rare. Most mutations have no effect or a detrimental effect."  — https://evolution.berkeley.edu/dna-and-mutations/the-effects-of-mutations

If we connect this with Csaba Mátyás’s (2002) thesis, according to which this "highly improbable occurrence is the only currently known (and recognized) causal factor," then according to neo-Darwinism, there is no other organizing principle behind the entire terrestrial biosphere than the statistical noise of extremely rare, destructive, or meaningless copying errors.

To understand the weight of this assertion, it is worth extrapolating this logic into our everyday reality.

1. World Literature and the "Creative Typo"
According to the neo-Darwinian model, the entire body of world literature—from Homer to Shakespeare to Imre Madách—is actually the result of extremely rare, yet "beneficial" accidental typos made by blind, illiterate typists.

The theory claims that if a coded message (be it The Tragedy of Man or the software of DNA) is mistyped long enough and frequently enough, the accumulated errors will eventually give rise not to an illegible jumble of letters, but to a higher-level, more complex masterpiece. Noise—if sustained for a sufficient duration—is promoted to the status of an author.

2. The Evolutionary Meat Industry
A similarly absurd picture emerges when applying this model to the practical economy. Imagine a meat processing corporation attempting to produce marketable, premium-quality goods out of the chaos prevailing within a slaughterhouse—relying solely on the accidental slips of butchers' cleavers, the misplacement of knives, and uncoordinated frantic movements.

According to common sense and the laws of physics, uncoordinated strikes result only in waste and destruction. Yet, according to neo-Darwinism, if enough individuals blindly wield the cleaver in the slaughterhouse for a long enough duration, a perfectly portioned, vacuum-packed tenderloin will eventually assemble itself from the accumulated errors. 

Summary 

This is where materialistic biology completely detaches from reality. While UC Berkeley acknowledges the extreme rarity of beneficial mutations, the academic consensus paradoxically continues to designate this mechanism as the sole engine of biodiversity—proclaiming, in effect, a miracle disguised in rational garb. Neo-Darwinism operates as an ostensibly scientific theory which posits that destruction and noise are capable of substituting for intellect, design, and information. 

Ultimately, mutations are selected as the engine of evolution not due to their mathematical or information-theoretic viability, but simply because materialistic dogma permits no other alternative. This is not a scientific proof; it is the epitome of theoretical helplessness.

THE MATHEMATICAL REFUTATION OF THE STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY OF "BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS"

The neo-Darwinian narrative eagerly retreats behind the nebulous myth that "sufficient time was available." However, mathematics—specifically combinatorics and probability theory—accepts no ideological compromises. Let us examine what the probability of randomly assembling a single, functional protein chain consisting of a mere 100 amino acids actually means in reality.

1. The Wall of Combinatorial Explosion 

An average, small-sized protein consists of 100 amino acids. Since life requires 20 different types of amino acids, the number of possible variations for a chain of this size is 20¹⁰⁰, which equates to approximately 10¹³⁰  (representing a 1 followed by 130 zeros). - https://evolutionunderthemicroscope.com/newgenes01.html

To put this incomprehensible number into context: the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is a mere 10⁸⁰.

Laboratory experiments by molecular biologist Douglas Axe (Cambridge University) demonstrated that among these possible amino acid combinations, the ratio of truly functional, stable protein structures is astronomically rare: roughly 1 in 10⁷⁴. -https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance

If we calculate the maximum capacity of evolution, the terrestrial biological system could have performed a maximum of 10⁴³ experiments throughout the history of Earth. - https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/85890/how-hard-would-it-be-to-create-a-protein-by-chance

When dividing this maximum number of trials by the search space required to find a functional protein, the resulting probability is a mere 1 in 10³¹. This figure falls far below Borel’s universal threshold of impossibility (which is 10⁵⁰), rendering the random generation of even a single small protein mathematically impossible.

The Mathematical Conclusion  

The mutation-based model is not merely "highly improbable"; it is statistically impossible. There was insufficient time, there are not enough atoms in the universe, and there have never been enough organisms on Earth to satisfy its requirements. This demonstrates the bankruptcy of neo-Darwinian mathematics in black and white. Neo-Darwinism stands as the only "science" that designates a probability effectively equal to zero as its foundational axiom.   

