The Atheists' God of the Gaps
Allah's Peace and Mercy be upon you
What leads scientists
—distinguished in their fields—
to utter the most ridiculous and comical
statements about the universe and life?
We will find out today
as we discuss 3 statements that reflect
errors in the thinking process:
1. A theory is the most widely accepted
scientific explanation
within the scientific community
2. One cannot reject the theory of
evolution until an alternative is found
3. Saying Allah created all beings
is not a scientific answer;
it's a "god of the gaps" explanation
We promised you
in the introduction of our episodes
on the evolution myth
that they'd be methodical
to organize your thinking process
Today's episode is a special example
as you'll see
So, stay tuned
"It is very hot today... extremely hot!"
"But, there is no sun."
"Come on, it is right there.
I can't even look at it
and I am sweating profusely
because of it!"
"It isn't the sun. Let's exclude
the possibility that it's the sun."
"What is it then?!"
"It's either an optical illusion
or we are under the
influence of hallucinogens
which makes us think
that the sun is up.
We didn't take any hallucinogens
so the remaining possibility
is that it's an optical illusion
My theory is that what we see
is an optical illusion;
this is the most acceptable
scientific explanation."
This is the story of:
"the most acceptable
scientific explanation"
...after ruling out the
only true explanation
leaving only a few absurdities
for you to choose from
It's said that:
"The theory of evolution
is the best theory to explain
living organisms
as it's the most widely accepted
within scientific communities."
Widely acceptable by whom?
By scientists!
Which 'scientists'? Those who ruled out
the only true explanation in advance
then tried to find any other explanation
for the universe and life?!
This is clearly stated by the
evolutionary professor of biochemistry
Franklin Harold
On page 205 of his book:
"The Way of the Cell"
Harold says:
"We should reject, as a matter
of principle, the substitution
of intelligent design for the dialogue
of chance and necessity;
but we must concede
that there are currently no detailed
Darwinian accounts of the evolution
of any biochemical or cellular system,
only a variety of wishful speculations."
Remember that we don't use the term:
Intelligent Design.
Rather, we believe in an Unseen
All-Knowing Intending Doer
Such an explanation is rejected
in principle
by Harold and other evolutionists
They reject it in advance
and close their minds to it;
from the start
Do not explain the sun
as a sun!!
This is despite the fact that
—in his book— Harold expresses
their inescapable confusion.
On page 245, he says:
"Cell components as we know them
are so thoroughly integrated that one
can scarcely imagine how any one function
could have arisen in
the absence of the others.
Genetic information can only
be replicated and
read out
with the aid of enzyme proteins,
which are themselves specified
by those same genes.
Energy is harnessed by means of enzymes,
whose production requires energy input."
Harold is describing the absurdity
of the idea
that a cell can form slowly
by gradual evolution;
through blind natural selection
How is DNA replicated to produce
multiple cells in an organism
and read out to produce proteins?
Through enzymes
How did these enzymes come about?
Through DNA transcription
Which one came first then?
How can randomness and chance
extract one from the other?
It is not possible!
One cannot form without the other
Let's set aside this dilemma
How were these enzymes formed?
It requires energy
How did this energy come about?
Through enzymes
Such are the body systems:
integrated and interdependent
without any apparent starting
point or keystone
for evolutionary randomness
and blindness to work on
For example, imagine that the instructions
for making a computer are saved on a CD
The problem is that
—without a computer—
it is not possible to read the CD;
to begin with
In the conclusion of his book
Harold says:
"It would be agreeable to conclude
this book with a cheery fanfare
about science closing in, slowly
but surely, on the ultimate mystery;
but the time for rosy rhetoric
is not yet at hand.
The origin of life appears to me
as incomprehensible as ever,
a matter for wonder
not for explication."
Harold asserts again and again
that it is not a matter of time
and that, apparently, it can't
be explained in the context of evolution
Despite all of this
the existence of a creator outside
the tangible materialistic
framework must be ruled out
Why? Because Harold is committed
to the material interpretation
of the universe
as he says on page 190:
"Let me, therefore, state
unambiguously that I,
like the vast majority of
contemporary scientists,
see the living world as wholly
the product of natural causes."
So, this is the whole story!
