When I was a math major, way back in college, I learned that an inductive proof was a good way to prove that something that was true for all positive numbers. An inductive proof requires only two things.

1. Prove it is true for 1 (the first instance).

2. Prove that if it is true for N it is true for N+1. (N -> N+1)

Simple, right?

I note that in trying to prove that Macro Evolution has happened (or that it is the way that life one earth came to be the way it is), Biologists have neither done step number one (Shown how evolution could have resulted in the first life on earth) or step number two (Shown that evolution has caused one species to evolve into another).

It could be said, I guess, that it has shown something like: If it is true for N, it is true for n+0.0001.

But I guess it’s fortunate for the Theory of Evolution that Biological proofs don’t require as much rigor as Mathematical proofs.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

## 2 comments

Comments feed for this article

April 9, 2008 at 2:05 am

bethyadaI agree that the evolutionists have offered very little in the way of proof, and most of it is non-discriminatory over creation theory.

But the nature of proof for maths is not the same as it is for science. Mathematical proofs are absolutely true (assuming axioms). They cannot be disproved. Science facts are based on models and probability theories and the like.

So even if the evolutionists did offer proofs, they would not be in the same category as mathematical ones.

April 9, 2008 at 2:46 pm

jamscoWell, yes. I agree. That’s why I put that title there.

I was just pointing this out.