The thesis stating that "the highly improbable occurrence of beneficial mutations is the only currently known (and recognized) causal factor responsible for the emergence of the diversity of the living world and the appearance of new traits that provide a future advantage" is, in reality, not a scientifically proven fact. Rather, it is a necessary yet unsubstantiated reflection of the dogmatic, unilateral commitment within modern evolutionary biology. 

The materialistic paradigm does not cling to the creative role of mutations because of the weight of the empirical evidence, but because within the ideological boundaries it has imposed upon itself, it cannot permit any other alternative. Here, science does not describe a functioning mechanism; instead, it elevates theoretical helplessness to the status of a creative force, completely ignoring the immutable laws of logic, information theory, and mathematics.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE'S STANCE

Mainstream science does not claim that every mutation builds a human being. The billions of harmful mutations that occurred over millions of years all perished—this being the exclusionary filter of natural selection. According to this paradigm, the emergence of the human species was driven solely by that extremely rare, negligible subset of mutations which, by sheer chance, did not degrade but rather stabilized or modified a function (for instance, rendering an organism more resistant to infection). Evolution, therefore, is conceptualized not as the mass constructive power of mutations, but as the relentless selection of highly anomalous, beneficial variants out of millions of malfunctional failures over spans of millions of years.

The Deconstruction of the Theory of the "Rare Selection of Beneficial Mutations" 

1. The "Selection Blind Spot" (Haldane's Paradox and the Cost Problem)  

The above materialistic argument assumes that natural selection can purge harmful mutations as discrete, independent events while simultaneously fixing rare beneficial ones. This collapses mathematically due to Haldane’s Dilemma: the spread and fixation of a single new beneficial mutation within a population requires an immense toll of "selective deaths" (genetic sacrifices) across successive generations.

If billions of deleterious mutations are constantly assailing the genome, the species would have to pay such a catastrophic reproductive cost for genetic purgation that it would trigger the immediate collapse of the population—an extinction vortex. Selection simply lacks the capacity to manage and filter so many concurrent errors.

2. The Trap of Neutrality (Kondrashov and Genetic Entropy)

This mainstream argument posits that harmful mutations perish while rare beneficial ones remain. However, this oversimplification conceals the vast majority of genetic events: the mildly deleterious, sub-vital, or quasi-neutral mutations. 

The Problem
Natural selection can only "see" a genetic defect if it causes immediate lethality or sterility (such as oncogenesis or severe phenotypic deformity). 

The Reality
The overwhelming majority of mutations are akin to tiny typos in a massive book. They do not instantly render the text illegible; consequently, selection remains "blind" to them and is unable to purge them from the gene pool. These microscopic errors accumulate inexorably from generation to generation—a phenomenon thoroughly documented in the research of Alexey Kondrashov and John Sanford. 

Conclusion 

Long before an "extremely rare beneficial mutation" could ever surface and become fixed, the genome is already thoroughly dismantled by hundreds of thousands of mildly deleterious, invisible errors. The filter of natural selection is simply too coarse to protect the integrity of the code from this progressive degradation. 

3. The Information-Theoretic Asymmetry (Preservation of Function vs. Building a New Structure)

The above argument employs a classic logical fallacy—specifically, equivocation—when it cites the example of "stabilizing an existing function (e.g., rendering an organism more resistant to infection)" as empirical evidence for macroevolutionary development.

The Mechanism of Resistance Against Infection
In reality, such adaptive mutations are almost without exception accompanied by a distinct loss of function. For example, a bacterium or cell loses the specific receptor protein through which a pathogen or virus would typically exploit it. While this alteration is temporarily "beneficial" at the organismal level at that specific moment, from an information-theoretic perspective, it represents systemic degradation—not the construction of a novel, complex structure or organ.

The Darwinian Absurdity Once More
Just because a function is deleted from a software application to prevent a computer virus from exploiting it, the software has not advanced to a higher evolutionary tier. Destructive modification is fundamentally distinct from functional innovation.

Summary

The neo-Darwinian narrative—according to which the "selection filter" is capable of constructing a human being out of millions of malfunctional failures—is a mathematical and information-theoretic illusion. Natural selection operates as a purely conservative, quality-control mechanism that can eliminate defective individuals, but it remains fundamentally incapable of preventing the global, progressive degradation of the code (genetic entropy), and is utterly powerless to write a new, functioning operating system out of copying noise (mutations). Noise does not generate information; the selection of errors cannot synthesize a blueprint.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

The terrifying fulfillment of a biblical prophecy

Photo by Samuel Yongbo Kwon on Unsplash

Those who consider the Bible a storybook, or simply the masterpiece of priests who once kept the people in check, in slavery, in spiritual darkness, could not be more mistaken. At that point, it was just the icing on the cake to broadcast to the world that religion is the opium of the people.

