← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Greetings and Introduction
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.
What led distinguished scientists in their fields to make statements that are utterly foolish and comical regarding the universe and life? Today, we will see and discuss the following three objections that reflect errors in thinking:
We promised you in the introduction to our episodes on the myth of evolution that these would be methodical episodes that organize thinking. Today's episode, brothers, is a distinguished example of that, as you will notice, God willing. Follow with us.
A: "The sun is hot today, shub shub." B: "There is no sun." A: "Man, it's so hot, and my sweat is from it." B: "This is not the sun, exclude the possibility that it is the sun." A: "What else?" B: "This is either an optical illusion or we are taking hallucinogens that make us think the sun is rising. We are not taking hallucinogens, so the possibility is that it is an optical illusion. My theory says: 'What is in front of us is an optical illusion; this is the most scientifically accepted explanation.'"
This is the story of the most scientifically accepted explanation, the most accepted explanation, after the only correct explanation is excluded; nothing remains but forms of nonsense, and then you are told to choose one.
It is said: "The theory of evolution is the best theory to explain life; because it is the most accepted in scientific circles." Accepted by whom? By scientists. Which scientists? Those who excluded the only correct explanation in advance, then turned to the universe looking for any other explanation.
As shown clearly in the words of Professor of Evolutionary Biochemistry Franklin Harold in his book "The Way of the Cell." Harold says on page [205]: "We must reject as a matter of principle the choice of intelligent design as an alternative to chance, but we must acknowledge that at present there are no detailed Darwinian explanations for the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, but rather a variety of fanciful speculations."
Remember, brothers, that we do not say: intelligent design, but the existence of an All-Knowing Creator who chooses, whom the eyes do not perceive. This explanation is rejected by Harold and the evolutionists in principle, rejected in advance, not subject to discussion from the beginning. Do not explain to me the existence of the sun by saying it is the sun.
This is while Harold expresses in his book the confusion that has no way out, saying on page [245]: "The components of the cell, as we know them, are so tightly integrated that it is difficult to imagine any function arising independently of the others. Genetic information is not replicated and read except with the help of protein enzymes, which in turn are the product of these genes themselves, and energy is produced by enzymes, and enzymes in turn need energy to be produced."
Harold simply points to the foolishness of the idea that the cell was formed gradually in an accumulative manner, like the blind airplane and natural selection. How is the DNA replicated to produce multiple cells in an organism and to produce proteins? Through enzymes. Okay, and how did these enzymes come about? Through reading the DNA. So, which one came first? How can randomness and chance extract one from the other? It is not possible. Neither can be formed without the other.
Okay, let's surpass this dilemma. How did these enzymes form? They needed energy. Okay, and how did this energy come about? And so are the systems of the body: interdependent, each relying on the other, with no starting point or foundation for randomness and the poor evolutionary trial and error to work on. Imagine the instructions for manufacturing a computer device existing on a CD. But the problem is that without a computer, it is not possible to read what is on the CD at all.
And Harold says at the end of his book: "It would be welcome if I could end this book with celebratory, loud words, meaning that science is moving slowly but confidently towards solving the greatest mystery. But frankly, this is not the right time for rose-colored poetic words. The origin of life seems to me as incomprehensible as it was in ancient times, and it is a matter of wonder rather than analysis and explanation."
Thus, Harold confirms again and again that the issue is not a matter of time. The issue does not seem explicable at all within the framework of evolution.
But with all of this, the existence of a Creator outside the material framework must be excluded. Why? Because Harold is committed to the material explanation of the universe, as he says on page [190], saying: "Let me make it clear without any ambiguity that I, like the vast majority of contemporary scientists, see the living world as a product exclusively of natural, material causes."
So, this is the story. A conflict that has been going on for centuries in the Western world between distorted religion and experimental science. Between the Church and its supernatural news that contradicts reason and its false theories, which it wants to impose from one side, and science, which people see as a tangible reality. The Westerners were caught between this duality. They could have sought a correct system for life, without this contradiction. Which we claim is the Islamic system, as we will prove by the permission of Allah the Most High in the journey of certainty.