A conflict occurred centuries
ago in the Western world
between distorted religion
and empirical science
Between, on the one hand, the Church
—with its illogical views about the Unseen
and the mythology it wants to impose—
and on the other hand, science
which is viewed as
a tangible description of reality
Westerners were caught up in this conflict
They could have searched for
a sound system for life
without such contradictions;
which we believe
is the Islamic system
as we'll prove in the Journey
of Certainty, Allah willing
They could have taken an objective look
at Islam; whose sources remained pure
and free from contradiction
between a sound mind and authentic
Revelation from Allah and
Hadith of His Messenger;
without any conflict between
sensory observation and experimentation
and authentic Revelation;
as it all comes from Allah
"...had it been from anyone other
than Allah, they would have found
in it, many inconsistencies."
(Quran Translated Meaning 4:82)
Authentic testimony
(including Revelation),
the mind, and observation
are sources of knowledge
They work in harmony;
geared to reach truthful knowledge
Ilm (knowledge)
in the Islamic context
includes all these sources
However for most Westerners
embracing Islam wasn't even an option
as they had
a major psychological barrier to Islam
and their leaders blocked their path to it
From this, they embarked on
their (still ongoing) journey
of diaspora and errors.
They decided to sanctify science
based on sensory observation
and experimentation
and consider it
the only source of knowledge
and abandon religion altogether;
rejecting it
as a reliable source of knowledge
or restricting it to an emotional choice;
unrelated to science
Accordingly, explanations
for all universal phenomenon
must be material explanations
developed by the senses:
I.e. observation or experimentation
After that, you can believe
what you want about the Unseen
as long as
you don't mix the two together
With such psychological problems
many Western scientists ventured through
the universe to explain it;
applying the "Either/Or fallacy"
i.e. reducing the choices to only two:
both of which are false
They did not accept Christian
theology in teaching rooms
so, their only other choice
became a materialistic interpretation
"Get intelligent design in schools today
and we can have school prayers tomorrow."
They completely ignored
the only correct explanation:
That organisms must have
an All-Knowing Creator
with Perfect Attributes;
free from distortions
These are the 'scientists' who give the
seal of approval for a theory so that
it can then be called:
"the most widely accepted
interpretation in the
scientific community."
The correct ending
to their statement is:
"in the community that rejects
the only valid explanation in advance."
And then:
"...what is there beyond the truth
except falsehood?..."
(QTM 10:32)
Do you want to better
understand their psyche?
Read the words of Professor
Richard Lewontin:
mathematician, geneticist, evolutionary
biologist, and author of
"Biology as Ideology:
The Doctrine of DNA"
You'll be shocked at his frankness!
I checked and double-checked
the authenticity of this quote
As usual, I include the links
to enable you
to review and verify
Richard Lewontin said
in his 1997 article:
"Billions and Billions of Demons"
published on
"The New York Review of Books" website
"Our willingness to accept scientific
claims that are against common sense
is the key to an understanding
of the real struggle
between science and the supernatural.
We take the side of science in
spite of the patent absurdity
of some of its constructs,
in spite of its failure to fulfill many
of its extravagant promises
of health and life,
in spite of the tolerance
of the scientific community
for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior commitment:
a commitment to materialism.
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
to create an apparatus
of investigation and
a set of concepts that produce
material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no
matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute,
for we cannot allow for a
Divine Foot in the door."
"for we cannot allow
a Divine Foot in the door!"
Dear viewers, we've seen examples
of absurd explanations
that contradict with rational axioms
in previous episodes;
the last two in particular
Now we can add a new joke
from the evolutionists to the list
The evolutionary professor
George Gamow suggested
a mechanism for breast
milk formation in mammals
In his biology book, he says:
"But incidentally the young
of these reptiles began
to lick the sweat of the
mother for nourishment.
Certain sweat glands began to secrete
a richer and richer secretion,
which eventually became milk."
So, according to Gamow
the sweat which gets rid of body waste
transformed by the frequent licking
of its glands into whole-food milk
containing a wide range of proteins,
antibodies, sugars, vitamins, etc.
This is corroborated
by a 'scientific' paper
published in 2012
which suggests that mammary glands
evolved from apocrine-like glands
This is not an obscure paper;
but a frequently cited one!
Isn't this an absurd explanation?
"What's the problem?
We told you in advance
that we were ready to accept
absurd interpretations
in order to preserve
our sacred absolute materialism."
Dear viewer
Would you like another example?
"Nature"
in 1999
published a paper by Dr. Todd
stating:
"Most important, it should be made
clear in the classroom
that science, including evolution,
has not disproved God's existence
because it cannot be allowed to
consider it (presumably).