However, if we look at religion only as a behavioral attitude, there is some truth in it, not a little, because mere religiosity does not provide, nor does it carry, any guarantee that a person will find the foundation and ultimate goal of their existence.

Being religious is roughly like practicing winter sports, and then trying to figure out what that means, what is behind it. It might just be snowball making, with which the farmer teaches the chickens in the chicken yard a lesson if they can't find the scattered corn kernels under the snow. 

The Reliability of the Bible

If someone rejects the traffic rules /Highway Code/ on the grounds that it is not reliable because it is full of various additions, edits, and falsifications, they are cutting themselves off, because the Traffic Police guarantees that what it has issued for public use is reliable and can justifiably hold anyone accountable based on it if they do not follow it. 

The same applies to the Bible: for roughly 97% of humanity, at least a part of it is available in their mother tongue, while the entire text can be read in their own language by approximately 80% of the world's population [German Bible Society, 2021]. Think about it: if God did not guarantee that His book translated into thousands of languages faithfully conveys His moral expectations, on what basis could He justifiably hold anyone accountable?  

- The morality of the Bible is outdated for the one who adapts their own morality to the occasion. -

In the absence of this, and moreover, there is still the human conscience, based on which God can measure even those who had no chance or opportunity to know the divine criteria conveyed through the Bible.

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things required by the law, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” (Romans 2:14-15)

Beyond these parameters, there are also those prophecies that, in their own order and manner, confirm the authenticity of the revelations as coming from God, for they are fulfilled in their own time.

Now we are going to put such a prophecy under a magnifying glass and examine it thoroughly. All the more so because it greatly influences everyone's life, even if they do not understand a word of it, and their lifestyle may be completely distant from the world of the Bible. 

The man of lawlessness

There is a modestly hidden statement by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians, which can easily be overlooked by someone to whom the symbolism of the Bible means nothing. Understanding comes from the precise guidance of the Greek text of the Bible. 

"And then the lawless one (in Greek: anomos) will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy by the appearance of His coming. He whose coming is by the power of Satan, with all falsehood in power, signs, and wonders, and with all deception of unrighteousness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth for their salvation." (2 Thess 2:9-10)

I wonder who or what this lawless one could be, whom Christ will destroy? And when will he come? Here is a connection through a massive realization that should not be overlooked:

The appearance of the lawless one is in harmony with Matthew 24:24: 'For false Christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so that, if possible, even the elect will be deceived.'

This only makes sense in Matthew 24:24 if the miracles are not continuously coming from God over nearly two thousand years (from the 1st century to the present day), but if they conspicuously appear in the final stage of the end times, since it is precisely their reappearance that is striking!

One of the Bible's most significant prophecies is being fulfilled before our eyes here:

At the time of the Second Coming of Christ /Parousia /presence/, powers, signs, and miracle-working false prophets with a demonic background will appear, and the beginning of the worldwide charismatic movement emphasizing healing and speaking in tongues will commence.

A worldly person has no idea what is happening here publicly, or in the charismatic congregations, where they see frenzies, convulsions, falling backward, rolling on the floor, which they dismiss with a wave of the hand as a complete illusion.

Meanwhile, a great prophecy is being fulfilled, one of the most striking sequences of events preceding the Second Coming of Christ.

Charismatics throw themselves into their music-accompanied ecstasy with tremendous enthusiasm, believing that the Spirit of God touches them through their pastors (in the Hungarian context, the most striking is the performance of Sándor Németh), who shakes them and sends them to the ground, and they, with glazed eyes, surrender themselves to being deceived, while suffering the righteous judgment of God for attributing false spiritual outbreaks to God, when instead they are worshiping Satan!!! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VLMsHYm4zI … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLY_zbxOpJk

"And for this reason God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

This is the dividing line between salvation and damnation; charismatics swear that they are led by the Holy Spirit, but it is important to emphasize again: the remarkable phenomena mentioned in Matthew 24:24 only make sense as a sign if the miracles do not come continuously from God over nearly two thousand years (from the 1st century to the present day), but if they appear conspicuously in the last stage of the end times, for it is precisely their reappearance that is striking!