They could have turned to Islam with purity, which has remained pure, with no contradiction between sound reason and sound narration from Allah and His Messenger. As there is no contradiction between sensation with its experience and sound narration, for all of them are from Allah. "And if it had been from other than Allah, they would have found therein much contradiction." [An-Nisa: 82] The sound narration, including revelation, reason, and sensation, are sources of knowledge that are integrated and their wheels revolve in a single system that achieves true knowledge. And when we say "science" in the Islamic system, it includes all these sources.
But entering Islam was not an option at all for the majority of Westerners; there was a great barrier in their minds against it, and their leaders prevented them from it. From here began the journey of misguidance and bewilderment until this day. Their decision was to sanctify science based on sensation, such as observation and experimentation, and consider it the sole source of knowledge, and to reject religion as a whole and in detail and disbelieve in it as a source of knowledge, or to set limits for it as an emotional choice but without considering it a source of science. Therefore, any explanation they have for any cosmic phenomenon must be a material explanation from sensation, such as observation or experimentation, and then believe in the unseen as you wish, but do not mix them.
With this psychological complex, many Western scientists approached the universe to explain what is in it, with the complex called in the science of logical fallacies "Either or fallacy," meaning the restriction to two choices, both of which are wrong. We do not accept Christian priesthood in the classroom, and therefore, there is no choice but the material explanation. (In English) "Let intelligent design enter schools today to practice prayers in schools tomorrow."
And they completely ignore the correct explanation. That there must be a wise Creator, free from the distortions of the Christians. These are the scientists who give the stamp of approval to a theory, and then it is said: "This theory is the most accepted explanation in scientific circles." While the correct thing is to say in the circles that reject the sole explanation presented, "And when the truth has come to them, they say, 'This is a falsehood.'" [Yunus: 32].
Do you want to know more about their psychology? Read the words of Professor Richard Lewontin, a mathematician, geneticist, and evolutionary biologist, and the author of the book "Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA," which will shock you with its bluntness. I have tried to verify the accuracy of the attribution of these words to him and, as usual, I have provided you with links that enable you to review and verify the information.
Richard Lewontin says in his article "Billions and Billions of Demons," published on the website of "The New York Review of Books" in [1997]: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that contradict intellectual common sense is the key to understanding the real conflict between experimental science and the supernatural. We favor experimental science despite the obvious absurdity of some of its constructs. Despite its failure to fulfill many of its exaggerated promises about health and life. Despite the tolerance of the scientific community for undocumented stories of the 'take it or leave it' type. All of this is because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. The issue is not that the methods and institutions of science force us to accept materialistic interpretations of the world of phenomena, but rather the opposite: we are driven by our prior commitment to material causes. Until we create a system of exploration and a set of concepts that produce materialistic interpretations, no matter how contradictory to common sense and how confusing to the non-expert. Moreover, this materialism is absolute; we must not allow any divine foot in the door."
You have seen with me, brothers, models of absurd interpretations that contradict the common sense of the mind in previous episodes, and in the last two episodes in particular. But let us add a new joke from the jokes of the evolutionists.
Professor George Gamow, the evolutionary biologist, wanted to propose a mechanism for the appearance of breast milk in mammals. He tells you in his book on biology that some young reptiles began to lick their mother's sweat by chance to feed. Consequently, some sweat glands began to secrete a better and better fluid until this fluid turned into complete milk. That is, the sweat, which is for the elimination of the body's waste, turned into complete food due to the frequent licking of its glands. It contains a large variety of proteins, antibodies, sugars, vitamins, and others. This is supported by a scientific paper published in [2012] suggesting that milk glands may have evolved from apocrine-like glands. This is not an obscure paper but is cited by many scientific papers.
But is this not an absurd interpretation? Yes, and what is the problem? We told you in advance that we are ready for absurd interpretations in the name of preserving absolute, sacred materialism.
Do you want another model, brother? Read what was published by the journal Nature in [1999] by Dr. Todd, who said: "The most important thing in this matter is that it must be clear in the classrooms that science - including evolution - has not proven the non-existence of God, because this science is not allowed to consider this subject at all, even if all the data indicate the existence of an intelligent designer, this hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not within nature."