Even if all the data point to
an intelligent designer,
such a hypothesis is
excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic."
After all this
read the definition of a scientific theory
according to
the National Academy of Sciences
in the United States:
"Theory: a well-substantiated explanation
of some aspect of the natural world
that can incorporate facts,
laws, inferences,
and tested hypotheses."
Add to this definition:
"strictly within
the materialist framework
with an absolute requirement
to rule out the existence of a Creator
regardless of the resultant absurdity,
irrationality, and
violation of basic axioms."
Here, you may get confused and say:
"Isn't explaining scientific
phenomena
with the existence of the Creator
considered 'God of the Gaps'?"
Definitely not!
What is the idea behind
God of the Gaps?
It is a relic from the altered
Middle Age religions
Someone gets ill.
Why did he get ill?
God made him ill
God might be angry with him
for mocking the church!
Then, the microscope was invented
and we saw the microbes
and learned that they were
the cause of illness
You had a knowledge gap
(of not knowing the cause of illness)
which you closed by saying:
"God did it!"
Thus, a conflict occurred between
the interpretations that say: God did it
and those
based on experimental science
In Islam
we have no such conflict
Allah decrees illness upon us;
but this doesn't mean that
illness has no material reasons
In fact, these reasons are acknowledged
in Islam, as are the precautions
to prevent the illness. The Prophet
(Peace & Blessings be upon him)
said: “Cover up the containers, and
fasten the water-skin nozzles,” (Muslim)
to prevent food and drink
from becoming disease-ridden
Microscopes were later invented
and microbes discovered
Did this change anything in our faith?
Nothing! Except to increase it
when we saw that microbes
with such efficient
and precise composition
must have a Creator
The sound mind (a source
of knowledge) necessitates this
The discovery of microbes did not
replace faith in the Creator
as the idiocy of atheism supposes
Illness happens and Allah cures
"And when I am ill, it is He
Who cures me"(QTM 26:80)
Does this mean that
there are no means
to recovery that I can use?
Of course not!
"...From their bellies comes
out a drink of diverse colors,
wherein is a cure for
mankind..." (QTM 16:69)
The Prophet (Peace & Blessings
be upon him) was asked:
“Oh Messenger of Allah
should we seek medical treatment?"
He replied:
"Seek treatment,
for Allah has not made a disease
without creating a remedy for it
with the exception of one disease:
old age." (Abu Dawud)
Rain is formed by the sun
which causes water
to evaporate.
Then it condenses at low temperatures
in the upper layers of the atmosphere
Wind carries it
and rain eventually falls
This is all tangible science
At the same time, the sun and sea
must have a Creator;
the laws of evaporation,
condensation at certain temperatures,
compression,
and retraction to drive wind
must all have a Creator;
for laws cannot act on their own
Rather, laws describe the effects
of a Deliberate Doer
Who decrees that things
happen the way they do
These are all mental necessities
and the mind is a source of knowledge
The story is thus complete
without any conflict between, mind,
observation, and experimentation
Therefore: 1) Scientific phenomena
must have a Creator
2) This Creator set means
for phenomena to happen
These two facts result from employing
the mind and innate nature
to explain things that fall under
observation and experimentation;
even though the Creator Himself
cannot be observed
The problem lies in the minds
of those who create a conflict
between these two facts
It's not an issue in our religion
praise be to Allah
Furthermore, when the Creator
tells us that He sends down water
as mercy or retribution, it doesn't
mean the abolition of material causes
Rather, it was sent down through
these causes as mercy or retribution
There are two questions with
regards to living organisms:
First:
Must they have a Creator?
Second:
How did the Creator create them?
As for the first question
we've proven
—starting with episode 13
of The Journey of Certainty—
that the answer is yes
They must have a Creator Who
created them with Intent and Will
and that they were not formed
by chance or randomness
This is a mental necessity!
The second question:
How did the Creator create them?
As they are, all at once?
Or by transforming one to the other?
Here, you may use
your senses and observation
to drawing up hypothetical scenarios
of what happened
at the beginning of time
without any way
to confirm any hypothesis
or delving now into whether
this research is useful or not
These points will be
addressed later, Allah willing
What must be made clear now
is that the possibilities are open
and assumptions can be made
as long as they don't oppose
the authentic sources of knowledge
of mind, observation, authentic
narration, and
Revelation (whose authenticity
has been established)
All this comes after we agree
on the prerequisite
—necessary for each sane person—
that organisms must have a Creator
i.e. after we stop denying
that the sun exists
If you bring us a device that
we've never seen before;
an integrated device with a purpose
everyone will be sure
that it has a maker who designed
and fine-tuned it
for a set purpose; beforehand
We might disagree
on how he/she made it
With his hands or a machine?
In a factory? Where and when?
We may disagree on all this
But, what's indisputable to any sane
person is that this device has a maker
Saying, "If you do not tell
me exactly how it was made
then you must accept that
it was never made in the first place!"
is comical ignorance!
So, we did not close a gap in knowledge
by saying that a Creator exists
Instead, we are certain
based on the true
sources of knowledge
that a Creator must exist
However, I will tell you where
a god of the gaps is evident
A god of the gaps is evident
when this fact is ruled out
When the question:
"Who created organisms?"
is answered by, "Evolution, random
mutations and blind selection."
But what do you say about
this phenomenon?
They reply:
"It must also be evolution
We will make an amendment to
accommodate this phenomenon"
until they ended up with gods
with various names, as we discussed
in the past two episodes
Everything becomes a gap to be closed
with yet another kind of evolution god
A god of the gaps is needed
when you ask:
"Why doesn't 95% of the genetic material
contain genes?"
and they respond:
"The evolution god did it;
by chance and randomness!"
"What is the function of this
structure in the human body?"
"It doesn't have to have a function!
Don't bother looking for one
As everything came by chance
it is no wonder that you see
useless organisms and parts everywhere."
Thus, the door to exploration
gets firmly shut
Why explore, when there is no wisdom
behind the universe, for us to search for;
no purpose for things that we
may discover and benefit from?
When ill, why search for a cure?
The gods of evolution made you ill
and since living creatures formed
by chance and randomness
there is no guarantee that
randomness and chance
created a cure for the illness.
Why search then?
Thus, "evolution" prevents progress
because it answers every question with:
"It's a result of randomness"
Westerners did not advance
until they discarded
this nonsense in practice; even while
continuing to pay lip service to it;
and until they used the science
of those before them
who were not polluted
by this lunacy
While in our religion
"Indeed, all things We created
with predestination." (QTM 54:49)
Hence, we are certain that everything
in this universe has a role
and that there must be wisdom behind
its creation, so we search and benefit
Observe the difference between:
evolution created, vestigial organs, flaws
...didn't we tell you that
it is randomness and chance?
and, on the other hand: A Creator must
have wisely created it for a purpose
and we are actively searching
for its function and benefits
Compare the two and find out who
the god of the gaps truly belongs to
From all that, we realize
the invalidity of the statement:
"You cannot invalidate
the theory of evolution
until you produce an alternative";
which was a common objection
in the comments on previous episodes;
one which glorifies ignorance
A myth produced by materialism that
rejects the only true interpretation,
ascends the throne of delusions,
and says:
"You can't reject me until you
produce an alternative
as long as this alternative
isn't the only true explanation."
The myth of evolution
is invalid from the start
as it gives an irrational answer
to the first question:
Must all creatures have a creator?
The only correct answer to this question
is: Yes, they must have a Creator!
Once we agree on this answer
the second question:
How did the Creator create them?
can be addressed
with different hypotheses:
He created them as they are
or transformed one to another
then discuss the pros and
cons of each hypothesis
However, whether we
propose a hypothesis or not
it has nothing to do
with the invalidity of the evolution myth
because of its false answer
to the first question
Therefore, dear viewers
to recap our thoughts
we can add
—to the list of logical fallacies
used to promote myths—
fallacy #13:
The Either/Or fallacy
The fallacy of restricting the choice to
two options, both of which are false
Either a distorted religion
that contradicts mind and Ilm
or ridiculous interpretations
that contradict mind and Ilm
while ignoring
the only true explanation:
that this universe has a Creator described
appropriately in an authentic religion
and that He created everything
with Wisdom and Intention
The important question remains:
Do the Western 'scientists'
who declare their commitment
to materialism
truly commit to it?
Do they really leave out the Unseen
from their interpretations?
Does pure materialism really exist?
And, can it be used in scientific fields?
Or will we find what Allah ordained: that
whoever denies the truth is in total loss
unable to safeguard his mind,
innate nature, testimony, or observation
We will answer this next episode
Allah willing, so stay tuned!
Peace and mercy of Allah be upon you