An important point regarding the identification of when the charismatic movement spread worldwide:

The promotion and broader acceptance of charismatic teachings and ideas is linked to the "healing revival" from 1946 to 1958. The awakeners of the time, including William Branham, Oral Roberts, and A.A. Allen, held large interdenominational meetings that emphasized the gifts of the Spirit. This global revival led to greater awareness and acceptance of Pentecostal teachings and practices.

So what does the prophecy say? The lawless one will appear, Jesus will give one of the important signs about the time interval of the false miracle workers, and from this follows the justification for rejection:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day: 'Lord! Lord! did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many mighty works?' And then I will declare to them: 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers (in Greek: anomian).'" (2 Thessalonians 2:8; Matthew 7:21-23)

Did we notice? – the lawless one appears (G459) – false prophets attack – the occurrence of two events is connected. In one place the lawbreaker, in another the doers of lawlessness (G458). Two consecutive Greek terms with Strong's numbers /anomos, anomian/ show that it is about practicing the same type of unlawful deeds.

Here, it does not say that a miracle performed in a certain way is diabolical, but that the act of performing miracles itself is diabolical because it is unlawful. So, what is practiced with a charismatic background, prophesy, exorcism, the mighty things that are manifestations of miraculous power, is illegal because they come from the Devil. Of course, they cannot raise the dead like in the first century thru the power of God, because what Satan can produce is a weak imitation! 

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 

According to the text, the lawbreaker: 'sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.' Where does the charismatic movement trace itself with its doctrines? What do they claim? From God. And they have already taken the place that belongs to God! 

The essence of the recognition is that the "man of sin" (2 Thess. 2:3) and the religious "heroes" of Matthew 7:22 belong to the same circle. They are the ones who speak in the name of Jesus but represent a system that places itself outside of God's true order (this is anomia – lawlessness).

Personal benefit from understanding prophecy

What personal benefit can come from understanding the above connections? Recognizing the credibility of the Bible; tracking the fulfillment of prophecies; learning from the identification of sources of danger; reflecting on the timeliness of preparing for Christ's second coming.

Obviously, one can overlook the declarations of the Bible, and indeed for most people it means nothing that this old, withered, shriveled book filled with yellowed pages, thick with dust, well, still, what is it babbling about in the 21st century, where human enlightenment stands towering high and proudly looks down on its achievements, primarily on its animal origin. And that in the scientific sense, this entire universe makes no sense.

But our childish games do, with which we entertain ourselves. Primarily the crackle of guns, for which our ears are trained. And the manufacture of weapons, for which our pockets are trained.

Nevertheless, the God of the Bible has other plans and has provided enduring revelation for a different way of life as well. Which can be accepted or rejected. In any case, emphasizing the warning of the second coming of Christ is in accordance with God's will, therefore we do not shy away from publishing it, as it is to be heeded:

"But watch yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness, and the cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly: for as a snare it will come on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.

Therefore, be always on the alert, praying that you may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that will happen, and to stand before the Son of Man!" (Luke 21:34-36)

See also:

https://darhiwum.blogspot.com/2026/01/do-charismatic-gifts-really-come-from.html

Face the science

 

Face the science,

or

the drawbacks of its examination methods

"Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act." (Proverbs 3:27)

This writing is not against science, but for the honor of science. It points out the untenable double standard that dominates modern research: while science rejects Intelligence because it is 'unmeasurable,' it hastily escapes into invisible fictions such as the Multiverse or the unprovable dimensions of string theory—just to preserve its materialist worldview.

The study encourages us to believe not in theories, but in raw facts. Because if we truly confront the objective complexity of the universe, we can no longer ignore materialist biases. This approach makes the facts the judge over methodology.

If someone truly and thoroughly examines the raw data (the DNA code, the physical constants, etc.), the contradictions in materialist explanations simply 'stick out to the eye.'

photo: unsplash Julien Tromeur

During scientific examination (in the laboratory, in front of the telescope) only causes that can be traced in nature are sought. This is a technical limitation: measuring instruments only indicate what is measurable. This does not deny the spiritual, it just says: 'I cannot examine this with this tool.'

School education still tries to stick to the 'measurable' because this is the only common denominator that everyone (believer and non-believer) can agree on: gravity or the structure of DNA shows the same thing on everyone's instruments.

The instrument only shows the function and the structure; it does not provide an answer to the 'why' or the origin.

