quote:
Sacred Mathematics...
huh?
I am not sure what it is you want to establish. Is this another argument along the lines that "science is religion"? There has been plenty discussion on this subject. For me the bottomline is: Science is a method to establish a connex between theoretical models and reality to establish a broad understanding of our surroundings. It makes no assumptions beyond "unproveable" truths (axioms). Those axioms still are prone to falsification as one only has to show one case in which the axiom is not fulfilled.
Religion makes the assumption of one (or as the case may be many) creators whose existence is not falsifiable. One is then very often left with what is commonly referred to as a "god of the gaps", i.e. a celestial being that is responsible for everything contemporary science is (yet) unable to explain. When several centuries ago the diversity of life on the planet was not easily explainable in scientific terms, people believed in a creator. Nowadays, we have a pretty good understanding of the diversification of life once life existed. Now people have gone to claiming that the origin of life must still be explained by the interference of "god" (theistic evolution if you will).
I'll wager that in the not so distant future science will have understood the origin of life quite well, then one is left with what?
™ Version 4.2