After all this, read the definition of the scientific theory according to the National Academy of Sciences in the United States. Theory: It is the best and most coherent explanation for a set of natural phenomena that can be observed in nature, and that can integrate facts, inferences, laws, and testable hypotheses.
Add to this definition: (Within the framework of absolute materialism - meaning the sacred - with the emphasis on excluding the existence of a Creator, no matter how absurd and contradictory to the mind and its common sense this approach may be.)
Here, you may have confusion and say: Is the explanation of natural phenomena by the existence of the Creator the same as the idea of the God of the gaps? Of course not.
What is the idea of the God of the gaps? It is also one of the remnants of the corrupt religions of the Middle Ages. So-and-so fell ill. Why did he fall ill? God made him ill. It may be that God was angry with him because he mocked the church. Then the microscope was invented, and we saw the microbes, and we knew that they were the cause of the disease. Ah, so you had a knowledge gap in knowing the cause of the disease, and you filled it by saying that God did so. There was a conflict between the explanation of the existence of God and the explanations of experimental science.
In Islam, there is no dichotomy; God decrees illness for someone. Does this mean that there are no material causes for the illness? Yes, and the Sharia has determined them and commanded us to take the causes for prevention, such as the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Cover the container and tie the water skin" to prevent food and drink from being affected by epidemics. Microscopes were made, and microbes were discovered. What is new in terms of our faith? Nothing new except an increase in faith; when we saw these microbes, we knew that they, with their precise composition, must have a Creator. The sound mind, which is a source of knowledge, necessitates this and did not replace the belief in the existence of the Creator with the discovery of microbes, as the stupidity of atheism assumes.
So, the illness occurred, and God heals. "And when I fall ill, it is He who heals me" [Ash-Shu'ara: 80]. Does this mean that there are no causes of healing to be taken? Yes; "From their bellies comes forth a drink of varying colors, wherein is healing for the people" [An-Nahl: 69]. And the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked: "O Messenger of Allah, should we seek medical treatment?" He said: "Seek medical treatment, for Allah has not placed a disease except that He has placed its cure, except for one disease: old age." [Its chain of transmission is authentic]
Rain falls due to the sun, which evaporates water, then it condenses around nuclei at low temperatures in the upper layers of the atmosphere, and the winds carry it, and it falls as rain. All of this is experimental and tangible science. At the same time, the sun and the sea must have a Creator. There must be a Creator for the laws of evaporation and condensation at certain temperatures, compression, and rarefaction that move the winds. All of this must have a Creator for these laws; laws do not create actions by themselves but are descriptions of the actions of a choosing doer who made things happen in this form. All of this is rational necessity, and the mind is a source of knowledge, so the story is complete without any contradiction between the mind, sensation, and experimentation.
If:
Two truths derived from the use of reason and innate nature in what is perceived by the senses and experimentation, even if this Creator Himself is not perceived by the eyes. If there is someone who has caused a conflict between these two truths, then the problem is his. This is not a problem in our religion, praise be to Allah. And if the Creator informs us that He sent down water as a mercy or a punishment, this does not mean the cancellation of material causes, but rather that He sent it down with these causes as a mercy or a punishment.
Living beings have two questions: first, do they necessarily have a Creator? Second, how did the Creator create them? As for the first question, we have proven from episode [13] of the Journey of Certainty that the answer is yes, they must have a Creator who created them intentionally and willingly, not by chance or randomly. This is a rational necessity.
The second question: how did the Creator create them? Did He create them all at once as they are? Or did He transform some into others? Here, you may rely on the senses and observation and draw hypothetical scenarios of what was in the first time. Without anyone being able to assert anything about it, and without delving into whether this research is beneficial or not. These points we will review later, God willing.
But what I want to clarify now, my brothers, is that possibilities become open here and assumptions are possible as long as they do not contradict the correct sources of knowledge, from sense, reason, transmission, and revelation which the evidence has indicated its truth. All of this after we have agreed on the premise that is necessary for every rational person that creatures must have a Creator, after we have not denied that the sun exists.