In the case of DNA: The instruments (for example, X-ray crystallography or sequencing machines) show a code. We see the exact sequence of the four bases (A, T, C, G) and the double helix shape. It is like the source code of software: you see the letters and the instructions according to which the proteins are built.

In the case of gravity: The instruments (for example, atomic clocks or laser rangefinders) show mathematical precision relationships. We see that mass curves spacetime, and every body attracts the other with a specific force.

This is where measurement and interpretation diverge:

The materialist says, 'I see the code and the formula; this is the play of chance and physical laws, there is no one behind it.'

So the instrument shows the same data to both sides, but the conclusion drawn from the data is no longer scientific, it is a philosophical decision. The discipline of science (its system of rules,methodological limitation) stops at describing the code, but it cannot justifiably declare that its author does not exist – only that its instruments do not see the author.

IS THE POINT OF VIEW DECISIVE IN GIVING THE ANSWER?

Does the justification for the existence of the universe change depending on who is looking from where?

Here is where measurement and interpretation diverge:

The difference between the two views: "I only believe what I can prove with force using my instruments." versus: "The results of the instruments (the code) are the proof itself, you are just blind to see it."

This is not about the variability of reality, but about whether mere reason is enough to know the whole truth, or if the blinkers of materialism preclude the answer from the start?

IS MERE REASON ENOUGH?

Modern science has narrowed the concept of 'reason' (rational thinking) to logical deduction and measurement. This 'mere reason' says: only that is true which can be forcibly proven to anyone with equations or experiments. This approach often makes one blind.

The question of whether it is "enough" actually refers to whether science, with its own methods (measurement, experiment), can ever reach the truth at all, or whether it is doomed to fail from the outset due to its materialist starting point.

If the order of the world is not enough evidence, then all the scientific facade is pointless, because it is not the order that decides, but the view of the order, which is already subjective, since only the order itself is objective, and its assessment is a matter of perspective, and can change depending on what prejudice or ingrained worldview we approach it from.

The point is that the order is objective. If a machine works, that operation does not depend on whether someone acknowledges its designer or not. The order speaks for itself.

There is objective order (the DNA code, physical constants, the structure of the world). Scientific materialism sees this order, but for dogmatic reasons it is forbidden to say that it is "designed."

This is how the "science-declared obfuscation" arises: order is recognized (since they are forced to, they make a living from it), but its cause is attempted to be traced back to chance or self-organizing matter. This is the point where science breaks away from reason: it sees the software (objective order), but denies the programmer, because the programmer cannot fit into the measuring instrument.

So the question is not who sees what, but whether science is willing to acknowledge the logical necessity that follows from the order. If the order is objective, then the conclusion derived from it should also be objective.

Iron is hard, the blade of grass is light, the complicated is intelligent /"edited" or "information-rich"/. Or does a complicated thing exist without intelligence behind it? The answer of scientific materialism to this is that yes, such things exist: they call this self-organization or emergence.

NATURAL COMPLEXITIES?

According to materialist reasoning, there are processes in nature where blind laws (such as gravity or electromagnetism) create extraordinary complexity without any external intelligence. These are usually given as examples:

Snowflakes: Incredibly complex, symmetrical, and unique structures, yet they arise from the simple physical attraction of water molecules in the cold.

Fractals in nature: For example, the leaf of a fern or the branching of lightning, where the repetition of a simple mathematical rule creates infinitely complex forms.

The Solar System: Planets on precise orbits, in stable order, which according to materialism was not set by a 'watchmaker,' but rather 'polished' by gravity from chaos over billions of years.

THE POWER OF THE COUNTERARGUMENT

The materialist says that behind a snowflake there is only physics. Fine, but who or what created the laws of physics that make it possible for the snowflake to be this way? Who or what set the parameters so that chaos would not lead to even greater chaos, but eventually to a DNA code or a Solar System?

Science can therefore show us something "complex," behind which we do not see (direct) intelligent intervention, but it cannot answer where the "rules of the game" (the physical constants) that make this complexity possible come from.

BEHIND A COMPLEX EFFECT, THERE MUST BE A COMPLEX CAUSE

If the effect is complex, how can the cause not be complex? If the snowflake is complex, how can the physical law behind it not be complex? If the fern leaf is complex, how can the mathematical rule behind it not be complex? If the orbits of the planets are complex, how can the force behind it not be complex?

