Blind Faith and Filling Knowledge Gaps
Atheists have a blind faith that they use to fill their knowledge gaps. When they deny the existence of God and consequently deny the innate nature that God has instilled in people, they find themselves in a great dilemma. They have no explanation for any of the innate phenomena, such as the tendency towards religion, moral tendencies, the sense of purpose, free will, and instincts.
Since these phenomena are non-material in nature, they have sought material explanations for them, claiming that all these phenomena have material causes within the framework of Darwinian evolution. They have claimed that either the innate phenomenon is the result of a specific gene or a group of genes, or that it arises from other genetic-related traits that nature has selected, or that the phenomenon has been selected Darwinianly without knowing how it initially appeared.
The Scientific Method in Proving Genetic Relationships
The question here is: Is their claim supported by scientific evidence? The possibility that states "we do not know how it appeared" is a reference to the unknown, which is a statement that atheists themselves do not accept from believers in God in explaining phenomena. The explanation that can be examined and tested is linking innate phenomena to genes.
To claim that a certain trait in an organism is related to a specific gene, there are specific scientific methods to prove this:
- Gene Insertion: Into the fertilized egg.
- Gene Deletion: And observing whether this leads to the appearance or disappearance of a certain trait, which is possible in animals such as what is called "knockout mice," but has not been done in humans, in addition to the complex factors such as compensatory mechanisms that may compensate for the deleted gene.
- Gene Scanning: This method is possible in humans, and has linked some physical traits and diseases to genetic causes.
"Darwinizing" Everything Without Evidence
Atheists and Darwinists have engaged in "Darwinizing" everything, and among the things they have Darwinized are innate phenomena. There is a long list of books based on this premise, such as: "The God Gene," "The Evolutionary Basis of Moral Tendencies," "The Evolutionary Basis of Freedom," "A Darwinian View of Parental Love," and "The Evolution of Sexual Desire."
However, has any gene responsible for any innate tendency been identified? The shocking answer is: No. These are claims without scientific basis, but rather a blind Darwinian faith. These works go beyond the question of whether there is a material cause for the innate phenomenon and consider the answer to be settled, then move on to discussing the evolutionary benefit of the phenomenon in barren, speculative talk.
This "Darwinizing" of everything has been criticized even by some atheist Darwinists, including Professor of Environment and Evolution "Jerry Coyne," who said in his book "Why Evolution Is True":
"There is a growing and disturbing trend among psychologists, biologists, and philosophers to Darwinize every aspect of human behavior, turning those studies into a collective scientific game. Reshaping the ways in which things might have evolved based on a wide imagination is not science, it is just storytelling."
The Myth of the "God Gene" and the Complexity of the Genetic Code
As an exception, we see "Dean Hamer" has spoken about a specific gene to explain the tendency towards religion, but this Hamer is the hero of claims without evidence, which are denied by other researchers. Some atheists have even mocked him, saying: "There is no God and no God gene."
The truth is that those who claim to find a gene associated with an innate tendency are either ignorant of genetics in a shameful way, or they are deceiving their audience. Our information confirms that the association of genes with traits is much more complex than we thought. In a scientific paper published in the journal "Nature" in 2008, it was found that genetic decoding has been disappointing; we found that even physical traits such as height, and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia (schizophrenia), cannot be attributed to a single gene or even a specific group of genes.
Other studies state that a single behavioral trait may be linked to thousands of genes, each contributing a minor role, and yet studies acknowledge the inability to determine these hypothetical genes.
Despite this, people like "Hamer" come to tell you about the "God gene," and you see in the Western media simplistic headlines such as: "This specific gene may determine whether you will vote for the Republicans or the Democrats!" This is a trivialization of people's intelligence. It is astonishing that such claims are circulated by people who have principles of scientific research or students in the medical field.
We do not see any theoretical objection to God the Almighty creating genes in humans that help form innate tendencies. If this is found, it will be another proof of the greatness of the Creator. However, what is objectionable is that atheists deny our spiritual belief in the existence of God (which is supported by evidence), while they have no qualms about the spiritual belief in the existence of genes or explanations that have not yet been discovered and have no evidence for.
The Reality of Filling Knowledge Gaps
What is truly objectionable is that atheists claim that our belief in the Creator is a form of "filling knowledge gaps"; that is, we do not know the cause of some phenomena, so we assume the existence of God to explain them. This claim is incorrect in the Islamic doctrinal system. On the other hand, we find atheists practicing this "blind Darwinian faith" to explain phenomena that their materialism has failed to explain.
They have denied the existence of the Creator, so they had to have a material alternative that denies the spirit and innate nature. They built on this alternative theories, claims, and stories, wrote books, and gave lectures on "nothing," or rather on a great illusion. Is there a more blind faith than this? Is there a greater rental of the mind or scientific bias and preconceived judgments than what these people do?
Contradiction with Reality and Experimental Science
These accusations that they hurl at Muslims are more deserving of them. They claim that there is a conflict between Islam and reality, and a conflict between Islam and experimental science, while in their statement: "There is no free will in humans, but genes control them," they reveal themselves at the peak of contradiction with reality, which imposes that humans have free will no matter how much they deny it. Their disrespect for experimental science is also evident in the genetic claims they make without evidence.
All of this is the price of denying the innate evidence of the existence of God the Almighty. We have thus approached the end of the discussion about innate evidence, and we do not want to digress too much from the topic, but we would like to mention an example of the misguidance practiced by atheists and Darwinists in the name of science, which is justifying "sexual deviance" by claiming the existence of a genetic basis for it.
This will be our final example of the cost of denying the innate nature of human instincts and trying to explain them with a purely material explanation, which we will discuss in the next episode, God willing.
Peace be upon you and the mercy of God and His blessings.