If you bring us a device that we see for the first time, a complete device with a function, everyone is certain that it has a maker who designed it perfectly and skillfully and set its function before its creation. We may differ after that in how it was made? By hand or by machine in a factory? And where and when? All of this we may differ in. But the agreed-upon fact among every rational person is that this device has a maker. As for saying, "If you do not tell me exactly how it was made, then you must admit to me that it is not made at all," this is laughable ignorance. The issue is not that we have filled a gap of ignorance by saying that there is a Creator, but we know certainly from the correct sources of knowledge that there must be a Creator.
But I will tell you where the gods of the gaps are in this topic? The gods of the gaps when this truth is excluded, then it is said: who created the creatures? They rush to say: evolution, random mutations, and blind selection. But what do you say about this phenomenon? They respond: it must also be evolution, we will make an adjustment to encompass this phenomenon. Until they reached the gods with multiple names that we talked about in the previous two episodes. Everything became a gap that they must fill with a color of the gods of evolution.
The gods of the gaps when it is said: what about the [95] percent of genetic material that does not contain genes. The response comes: the gods of evolution "Evolution" did it. It is chance and randomness. What is the function of this composition in the human body? It is not necessary that it has a function, do not trouble yourself searching for its function. As long as everything is by chance, it is no wonder that you see in every corner creatures and parts without benefit, and the door of exploration is closed on that. So why explore if there is no wisdom in the universe that guides us to search for it? And no one intended that things be as they are until we search for his intention and benefit from it for our benefit.
Our disease, do we search for a cure? The gods of evolution made you sick, the creatures came by chance and randomness. And there is no guarantee that this randomness and chance created a cure for the disease, so why search? And thus, evolution prevents evolution, because it answers any question that it is a product of randomness. And the Westerners have only progressed when they practically stepped on this nonsense, even if their tongues uttered it. Otherwise, when they benefited from the sciences of those before them who were not polluted by this nonsense.
While in our religion, "Indeed, We have created everything with a decree" [Quran 54:49], so we know certainly that everything in this universe has a role, nothing was created except for a wisdom, so we search and benefit. So look at the difference between what evolution brought, members without benefit, design errors. Did we not tell you that it is randomness and chance? On the other hand, there must be a Creator who created it with wisdom to perform a function, and we are researchers of this function and benefits. Compare between them, then see who are the true owners of the gods of the gaps?
From what has been presented, my brothers, we understand the falsity of the claim: that you cannot refute the theory of evolution until you come up with an alternative theory to it, which is one of the most common objections raised against the previous episodes, an objection whose essence is the deification of ignorance, a myth that came as a product of a materialistic method that rejects the only correct explanation, then it monopolized the throne of illusions and it was said: it will not be overthrown until you come up with an alternative to it, on the condition that the only correct explanation is not.
The myth of evolution is false from the beginning because it gives the false answer to the first question, do creatures necessarily have a Creator? The only correct answer to this question is yes, they must have a Creator. After we agree on this answer, the second question comes: how did the Creator create them? We may propose certain assumptions that He created them as they are, transformed some into others, then we discuss the supporters and opponents of each proposal. But whether we proposed a hypothesis or not, this has no relation to refuting the myth of evolution for its false answer to the first question.
Therefore, my brothers, among the arrangement of thoughts, we can add to the list of logical fallacies, which are used to promote myths, the fallacy [13] (either or fallacy) the fallacy of the dichotomy between two choices, both of which are false, either a distorted religion that contradicts reason and science or ridiculous explanations that contradict reason and science, while ignoring the only correct explanation: that this universe has a Creator described with what befits Him in a correct religion, and that He created everything with wisdom and will.
The important question remains: these Western scientists who announce their commitment to the materialistic method, did they actually adhere to it? Did they actually adhere to it except for the metaphysical aspects from their explanations? Or is there something real called the materialistic method that can be applied in scientific fields? Or will we find from the Sunnah of Allah that whoever denies the truth, the knots of everything are loosened for him, so neither reason nor experience nor innate nature nor experimentation is safe for him "And his affair became an utter loss" [Quran 18:28]. This is what we will answer in the next episode, God willing, so follow us. And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.