If the system works now, after gravity has refined this operation over millions of years, how did it work over those million years before it was refined? It could not have worked if millions of years were needed to develop its operation. And if it did not work but was refined out of chaos, then that state, which clearly did not work before refinement, was doomed to self-destruction. These are objective facts and require objective evaluation.

THE LOGICAL PITFALLS OF MATERIALIST ARGUMENTS

Faith in chance raises logically insurmountable questions at several points:

The proportionality of cause and effect: One of the greatest paradoxes of materialism is that it claims that blind, mindless, and "simple" laws are capable of giving birth to something orders of magnitude more complex than themselves. Logically, however, if software is complex, then the intelligence of the programmer (the cause) cannot be less than that of the software (the effect). The principle of "complexity from nothing" violates the foundations of causality.

The origin of mathematical rules: Behind the fractal or the fern, there is a mathematical rule. But mathematics is not material. Numbers and laws are not made of atoms. If the world follows a mathematical order, then the foundation of the world is information and logic, which by definition belongs to intellect.

The problem of "grinding time": Modern cosmology /physical fine-tuning/ says that if after the Big Bang the forces of gravity or atomic forces were even slightly different, the system would never "grind out" because matter would either fly apart into infinity or collapse immediately. If the constants had not been extremely precise from the very first moment, the universe would have been destroyed long ago. This is not an assumption, but a fundamental fact.

If the system is not functional at the first moment, there is no "millions of years" to try.

An inanimate, chaotic system has no internal need or 'patience' to wait for order to emerge.

The objective facts – that a nonfunctional system will be destroyed, and that order cannot give birth to itself – are unavoidable for common sense. Scientific materialism becomes 'evasive' when it tries to explain the statistical improbability (that all the components came together this way by themselves) with infinite time or an infinite number of parallel universes, just to avoid saying the word Intelligence.

This 'scientific' response is actually an escape from the compulsion of logic.

WHAT MAKES IT SCIENTIFIC?

If one tries to explain statistical improbability (that all points came together this way by themselves) with infinite time or an infinite number of parallel universes, just to avoid saying the word Intelligence — then how is this scientific?

In the scientific investigation method (in the lab, in front of the telescope), only causes that can be traced back in nature are sought. — Since when or how are infinite time and an infinite number of parallel universes objectively traceable? If only subjectively, then do subjective factors count as measurable data in science?

This is the point where modern theoretical physics and the philosophy of science completely blur, and where materialist science falls into its own methodological trap.

The question is entirely justified: they cannot be traced back in any way.

Here, the double standard of science can be observed:

Parallel universes (Multiverse) cannot be measured: There is no telescope or experiment that can prove the existence of another universe. Since, by definition, they lie outside our space-time, science will never be able to observe them.

Yet it is called 'scientific': They do this because it seems mathematically possible based on certain equations (e.g., string theory). But in reality, it is a philosophical lifeline. It was invented because our universe is so improbably finely tuned that within materialist frameworks, there is simply no other explanation for chance, except by assuming infinite attempts.

Materialism uses mathematical probability so that it does not have to speak about quality (about information). But nothing can give what it does not have. Even over infinite time, a random scribble will not become a Shakespearean sonnet if it does not contain the code of information. A significant part of modern science no longer seeks the truth, but defends an ideological stronghold.

MULTIVERSE AND STRING THEORY

If science says: 'We only accept what is measurable and observable,' then the Multiverse and infinite time should be thrown out the window, because neither of them is.

When science explains the order of the world with the Multiverse, it is doing exactly the same thing it criticizes religion for: it bases its explanation on belief in an unseen, unprovable entity. The multiverse theory is actually a kind of 'materialist religion.' It believes in an invisible, unprovable, and unobservable entity (the infinitely many other worlds) just to avoid the idea of a designer.

So the answer is that at this moment, this branch of science is based not on objective data, but on subjective expectations. A part of modern theoretical physics today no longer studies nature, but its own mathematical models – and it tends to confuse the two.

For the materialist scientist, the theory of the “Infinite Many Universes” is considered only “more scientific” than “Intelligence” because the former does not require God or a designer, and therefore does not disrupt the materialist worldview.

This is not measurement, but a worldview prejudice wrapped in a scientific guise.

Can something that produces explanations intentionally designed to never be testable even be called science?

To what extent can string theory be considered an objective factor?

Currently, string theory cannot be considered an objective scientific fact, but rather a mathematically based hypothesis.

Although one of the most popular directions of modern physics, according to the mentioned criteria, it has several flaws:

Lack of experimental evidence: In science, something becomes objective if it can be experimentally verified. The phenomena predicted by string theory (for example, the tiny extra dimensions) exist in an energy range that is impossible to measure with our current technology (for example, with the CERN particle accelerator).

Non-falsifiable: Science in principle only accepts what is falsifiable. However, string theory has so many mathematical versions (10^500 different solutions) that almost any experimental result could be fitted with one of its versions. If something can explain the opposite of everything as well, it is scientifically worthless.

Science tries to bridge the gap between inexplicable phenomena with mathematical constructions, while assuming invisible entities (extra dimensions, multiverse) for which there is no evidence of objective existence.

From this perspective, string theory is currently more of a mathematical metaphysics than an empirical science. Nevertheless, it is still adhered to because it is the only theory that attempts to unify the laws of physics while remaining within a materialist framework.

INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A SUBJECTIVE FACTOR, BUT OBJECTIVE

Behind a complicated effect, if it is objective, a subjective cause cannot exist; moreover, intelligence is not a subjective factor but an objective one. This is genuine science and it must be measurable, otherwise science is worth nothing.

This statement leads to an unavoidable cornerstone: if the order and complexity observable in the world are objective, then the causes that create it must also be objective.

In this approach, intelligence is indeed not a matter of 'opinion' or 'feeling,' but a functional necessity. If we see a code (DNA) that carries specified information, then intelligence as a source is just as objective a conclusion as assuming engineering work when we see a machine.

THE TRAGEDY OF MODERN SCIENCE AND THE REASON FOR 'COVER-UP'

Science would be valuable if it dared to infer from objective data (complexity) to the objective cause (intelligence). Instead, due to the materialist dogma, intelligence was banished to the realm of 'subjective belief,' and they rather fled into immeasurable multiverses.

If science is unable (or unwilling) to infer the only logical (also objective) cause from an objective effect, then it loses its credibility and really is worth nothing, because it closes itself off from the knowledge of truth. If complexity can be measured, then intelligence, as its cause, should also be the subject of scientific investigation.

THE ULTIMATE PROOF

What makes science science is that it is based on objective intelligence when examining objective factors. And the more complex the objective object it examines, the greater, usable intelligence it must deploy for the investigation.

The moment science measures an objective effect with a subjective (by it immeasurable) tool, it undermines its own credibility (objective intelligence) and establishes its own lack of credibility.

Similarly, the more complex objective objects there are around us, the greater intelligence is required not only to explain them but also for their creation. If science is unwilling to establish this standard, then its structure is fundamentally incorrect, and its measurements are self-influencing based on subjective self-interest.

This line of reasoning is the deepest criticism of scientific integrity. The claim follows the requirement of logical symmetry: if a study (analysis of causation) requires enormous intelligence on the part of the researcher, then it is absurd to claim that the object under investigation (the cause) came into existence without intelligence!

A scientist must be a genius to decipher DNA, while claiming that the creation of DNA itself required no intelligence. This points out the arrogance and logical inconsistency of the materialist perspective.

THREE POINTS THAT DESTROY THE MATERIALIST DOGMA

The principle of proportionality of intelligence: The more complex the object, the greater the intelligence required to understand it. If a scientist has to study for decades to 'understand' a single cell, then it is a logical contradiction to claim that the construction of the cell did not require at least the same (or orders of magnitude greater) intelligence. Nothing can give what it does not have.

Self-influencing measurements: If science a priori excludes intelligence as a cause, then its measurements are no longer objective, but tools of subjective self-interest (maintaining the materialist worldview). In this case, science does not discover reality but imposes its own ideology on the data.

Loss of credibility: When science reaches for immeasurable "spirits" (multiverse, infinite time) to avoid Intelligence, it is doing exactly what it accuses religion of: relying on faith. This undermines its own "objective intelligence," as it abandons the ground of reason.

THE MEASURE OF HONOR

If science were to acknowledge that the degree of complexity is directly proportional to the level of intelligence behind it, then biology and physics would not be collections of dogmas, but sincere investigations of objective reality.

THE GREATEST LOGICAL DOUBLE STANDARD OF MATERIALIST REASONING

If science rejects Intelligent Design because the 'designer' is immeasurable and lies outside the system, then it should protest with the same zeal against the invisible dimensions of the Multiverse and string theory.

The current 'evasive' answer of science is based on the following absurd logic:

The Illusion of the 'Blind Tool': They claim that the Multiverse is not a 'designer,' but an automatic process. If there are an infinite number of universes, then by random necessity it will eventually produce one that is complex (like ours).

Bypassing Intelligence: This is how they try to explain complexity without intelligence. They say: 'No mind was needed for the design, just infinitely many attempts.'

But the mention of the 'automatic process' and the 'endless experiment' is indeed a kind of intellectual sleight of hand, with which they try to conceal the necessity of intelligence.

THE FAILING OF THE TRICK

Who designed the Multiverse Factory? In order for a process (be it string theory or a multiverse) to be capable of creating such incredibly complex objects (DNA, galaxies), the process itself must also be systemic, regulated, and mathematically precise.

The complexity remains: If our universe was created by a 'Multiverse Generator,' then that generator is an object orders of magnitude more complex than our universe itself. So the problem is not solved, just pushed one step back.

The answer to the question: According to science, these do not 'cause design,' but only 'produce order.' But there is no order without intelligence.

Mathematical side: Order is encoded into the fabric of the universe. It is like the multiplication table: 2x2=4 is not 'formed,' it is an eternal truth. In this approach, the world was not brought into order from chaos, but is built on a logical framework from the start, which excludes total randomness.

If the mathematics of string theory is able to describe the world, then that mathematics reflects an objective intelligence.

THE CONTRADICTION OF SCIENCE

He says that the Designer is "unscientific" because it is not visible. But he calls the Multiverse "scientific," even though it is not visible either.

This proves that the decision is not based on measurements, but on prejudice: anything goes (no matter how subjective and invisible it is) as long as it is not God or Intelligence.

THE RESTORATION OF SCIENCE'S HONOR

Science should recognize that the degree of complexity is directly proportional to the level of intelligence behind it. As long as it claims: chance, out of necessity, will sooner or later produce something complex (like ours) – then it sets this subjective factor of necessity against the real fact of background intelligence measured against the magnitude of the objective object.

So a subjective factor of necessity is compared with an objective real factor – in this case, the scale of science is not fair, but it does not intend to be, because it does not even want to reach a certain factor, intelligent design. Then science has a conceptual setup. From that point on, it says whatever it wants, whatever it arbitrarily dictates based on its position of power.

THE ESSENCE OF THE CONCEPT

If science uses statistical compulsion (the 'chance will solve it') as a shield against the logical compulsion of objective intelligence, then it is indeed not researching, but dictating. If the methodology decides in advance what it must not find, then it is no longer research, but dogmatic dictatorship.

The essence of this conceptual setup is: The standard is not truth, but the ideological filter. The current paradigm is not only mistaken, but deliberately 'hides' reality. This is the accusation of 'conceptional operation,' which reclassifies science as an ideological tool.

Since recognizing intelligent design would mean the 'impossibility' of the materialist system, science, from a position of power, prefers logical somersaults (like the multiverse) rather than having to surrender to the obvious.

The 'necessity of chance' is a subjective lifeline, an abstract mathematical fiction, with which one tries to suppress the piercing reality arising from the complexity of the object. If science decides in advance where one must not go, then it is no longer the pursuit of truth, but a dogmatic self-defense.

REVEALING THE FUNDAMENTAL INCORRECTNESS OF THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM 

For the benefit of every sincerely interested truth-seeker, we have demonstrated the double standard and the conceptual operational point where reason is replaced by the word of power and prejudice.

We have investigated the point where scientific methodology and worldview dogma diverge, and where common sense clashes with explanations dictated by the word of power.

This type of sincere search for truth is what can truly advance the understanding of the world, regardless of what the current institutional system allows or does not allow.

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [...] for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." /The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, January 9, 1997, pp. 28-32./

Lewontin thereby admits a willingness to accept scientific claims that are contrary to common sense: "It is not the evidence that has led us here, but we have decided not to open the door to God." This is not science, this is dogma.

Science is not atheist because the evidence leads that way, but because it fears the consequences. If they acknowledge design, they must also acknowledge the Designer, and then the scientist is no longer the master of the world, only an observer in the Creator's laboratory.

The order of the world is not "intelligent" because we find it logical, but because it works in itself, independently of us.

So face the materialist science with its tailwind, which does not help you comply with the divine standard that governs and sustains the universe, but intentionally hides it from you, from itself, and from everyone.

Philippians 1:9-10 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment; That you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ;