Contemporary Physicists and God’s Existence 2

If matter, time and space all had a beginning, the question that naturally comes to mind is: How did they come to be?  The Quran tells us that if a person does not believe in God, then he cannot explain the coming into being of anything except by one of three untenable explanations:

a.     either he says that it was created by nothing, i.e. that it just appeared out of nothing?

b.    Or that it created itself,

c.     Or that it was created by something that is itself created.

Addressing the atheists the Quran says:

“Were they created by nothing?  Or were they themselves the creators (of themselves)?  Or did they create heaven and earth?  Nay, but they are not sure.” (Quran 52:35-36)

The Quran is not saying that the Arabs whom it addressed actually believed that things were created by nothing, or that they created themselves.  They certainly did not claim that they were the creators of the heavens and earth; no sane person would.  The Quran then, is only making clear to the atheists the absurdity of their position.

After a careful study of some of the arguments of many Western atheistic philosophers and scientists, I have found that they do indeed fall into these three untenable categories.  Why untenable?

Was it created out of nothing?

Suppose that you told someone that there was nothing, nothing at all in a certain region, and then lo! a duck appeared alive and kicking.  Why wouldn’t he believe you however much you assure him that that was indeed the case?  Not only because he knows that ducks don’t come into being in that way, as some might suppose, but because believing this violates an essential principle of his rationality.  Thus his attitude would be the same even if the thing that he was told to have come from nothing was something that he never heard of before.  It is because we believe that nothing comes out of nothing, that we keep looking for causes by which we explain the occurrence of events in the natural, social or psychological world.  It is because of this rational principle that science was possible.  Without it, not only our science, but our very rationality will be in jeopardy.  Moreover, the idea of causation is essential even to the very identity of things, as it was observed by the Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes):

It is self-evident that things have identities, and they have qualities in virtue of which every existent has its actions, and in virtue of which things have different identities, names and definitions.  If it were not the case that every individual thing had an action peculiar to, it would not have had a na­ture that is peculiar to it; and if it did not have a special na­ture, it would not have had a special name or definition. (Tahafut Attahafut, 782-3)

Did it create itself?

The absurdity of the idea of something creating itself is even clearer.  For something to create, it must be already existing; but for it to be created, it must be nonexistent.  The idea of something creating itself is thus self-contradictory.

Was it created by something that is itself created?

Can the cause of a temporal thing be itself temporal?  Yes, if we are talking about immediate, incomplete causes like eating and nourishment, water and germination, fire and burning, etc.  But these causes are incomplete causes.  First, because none of them is by itself sufficient to produce the effect we attribute to it; every such temporal cause depends for its efficacy on a host of other positive and negative conditions.  Second, because being temporal, they need to be caused, and cannot therefore be the ultimate causes of the coming into being of anything.  Suppose the following to be a series of temporal effects and causes: C1, C2, C3, C4… Cn, such that C1 is caused by C2, C2 by C3, and so on.  Such temporal causes are real causes, and useful ones, especially for practical purposes and for incomplete explanations; but if we are looking for the ultimate cause of the coming into being of, say, C1, then C2 is certainly not that cause, since it is itself caused by C3.  The same can be said about C3, and so on.  So even if we have an infinite series of such temporal causes, still that will not give us an ultimate explanation of the coming into being of C1.  Let us put this in other words: when does C1 come into being?  Only after C2 has come into being.  When does C2 come into being?  Only after C3 has come into being, and so on until Cn.  Therefore C1 will not come into being until Cn has come into being.  The same problem will persist even if we go further than Cn, even if we go to infinity.  This means that if C1 depended for its coming into being on such temporal causes, it would never have come to exist.  There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents, as Ibn Taymiyyah[1]  explained.  The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes; it must be an eternal, and therefore, uncaused cause.

When someone, whether scientist or nonscientist, insists on his erroneous beliefs in the face of all the evidence, there can be no way for him to support those beliefs except by resorting to dubious arguments, because no falsehood can be supported by a valid argument.  This has been the case with all atheistic scientists and philosophers who believe in the Big Bang theory.

Some claimed unabashedly that the original matter of the universe came out of nothing.  Thus Fred Hoyle, who advocated the steady state theory, which was for sometime considered to be a credible rival to the big bang theory, but which, like its rival, necessitates the coming into being of new matter-- used to say[2]:

The most obvious question to ask about continuous creation is this: Where does the created material come from?  It does not come from anywhere.  Material simply appears - it is created.  At one time the various atoms composing the material do not exist, and at a later time they do.  This may seem a very strange idea and I agree that it is, but in science it does not matter how strange an idea may seem so long as it works – that is to say, since the idea can be expressed in a precise form and so long as its consequences are in agreement with observation. (Hoyle, 112)

When Hoyle said this, there was an uproar against him.  He was accused of violating a main principle of science, namely that nothing comes out of nothing, and was thus ‘opening the flood gates of religion’ as one philosopher of science put it.  Thus Mario Bunge said about it:

[T]his theory involves the hypothesis of the continuous creation of matter ex nihilo.  And this is not precisely what is usually meant by respecting scientific determinism even in its widest sense, for the concept of emergence out of nothing is characteristically theological or magical even if clothed in mathematical form. (Bunge)

That the hypothesis of creation ex nihilo is not a scientific one, is true, but the claim that it is characteristically theological is wide off the mark.  Theistic religions do not say that things come out of absolute nothing because that contradicts the basic religious claim that they are created by God.  All that many religious people say is that God creates things out of nothing, and there is the whole difference in the world between the two notions.

If creation out of nothing was earlier considered by atheists to be an unscientific and theological principle, it is now claimed by some to have a scientific status and is used to discredit religion.

For the first time a unified description of all creation could be within our grasp.  No scientific problem is more fundamental or more daunting than the puzzle of how the universe came into being.  Could this have happened without any supernatural input?  Quantum mechanics seems to provide a loophole in the age-old assumption that ‘you can’t get something for nothing’.  Physicists are now talking about ‘the self creating universe’: a cosmos that erupts into existence spontaneously, much as a sub nuclear particle pops out of nowhere in certain high energy processes.  The question of whether the details of this theory are right or wrong is not important.  What matters is that it is now possible to conceive of a scientific explanation of all creation. (Jastrow, viii)

What kind of explanation is this?  Do you really even start to explain anything by saying that it pops out of nowhere?  Do scientists really believe that the sub nuclear particle referred to pops out of nowhere, in the sense that it really comes out of nothing, and has no relation whatsoever to anything that precedes it?  Commenting on what Davies claimed, one scientist had this to say: “This, in any case, is an event that occurs in space and time, within a domain bathed in matter and radiation.  ‘Nothing’ is nowhere to be seen in this situation.“[3]

This same fallacious idea is repeated in a later book by another atheistic scientist, Taylor:

As such, there is a non-zero probability of, say, a particle such as an electron appearing out of the vacuum.  In fact a vacuum is full of possibilities, one of which is the appearance of the Universe itself.  It had been created from nothing, as it were. (Taylor, 22)

What kind of vacuum is Taylor talking about?  If he is using the word in its technical scientific sense, then he can indeed speak of its being full of possibilities, or of an electron appearing out of it, because this vacuum is in fact a non-empty region.  This surely, however, is not the nothingness that is referred to by the big bang theory.  There is therefore not even an analogy between the appearance of a particle in a vacuum and the appearance of a Universe out of absolute nothing.

---

Footnotes:

[1] Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (1263 - 1328), an Islamic scholar born in Harran, now modern day Syria.

[2] Later on he changed his mind, not only about this, but about the whole theory.

[3] This is what my friend,  Professor Mahjoob Obeid,  the famous Sudanese physicist wrote to  me in a personal  communication.

Contemporary Physicists and God’s Existence The Eternalness of Matter 1

Whether God exists or not is not as such, part of the subject matter of any empirical science, natural or social.  But the facts or what are sometimes assumed to be the facts of the natural sciences, especially physics and biology, are often interpreted to support one view or the other.  This is not therefore a paper about physics, but about the relationship between physics and the question of the existence of God.  More specifically, it is mainly an Islamic rational critique of the ways modern atheists attempts to meet the challenge posed by the Big Bang theory.  It does not deal with positive proofs for the existence of the Creator; it only proves the invalidity of the arguments used to buttress atheism.

One of the main arguments invoked in support of some form or other of atheism has always been the claim that the world, or some part of it, is eternal and, as such, needs no creator.  Thus, some Greek thinkers believed that the heavenly bodies, especially the sun, were eternal.  The main argument of one of them, Galen, was, according to Al-Ghazali, that it has had the same size for continued for eons and eons,a fact which shows that it is not perishable, for if it were, it would have shown signs of decay, which it doesn’t.  Al-Ghazali says that this is not a good argument because:

First...we do not grant him that a thing cannot perish except by decaying; decaying is only one way of perishing; but it is not improbable for something to perish suddenly while it is in its complete form.  Second, even if we grant him that there is no perishing without decay, whence does he know that it does not suffer any decay?  His reference to observation posts is not acceptable, because their quantities [the quantities known by them] are known only approximately.  So if the sun, which is said to be a hundred and seventy times or more the size of the earth[1], were to diminish by amounts the size of mountains, that would not be apparent to the senses.  So it might be decaying, and might have decreased by amounts the size of mountains or more, but the senses cannot perceive this ...” (Al-Ghazali, 126)

Al-Ghazali’s guess that the size of the sun might be diminishing was, as we can now see, a rare prescience of what science would prove.  Scientists now tell us that the sun does indeed decay, but much more than he thought, and that it will ultimately perish.

The amount of energy released by the sun is such that the mass of the sun is decreasing at the rate of 4.3 billion kilograms per second.  Yet this is such a small fraction of the sun’s mass that the change is hardly noticeable…

Our sun is believed to be about 4.5 billion years old, and will probably continue its present activity for another 4.5 billion years. (Wheeler, 596)

If the heavenly bodies are not eternal, what is it then that is eternal, the substances from which those bodies are made?  But physicists have discovered that these are made of molecules.  Is it then the molecules that are eternal?  No, because these are made up of atoms.  What about the atoms?  It was once believed that they were indivisible, and were, as such, the immutable matter from which all kinds of transient forms of material things are made.  This seemed, at last, to be the solid foundation on which to erect modern atheism.

Science continued to advance however, and contented in its advancement to embarrass the atheists.  It was soon discovered that atoms were not the immutable solid ultimate eternal constituents of matter that they were believed to be for a time.  Like everything else, they are also divisible; they are constituted of subatomic particles, which are in turn divisible in yet smaller constituents.  Is there an end to this divisibility?  No one knows; but even if there was, that would not be of any help to the atheists, for science has not only shown atoms and their constituents to be divisible, it has obliterated the division between matter and energy.  Thus, every piece of matter, however small, is not only theoretically but also practically changeable into energy, and vice versa.  The end result is that there is no longer any actual existent to which one can point and say with any assurance: this has always been like as it is now, and will continue forever to be.

That discovery should by itself have sufficed to dash any hope of anchoring atheism on the eternity of matter.  If it did not, the Big Bang theory certainly did.  It was this theory which dealt the final death blow to the eternity of any part of the universe.  Why?

Cosmologists believe that the big bang represents not just the appearance of matter and energy in a preexisting void, but the creation of space and time too.  The universe was not created in space and time; space and time are part of the created universe. (Davies, 123)

The biggest misunderstanding about the big bang is that it began as a lump of matter somewhere in the void of space.  It was not just matter that was created during the big bang.  It was space and time that were created.  So in the sense that time has a beginning, space also has a beginning.” (Boslouh, 46.)

In the beginning there was nothing, neither time nor space, neither stars nor planets, neither rocks nor plants, neither animals nor human beings.  Everything came out of the void. (Fritzch, 3)

The question of the existence or non-existence of God is not, as we said, the concern of any empirical science.  But scientists are human beings.  They cannot help thinking about the non-scientific yet vital implications of their sciences.  They cannot even help having feelings towards those implications.

Jasrow says about Einstein:

He was disturbed by the idea of a universe that blows up, because it implied that the world had a beginning.  In a letter to De Sitter, Einstein wrote, “This circumstance of an expanding universe irritates me.” ... This is curiously emotional language for a discussion of some mathematical formulas.  I suppose that the idea of a beginning in time annoyed Einstein because of its theological implications. (Jasrow, 29.)

Gastro quotes similar reactions by other scientists, like Eddington who says that “the notion of a beginning is repugnant” to him (122), and attributes this emotional reaction to the fact that they do not “bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained”[2]  and comments on such reactions of scientists by saying that they provide:

... an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to conflict with the articles of faith in our profession.  It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence.  We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases. (Jasrow, 15-16.)

---

Footnotes:

[1] We now know that it is definitely more. The mass of the sun is 333, 000 times that of the earth, and its radius is 109 times the earth’s radius.

[2] Gastro would have been more accurate if he said, “a phenomenon that cannot be naturally explained.”, since Divine creation is an explanation, and the only one in such cases.

Atheism (part 2 of 2): A Question of Understanding

Most Atheist arguments challenge the compatibility of an all-loving God with the perceived injustices of life.  The religious identify such challenges as reflecting an arrogance of intellect -- being the assumption that we as mankind, an element of creation ourselves, know better than God how His creation should be ordered -- coupled with the failure to appreciate a larger design.

The fact that many of mankind fail to make sense of certain aspects of this life should not dissuade from belief in God.  The duty of man is not to question or deny the attributes or presence of God, and not to incline to arrogance through professing to be able to do a better job, but rather to accept human station in this life and do the best that can be done with what we’ve been given.  By analogy, the fact that a person does not like the way the boss does things at work, and fails to understand the decisions he makes, does not negate his existence.  Rather, each person’s duty is to fulfill a job description in order to be paid and promoted.  Similarly, failure to grasp or approve of the way God orders creation does not negate His existence.  Rather, humankind should recognize with humility that, unlike the workplace boss, who may be wrong, God by definition is of absolute perfection, always right and never wrong.  Humankind should bow down to Him in willing submission and in recognition that failure to understand His design on our part does not reflect error on His part.  Rather, He is The Lord and Master of Creation and we are not, He knows all and we do not, He orders all affairs according to His perfect attributes, and we simply remain His subjects, along for the ride of our lives.

The confused and sensitive souls who encounter difficulty reconciling God’s existence with a harsh and often painful life deserve sympathy and explanation.  If a person accepts the fact that God knows what He is doing and we don’t, he or she should rest comfortable with the understanding that deep down things may not be what they at first seem.  Perhaps the wretched amongst humankind deserve their lot in life for reasons unforeseen, and perhaps they suffer only a short worldly existence to receive an eternal reward in the next life.  Lest a person forget, God granted the favorites of His creation (i.e. the prophets) the greatest worldly gift of certainty, guidance and revelation; however, they suffered greatly in worldly terms.  In fact, the trials and tribulations of most people pale in comparison to those of the prophets.  So although many people do suffer terribly, the message of hope is that the archetypes of God’s favorites, namely the prophets, were deprived of the pleasures of this world in exchange for the rewards of the hereafter.  A person might well expect a comparable reward for those who endure the trials and hardships of this life, while remaining steadfast upon true belief.

Similarly, a person cannot be faulted for expecting the disbelieving tyrants and oppressors to have all the enjoyments of this world, but none of the hereafter.  Some of the known inmates of Hell spring to mind.  Pharaoh, for example, lived a life of posh magnificence to the point that he proclaimed himself to be the supreme god.  Most likely opinions changed when he broke wind.  In any case, a person can reasonably expect him to be somewhat dissatisfied with his toasty abode of the moment, and the memories of his plush carpets, fine foods and scented handmaidens to have lost their charm of consolation given the heat of the moment.

Most people have had the experience of ending a great day in a bad mood due to some sour event at the conclusion of events.  Nobody values a fine meal that ends in divorce, a romantic interlude rewarded with AIDS, or a night of revelry capped off by a brutal mugging or crippling car crash.  How good could it have been?  Similarly, there is no joy in this life, no matter how great the ecstasy or how long the duration, which is not instantly erased from memory by a 100% full body burn.  One side of one hand represents 1% of the total body surface area of a human being, making a kitchen burn of a fraction of a fingertip count for less than a thousandth of the total body surface area.  Nonetheless, who doesn’t forget absolutely every little, every big, everything during that moment of painful thermal affliction?  The agony of a whole-body burn, especially if there is no relief -- no jumping back, no pulling away -- is beyond the capacity of human imagination.  The few who have survived such burns agree.  Not only does the torture of a total burn exceed the boundaries of human imagination, but the agony of the experience surpasses the limits of language.  The horror can neither be adequately conveyed by the unfortunate of experience, nor fully understood by those blessed to have escaped initiation.  Certainly one looooooong, eternal, full-body bath in fire can be expected to erase any pleasant memories of the past, consistent with the conclusion that

“…the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter is but a brief passing enjoyment.” (Quran 13:26)

With regard to the subject of the present appendix[1], two elements of guiding consciousness deserve consideration, the first being that deep down all people have an innate knowledge of the presence of the Creator.  Humankind may intellectualize this awareness away in search of the conveniences and pleasures of this world, but deep down, all mankind know the truth.  What is more, God knowsthat we know, and He alone can calculate the level of individual rebellion and/or submission to Him.

The second element of dawning spiritual awareness is simply to understand that there is seldom a free lunch.  Rarely does anybody get something for nothing.  Should a man work for a boss whom he does not understand or with whom he does not agree, in the end he still has to do his job in order to get paid.  Nobody goes to work (for long, anyway) and does nothing more than saying, “I’m at work,” expecting a paycheck to follow based on nothing more than unproductive attendance.  Similarly, humankind must satisfy a duty of servitude and worship to God if hoping to receive His reward.  After all, that is not only the purpose of life, it is our job description.  For that matter, Muslims claim that such is the job description for both men and Jinn (plural for ‘spirits;’ singular ‘Jinn’ee,’ from which the Western word ‘genie’ is derived), for God conveys in the Holy Quran:

“And I have not created Jinns and men, except that they should serve (worship) Me.” (Quran 51:56)

Many people question the purpose of life, but the position of the faithful of many religions is exactly that stated above – mankind exists for no other reason than to serve and worship God.  The proposal is that each and every element of creation exists to either support or test mankind in the fulfillment of that duty.  Unlike worldly employment, a person can duck his or her responsibilities to God and be granted a grace period.  However, at the end of this probationary period called life, accounts become due and payable, and such is certainly not the best time to find one’s account ‘in the red.’

Francis Bacon provided a wonderful closure to the topic of this appendix, stating, “They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.”[2]  Should a person believe that after a few million years something worthy of the barbecue will emerge from the froth of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey’s primordial bouillabaisse, humankind still has to account for that which we all feel within us—the soul or spirit.  Each and every element of mankind has one, and here is the metaphysical keystone which separates man from animal.

Again, those who doubt that which cannot be directly experienced may find excuse for denial of the soul, but they will most likely find themselves to have scant company.  Furthermore, the discussion then moves into one of the nature of truth, knowledge, and proof, which logically springboards into the next section, on agnosticism.

---

Footnotes:

[1] This article is originally an appendix to the book “The First and Final Commandment” by the same author.

[2] Bacon, Francis.  Atheism.  p. 16.

Atheism (part 1 of 2): Denying the Undeniable

“Life’s greatest tragedy is to lose God and not to miss him.”

--F.W. Norwood

Atheists might assert that they don’t acknowledge the existence of God, but the view of some Christians and all Muslims is that at some level even the confirmed Atheist affirms God’s presence.  The innate but neglected awareness of God typically surfaces in Atheist consciousness only in times of severe stress, as exemplified by the World War II quote “There are no Atheists in a fox-hole.”[1]

Undeniably there are times -- whether during the agonizing days of a lingering illness, the seemingly eternal moments of a violent and humiliating mugging, or the split second of anticipating the impact of an imminent car crash -- when all mankind recognize the reality of human fragility and the lack of human control over destiny.  Who does a person beseech for help in such circumstances other than The Creator?  Such moments of desperation should remind every person, from the religious scholar to the professed Atheist, of the dependence of mankind upon a reality far greater than our own meager human selves.  A reality far greater in knowledge, power, will, majesty and glory.

In such moments of distress, when all human efforts have failed and no element of material existence can be foreseen to provide comfort or rescue, Whom else will a person instinctively call upon?  In such moments of trial, how many stress-induced appeals are made to God, complete with promises of lifelong fidelity?  Yet, how few are kept?

No doubt, the day of greatest affliction will be the Day of Judgement, and a person would be unfortunate to be in the position of acknowledging the existence of God for the first time on that day.  The English poet, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, spoke of the irony of the distressed human appeal in The Cry of the Human:

“And lips say “God be pitiful,”

Who ne’er said, “God be praised.”

The thoughtful Atheist, full of skepticism but fearful of the possibility of the existence of God and a Day of Judgement, may wish to consider the ‘prayer of the skeptic,’ as follows:

“O Lord--if there is a Lord,

Save my soul--if I have a soul.”[2]

In the face of skepticism blocking belief, how can a person go wrong with the above prayer?  Should Atheists remain upon disbelief, they will be no worse off than before; should belief follow a sincere appeal, Thomas Jefferson had the following to say:

“If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under His eye, and that He approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it…”[3]

The suggestion can be made that if an individual doesn’t see the evidence of God in the magnificence of His creation, they would be well advised to take another look.  As Francis Bacon is noted to have commented, “I had rather believe all the fables in the legend, and the Talmud, and the alcoran (i.e. the Quran), than that this universal frame is without a mind.”[4]  He went on to comment, “God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it.”[5]  Worthy of contemplation is the fact that even the lowest elements of God’s creation, though perhaps ordinary works in His terms, are miracles in ours.  Take the example of as tiny an animal as a spider.  Does anybody really believe that such an extraordinarily intricate creature evolved from primordial soup?  Just one of these little miracles can produce up to seven different kinds of silk, some as thin as the wavelength of visible light, but stronger than steel.  Silks range from the elastic, sticky strands for entrapment to the non-adhesive drag-lines and frame threads, to the silk for wrapping prey, making the egg sac, etc.  The spider can, on demand, not only manufacture its personal choice of the seven silks, but reabsorb, breakdown and remanufacture--self-recycling from the component elements.  And this is only one small facet of the miracle of the spider.

And yet, mankind elevates itself to the heights of arrogance.  A moment’s reflection should incline human hearts to humility.  Look at a building and a person thinks of the architect, at a sculpture and a person instantly comprehends an artist.  But examine the elegant intricacies of creation, from the complexity and balance of nuclear particle physics to the uncharted vastness of space, and a person conceives of…nothing?  Surrounded by a world of synchronous complexities, we as mankind cannot even assemble the wing of a gnat.  And yet the entire World and all the Universe exists in a state of perfect orchestration as a product of random accidents which molded cosmic chaos into balanced perfection?  Some vote chance, others, creation.

---

Footnotes:

[1] N.Y. Times.  13 Apr 1944.  Cummings: Sermon on Bataan, The Philippines.

[2] Renan, Joseph E.  Prayer of a Skeptic.

[3] Parke, David B.  p. 67.

[4] Bacon, Francis.  Atheism.  p. 16.

[5] Bacon, Francis.  Atheism.  p. 16.

Who is the Creator?

Can It Be Matter?

A very popular question among atheists is, ‘Granted that the existence of temporal things necessitates the existence of an eternal cause, why should that cause be the God of religion?  Why can’t matter be eternal and be therefore in no need of an eternal creator?’  I shall argue, on an Islamic basis but at the same time also on a rational basis, that the attribute of eternity entails other attributes, which matter does not and cannot have, and cannot, in view of this, play the role of the original and ultimate cause of temporal things.  Muslim theologians say that eternity of existence logically implies everlastingness.  This is true because, if something is eternal then it does not depend for its existence on anything outside itself.  If this is so then it can never pass away, because only those things pass away that lose some of the external conditions on which they depend for their existence.  If the ultimate cause of temporal things is eternal and everlasting, it must of necessity be self-sufficient, [in Arabic] qayyoom and ghanee.

Can there be more than one such creator?  The Quran tells us that this is impossible:

“God never had a child, nor have there been any gods beside him.  [Had there been any], each of them would have appropriated to himself what he created, and some would have overcome others…” (Quran 23:91)

This Quranic argument was paraphrased by some Muslims theologians in a way somewhat like the following:

The assumption that there are gods beside the one true God leads to false consequences and must therefore be false.  If there is more than one god, then:

(a)   if every detail of everything in the world was the result of the action of one of the gods, it cannot at the same time be the result of the action of another god.  But if,

(b)  some things in the world were created by some gods, and others by other gods, then each god would rule independently over what he created, which means that nothing in his world can even in principle, be influenced by anything outside it.  But this contradicts the observed unity and interdependence of the world.  And if that is impossible, then

(c)   some gods will overcome others, but if that happens then the ones who are vanquished cannot be true gods. There can, therefore, be no more than one creator.

How does this creator create?  Since He is self-sufficient, He cannot be said to depend on anything outside Himself in any actions, and cannot therefore be said to produce His effects the way natural causes do.  But if He is not a natural cause, He must be a volitional agent.  And since intention implies knowledge, and knowledge and intention imply life, he must be a living being.  Since He is an eternal and everlasting being, all His attributes must reflect this quality; thus He must be not only knowing, but all-knowing, not only powerful, but all-powerful, etc.

Since no matter in any form can answer to these attributes, and since all these attributes are implied by the two attributes of eternity and everlastingness, no form of matter can be either eternal or everlasting, and thus no matter of any form can play the role of that ultimate cause.  This much of the attributes that an eternal and everlasting creator must have is enough, I suppose, to show that it cannot be matter.

But this conclusion can be further confirmed by what modern science tells us about the nature of matter.

Why should He be the God of Islam?

Some might say, ‘Granted that this god is a personal and living God, and that He has the attributes which you mentioned, why should He be the God of Islam and not, say the Christian or Jewish God?’  The God of Islam is the God of all true prophets of God from Adam down to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.  But it is a basic claim of the religion with which Muhammad came that previous religions (including Christianity and Judaism) have not been kept in their pristine form which those prophets advocated, but have been tampered with and distorted.  The only religion whose book has taken upon itself to be preserved from any such distortions is the religion of the last of God’s prophets, namely Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him.  This is not to say that everything in those religions is false or bad.  No!  There is much in them that is good and true; it is only those elements in them that contradict Islam which must be false or bad.  But even if they were to be purged of everything that is not in consonance with Islam, they would still be less perfect than Islam is, especially in their conceptions of God, therefore unsuitable for being universal religions.

Having said this, let me give one example of a non-Islamic religious belief which the Quran considers to be a stupendous blasphemy against God, namely that He has children.  At the time of the Prophet, some Arabs believed that the angels were the daughters of God, while some Christians believed that Jesus was the son of God, and some Jews believed that Ezra was the son of God.  Just as the Quran gave arguments for the impossibility of there being any gods besides the one true God, it also gave elaborate arguments to show the impossibility of Him having a child, whether male or female.  If the Creator is one and self-sufficient, then He is also unique, ahad:

“…Nothing is like Him...” (Quran 42:11)

But if so then:

“He neither begets nor is He begotten.” (Quran 112:3)

“…How can He have a child if He has no wife, and if He created everything?...” (Quran 6:101)

The Quran is here saying that the claim that God has children contradicts the facts (acknowledged by those who make this claim) that He is the Creator of everything, that He is self-sufficient, and that He has no spouse.  Now if He is the creator of everything, this necessarily includes the one who is claimed to be His child.  But if this is created by Him, it cannot be His child; it has to be one of His creations.  One does not create one’s child; one begets it.  If it is insisted that the child is actually begotten and not created by God, this will entail the following false consequences:

The begotten child must be of the same nature as its father, in which case God will not be unique or one.

God will not be the creator of everything.

God will have to have a spouse, who must of course be of the same nature as He is, otherwise they cannot beget anything.

But in that case the number of beings who are of the same nature as God will be raised to three.

If the child is begotten then it cannot be eternal, i.e. it cannot be of the same nature as the father.

It must therefore be temporal; but in that case it has to have a creator.  But if the God who is its father cannot at the same time be its creator, then there must be its creator, then there must be another creator besides that God the father; but in that case, this other creator will be the one true creator because it was through his power that the first one was able to beget its son.  This will raise the number of gods to four.

No wonder than that the Quran said about those who claimed that God has a child:

“You have indeed come with something most monstrous, of which the skies almost burst, the earth split asunder, and the mountains fall down in utter ruin.  All this because of their attributing a child to God.” (Quran 19:89-91)

The Design in Nature

Let’s think of an aspirin pill for a moment; you will immediately recall the mark in the middle of it.  This mark is designed in order to help those who wish to take half a dose.  Every product that we see around us is of a certain design even though not as simple as the aspirin pill.  Everything from vehicles we use to go to work, to TV remote controls.

“Design”, briefly, means a harmonious assembling of various parts into an orderly form towards a common goal.  Going by this definition, one would have no difficulty in guessing that a car is designed.  This is because there is a certain goal, which is to transport people and cargo.  For the realization of this goal various parts such as the engine, tires and body are planned and assembled in the plant.

However, what about a living creature?  Might a bird and the mechanics of its flying be designed as well?  Before giving an answer, let us repeat the evaluation we did for the example of a car.  The goal at hand, in this case, is to fly.  For this purpose, hollowed bones, strong muscles that move these bones are utilized together with feathers capable of suspending in the air.  Wings are formed aerodynamically, and metabolism is in tune with the bird’s need for high levels of energy.  It is obvious that the bird is product of a certain design.

If one explores other creatures besides a bird, similar facts are attained.  There are examples of a certain meticulous design in every creature.  If one continues further on this quest, one would discover that our selves are also a part of this certain design.  Your hands that hold these pages are functional as no robot hands could ever be.  Your eyes that read these lines are making vision possible with such focus that the best camera on earth simply cannot imitate.

Hence one arrives at this important conclusion; all creatures in Nature, including ourselves, are of by Design.  This, in turn, shows the existence of a Creator Who designs all creatures at will, sustains the entirety of nature and holds absolute power and wisdom.

However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution that was formed in the middle of 19th century.  The theory set forth in Charles Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species” asserts that all creatures evolved within a chain of coincidences and essentially mutated from one another.

According to the fundamental assertion of this theory all living things go through minute and coincidental changes.  If these coincidental changes help the creature then it gains advantage over the others, which in turn is carried onto following generations.

This scenario has been passed around as if it is a very scientific and convincing one for 140 years.  When scrutinized under a bigger microscope and when compared against the examples of the Design in creatures, a very different picture of Darwin’s theory is painted, i.e.  Darwinism’s explanation of creation is nothing more than a self-conflicting vicious circle.

Let us first focus on the “coincidental changes”.  Darwin could not provide a comprehensive definition to this concept due to the lack of genealogical knowledge in his time.  The evolutionists who followed him put forth the concept of “mutation” on this subject.  Mutation is arbitrary disconnections, dislocation or shifts of genes in living things.  The most important point is that there is not one single mutation in history that is shown to have improved the condition of the genetic information of a creature.  Nearly all the known cases of mutations disable or harm these creatures and the rest are neutral in effect.  Therefore, to think that a creature can improve through mutation is the same as shooting into a crowd of people hoping that the consequent injuries will result in healthier and improved individuals.  This would clearly be nonsense.

As importantly, contrary to all the scientific data, even if one assumes that a certain mutation could actually improve a being’s condition, Darwinism still cannot be delivered from inevitable collapse.  The reason for this is a concept called “irreducible complexity”.

The implication of this concept is that majority of systems and organs in living things function as a result of various independent parts working together. The elimination or disabling of even one of which would be enough to disable the entire system or organ.

For example, an ear perceives sounds only through a chain reaction of a series of smaller organs.  Take out or deform one of these, e.g.  one of the bones of the middle ear, and there would be no hearing whatsoever.  In order for an ear to perceive, a variety of components such as the auditory meatus, malleous, incus and stapes bones, the tympanic membrane, the cochlea and fluid, sensory cells, the vibration sensor extensions of these cells and the net of nerves that connect to the brain and hearing center in the brain have to work together without exception.

The system could not have developed in segments because none of the segments could possibly function alone.

Hence the concept of irreducible complexity demolishes the theory of evolution from its foundations.  What is really interesting is the fact that Darwin also worried about these very prospects.  He wrote in On The Origin of Species:

“If the impossibility of formation of a complex organ through a series of small changes was ever to be proven my theory would have certainly collapsed.  However I could not find such an organ...” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.)

Darwin could not or might not have wanted to find such an organ at the premature levels of 19th century science.  However the science of 20th century did study nature down to its minute details and it proved that the majority of living structures embody irreducible complexity.  Therefore, Darwin’s theory has most “certainly collapsed” just as he feared.

As we examine the living beings we will not only see the immense error Darwinism makes, but also witness the greatness of wisdom behind the creation of these systems.  These mechanisms will be found anywhere from the wings of a bird to inside a bat’s skull.  Hence we will see the indisputable evidences of God’s creation without error.  Likewise, the power and faculty of God to create without error is expressed in a chapter of the Quran as follows:

“He is God - the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form.  To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names.  Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies Him.  He is the Almighty, the All-Wise.” (Quran 59:24)

The Obvious Existence of God

From the moment man opens his eyes to this world a great order surrounds him.  He needs oxygen to survive; it is interesting that the atmosphere of the planet on which he lives provides more than just the adequate amount of oxygen he needs.  This way, he breathes without difficulty.  For the existence of life on this planet, the existence of a source of heat is essential.  In response to this need, the sun is located at just the right distance to emit the exact amount of heat and energy human life needs.  Man needs nourishment to survive; every corner of the world abounds in astonishingly diversified provisions.  Likewise, man needs water; surprisingly, three-fourths of the planet is covered with water.  Man needs shelter; in this world of ours, there is land on which it is suitable to build and all sorts of materials with which to make shelters.

These are only a few among billions of details making life possible on earth.  In brief, man lives on a planet perfectly designed for his survival.  This is certainly a planet “created for human beings”, as God said in the Quran:

“Do you not see that God has subjected for you all that is in the Heavens and all that is on the Earth, and has completed and perfected His Bounties upon you, [both] apparent and hidden?...” (Quran 31:20)

A person’s interpretation of the world rests on “acquired methods of thought.” That is, he thinks in the way he has been taught, or, less kindly, the way in which he is indoctrinated.  Under this misguidance, he often dismisses all the aforementioned as “trivial realities.” However, if he does not side-step the matter, and start questioning the conditions making our existence possible, he will surely step out of the boundaries of habitual thinking and start to think:

How does the atmosphere serve as a protective ceiling for the earth?

How does each one of the billions of cells in the human body know and perform its individual tasks?

How does this extraordinary ecological balance exist on earth?

A person seeking answers to these questions surely proceeds on the right path.  He does not remain insensitive to things happening around him, and doesn’t plead ignorance about the extraordinary nature of the world.  A person who asks questions, who reflects on and gives answers to these questions will realize that, on every inch of the planet, a plan and an order reigns:

How did the flawless order in the whole universe come into being?

Who provided the delicate balances in the world?

How did living beings, incredibly diversified in nature, emerge?

Keeping oneself occupied with relentless research to answer these questions results in a clear awareness that everything in the universe, its order, each living being and structure is a component of a plan, a product of design.  Every detail: the excellent structure of an insect’s wing, the system enabling a tree to carry tons of water to its topmost branches, the order of planets, and the ratio of gases in the atmosphere; all are unique examples of perfection.

In every detail of the infinitely varied world, man finds his Creator.  God, the owner of everything in the whole universe, introduces Himself to man through the flawless design of His creation.  Everything surrounding us, the birds in flight, our beating hearts, the birth of a child or the existence of the sun in the sky, manifest the power of God and His creation.  And what man must do is understand this fact.

These purposes owe their existence to the fact that everything has been created.  An intelligent person notices that planning, design and wisdom exist in every detail of the infinitely varied world.  This draws him to recognition of the Creator.

So you need never plead ignorance that all living beings, living or non-living, show the existence and greatness of God, look at the things around you.  Strive to show appreciation in the best manner for the eternal greatness of God.  For the existence of God is obvious, and ignoring it would only be the beginning of the greatest damage we could ever do to ourselves.  That is simply because God is in no need of anything.  He is the One Who shows His greatness in all things and in all ways.

God is the owner of everything, from the heavens to the earth.  We learn the attributes of God from the Quran:

“God!  There is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sufficient.  He is not subject to drowsiness or sleep.  Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him.  Who can intercede with Him except by His permission?  He knows what is before them and what is behind them but they cannot grasp any of His knowledge save what He wills.  His Footstool encompasses the heavens and the earth and their preservation does not tire Him.  He is the Most High, the Magnificent.” (Quran 2:255)

The Signs in the Heavens and on the Earth

Assume that you are going to set up a big city by bringing millions of Lego pieces together.  Let there be in this city skyscrapers, twisting roads, railway stations, airports, shopping malls, subways and also rivers, lakes, forests and a beach.  Let there also be living in it thousands of people wandering in its streets, sitting in their homes and working in their offices.  You will take every detail into account.  Even the traffic lights, box offices, and the signboards at the bus stations.

If someone came up to you and said that all the Lego pieces of this city, which you had established by planning it right down to the smallest detail, each piece of which you had picked up and set down with great pains, had been brought together by coincidence to produce it, what would you think of the mental state of that person?

Now, go back to the city you have built and consider that if you had forgotten to put into place even a single Lego piece, or changed its place, the whole city may collapse;  leveled to the ground.  Can you imagine what great balance and order you have had to establish in order to make it stable?

Life in the world where we live is also made possible by the accumulation of such a great number of details that they are incomprehensible to the human mind.  The absence of even one of these details might mean the end of life on the earth.

Everything, every detail from the atom, the smallest unit of matter, to the galaxies harboring billions of stars; from the moon, an inseparable adjunct of the world, to the solar system; all work in a perfect harmony.  This well-organized system runs flawlessly, just like a watch.  People are so confident that this billions-of-years-old system will go on functioning - without leaving out even the smallest detail - that they can freely make plans about something they think will be realized in the next 10 years.  No one is worried about whether the sun will rise the next day.  A great majority of people do not think about 'whether the world may ever chance to break free from the gravitation of the sun and start to move towards the unknown in the pitch-dark space'; nor do many ask,  'What keeps these disasters from happening?'.

In the same manner, when people are about to sleep, they are very confident that their hearts or respiratory systems will not relax as their brains do.  However, even a few seconds' halt in any one of these two vital systems may well cause results that will cost one's life.

When the 'glasses of familiarity' which surround the whole of life and cause every event to be assessed as if 'it is taking place in its natural course' are taken off, one is free to see that everything is made up of such closely interdependent, meticulously planned systems that it is as if we were hanging on to life by the skin of our teeth.  You will notice an excellent order prevailing in every spot you turn your eyes on.

Certainly, there is a great power that creates such an order and harmony.  The possessor of this great power is God, Who created everything out of nothing.  In a verse of the Quran, God says:

“He Who has created seven heavens in full harmony with one another: no incongruity will you see in the creation of the Most Gracious.  And turn your vision (upon it) once more: can you see any flaw? Yea, turn your vision (upon it) again and yet again: (and every time) your vision will fall back upon you, dazzled and truly defeated.” (Quran 67:3-4)

When we look at the living beings in the heavens, on the earth and in all that lies between them, we see that they all prove the existence of their Creator in their own right.  So I suggest we all take a moment to reflect on the natural phenomena and living beings that every one sees, yet never thinks about, and how they have come into being and continue their existence.  If we were to write down all the signs of God in the universe, they would fill many thousands of volumes of encyclopedias… for God Exists.

To Him is due the origin of the heavens and the earth, and His existence can be known through reason.

Scientists and Religion 2

This shows us that science and religion are not conflicting sources of information, but that, on the contrary, science is a method that verifies the absolute truths provided by religion.  The clash between religion and science can only hold true for certain religions that incorporate some superstitious elements as well as divine sources.  However, this is certainly out of the question for Islam, which relies only on the pure revelation of God.  Moreover, Islam particularly advocates scientific enquiry, and announces that probing the universe is a method to explore the creation of God.  The following verse of the Quran addresses this issue:

“Do they not look at the sky above them?  How We have built it and adorned it, and there are no rifts therein?  And the earth - We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and caused it to bring forth plants of beauteous kinds (in pairs).  An insight and a Reminder for every slave who turns to God.  And We send down from the sky blessed water whereby We give growth unto gardens and the grain of crops.  And tall palm-trees, with shoots of fruit-stalks, piled one over another.” (Quran 50:6-10)

As the above verses imply, the Quran always urges people to think, to reason and to explore everything in the world in which they live.  This is because science supports religion, saves the individual from ignorance, and causes him to think more consciously; it opens wide one’s world of thought and helps one grasp the signs of God self-evident in the universe.  Prominent German physicist Max Planck said:

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith.  It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with. (J. De Vries, Essential of Physical Science, Wm.B.Eerdmans Pub.Co., Grand Rapids, SD 1958, p. 15.)

All the issues we have treated so far simply put it that the existence of the universe and all living things cannot be explained by coincidences.  Many scientists who have left their mark on the world of science have confirmed, and still confirm this great reality.  The more people learn about the universe, the higher does their admirations for its flawless order become.  Every newly-discovered detail supports creation in an unquestionable way.

The great majority of modern physicists accept the fact of creation as we set foot in the 21st century.  David Darling also maintains that neither time, nor space, nor matter, nor energy, nor even a tiny spot or a cavity existed at the beginning. A slight quick movement and a modest quiver and fluctuation occurred.  Darling ends by saying that when the cover of this cosmic box was opened, the tendrils of the miracle of creation appeared from beneath it.

Besides, it is already known that almost all the founders of diverse scientific branches believed in God and His divine books.  The greatest physicists in history, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Maxwell are a few examples of such scientists.

In the time of Isaac Newton, the great physicist, scientists believed that the movements of the heavenly bodies and planets could be explained by different laws.  Nevertheless, Newton believed that the creator of earth and space was the same, and therefore they had to be explained by the same laws.  He said:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.  This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion.  He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.” (“Principia”)

As is evident, thousands of scientists who have been doing research in the fields of physics, mathematics, and astronomy since the Middle-Ages all agree on the idea that the universe is created by a single Creator and always focus on the same point.  The founder of physical astronomy, Johannes Kepler, stated his strong belief in God in one of his books where he wrote:

“Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.” (Dan Graves, Scientists of Faith, p. 51)

The great physicist, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), who established thermo-dynamics on a formal scientific basis, was also a Christian who believed in God.  He had strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution and totally rejected it.  In 1903, short before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, “With regard to the origin of life, science... positively affirms creative power.” (David Darling, Deep Time, Delacorte Press, 1989, New York.)

One of the professors of physics at Oxford University, Robert Mattheus states the same fact in his book published in 1992 where he explains that DNA molecules were created by God.  Mattheus says that all these stages proceed in a perfect harmony from a single cell to a living baby, then to a little child, and finally to an adolescent.  All these events can be explained only by a miracle, just as in all the other stages of biology.  Mattheus asks how such a perfect and complex organism can emerge from such a simple and tiny cell and how a glorious human is created from a cell even smaller than the dot on the letter ‘I’.  He finally concludes that this is nothing short of a miracle. (Robert Matthews, Unraveling the Mind of God, London Bridge, July, 1995, p.8)

Some other scientists who admit that the universe is created by a Creator and who are known by their cited attributes are:

Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)

Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)

Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)

Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)

Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)

John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)

Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)

John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)

Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratigrapher who investigated earth layers)

Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)

Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)

Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)

Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

Scientists and Religion 1

The attributes of the universe which have hitherto been discovered by science point to the existence of God.  Science leads us to the conclusion that the universe has a Creator and this Creator is perfect in might, wisdom and knowledge.  It is religion that shows us the way in knowing God.  It is therefore possible to say that science is a method we use to better see and investigate the realities addressed by religion.  Nevertheless, today, some of the scientists who step forth in the name of science take an entirely different stand.  In their view, scientific discoveries do not imply the creation of God.  They have, on the contrary, projected an atheistic understanding of science by saying that it is not possible to reach God through scientific data: they claim that science and religion are two clashing notions.

As a matter of fact, this atheistic understanding of science is quite recent.  Until a few centuries ago, science and religion were never thought to clash with each other, and science was accepted as a method of proving the existence of God.  The so-called atheistic understanding of science flourished only after the materialist and positivist philosophies swept through the world of science in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Particularly after Charles Darwin postulated the theory of evolution in 1859, circles holding a materialistic world view started to ideologically defend this theory, which they looked upon as an alternative to religion.  The theory of evolution argued that the universe was not created by a creator but came into being by chance.  As a result, it was asserted that religion was in conflict with science.  The British researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln said on this issue:

For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it. ... But the science of Darwin’s time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and establishing itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning.  As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them. (Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, “The Messianic Legacy”, Gorgi Books, London: 1991, p. 177-178.)

As we stated before, the so-called split between science and religion was totally ideological.  Some scientists, who earnestly believed in materialism, conditioned themselves to prove that the universe had no creator and they devised various theories in this context.  The theory of evolution was the most famous and the most important of them.  In the field of astronomy as well certain theories were developed such as the “steady-state theory” or the “chaos theory”.  However, all of these theories that denied creation were demolished by science itself, as we have clearly shown in other articles.

Today, scientists who still keep to these theories and insist on denying all things religious, are dogmatic and bigoted people, who have conditioned themselves not to believe in God.  The famous English zoologist and evolutionist D.M.S. Watson confesses to this dogmatism as he explains why he and his colleagues accept the theory of evolution: “If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation”, Nature, no. 124, p. 233)

What Watson means by “special creation” is God’s creation.  As acknowledged, this scientist finds this “unacceptable”.  But why does he?  Is it because science says so?  Actually it does not.  On the contrary, science proves the truth of creation.  The only reason why Watson looks upon this fact as unacceptable is because he has conditioned himself to deny the existence of God.  All other evolutionists take the same stand.

Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy.  A geneticist, and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth:

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, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Levontin, The Demon-Haunted World, The New York Review of Books, January, 9, 1997, p. 28)

On the other hand, today, just as in history, there are, as opposed to this dogmatic materialist group, scientists who confirm God’s existence, and regard science as a way of knowing Him.  Some trends developing in the USA such as “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design” prove by scientific evidence that all living things were created by God.

Instincts, Science, and Religion (part 2 of 2): An Islamic View

The care provided by the crocodile, a particularly savage animal, for its offspring is also quite astounding.  First, the crocodile digs a hole for the incubation of its eggs.  The temperature of the hole must never rise above 30ºC.  A slight rise in temperature would threaten the lives of the offspring in the eggs.  The crocodile takes care that the holes in which it places its eggs are located in rather shady places and goes to extraordinary efforts to keep the eggs at a constant temperature.  Some crocodile species build nests of weeds on cold water.  If the temperature of the nest still rises despite these measures, then the crocodile cools the nest by sprinkling urea on it.

The time when the eggs hatch is most important, because, in the event the crocodile failed to hear the noises coming from the nest, the young would be suffocated.  The mother crocodile brings the eggs out and helps the offspring out of their eggs by using her teeth as tweezers.  The crocodile, with her razor-sharp teeth, avoids the slightest movement likely to injure her young.  The safest place for the newly born is the protective pouch in its mother’s mouth which is specially designed to shelter half a dozen newly born crocodiles.

The meticulous care and concern a wild animal like the crocodile shows its offspring is only one of the examples proving the invalidity of the evolutionist claim of the struggle for life which maintains that the strong survive while the others are defeated and disappear.

The dolphin is another animal known for its self-sacrificing behavior.  Dolphins raise their offspring with great care from the moment they are born.  As soon as the newborn dolphin is born, it has to go up to the surface of the water for oxygen.  To provide this, the mother dolphin shows amazingly conscious behavior and, using the tip of her nose, gently pushes the offspring above the surface of the water.

Just before birth, the movements of the mother dolphin slow down considerably.  For this reason, two other females always accompany the mother dolphin during birth.  Always remaining on either side of the mother, the assistant dolphins assume the responsibility of protecting her from possible attacks by sharks that might be attracted by the smell of blood.

How can this instinct, defined by evolutionists as “a drive observed in animals but not completely understood”, guide animals to become civil engineers while building their nests, perfect soldiers while protecting their young or colonies, and turn even the most aggressive species into compassionate and gentle creatures towards their young?

Indeed, Darwin also had difficulties in answering this query, which he, himself, put forward.  He often left related questions unanswered too.  In his book The Origin of Species, he asks the following questions:

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection?  What shall we say to so marvelous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians? (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.205)

As seen, Darwin’s doubts on “Natural Selection” are quite precise.  Although Darwin himself confesses that Natural Selection is not a reasonable explanation, the majority of evolutionists still insist on adhering to this fallacy.

Yet, every human being who observes nature with clear consciousness sees that living things are not brutal, tough or uncompassionate because of the so-called struggle for life.  On the contrary, living beings are self-sacrificing because of the “inspiration” their Creator bestowed upon them.

As expressed in the 68th verse of the 16th chapter, which says:

“Your Lord revealed to bees…”

“God” the Lord of the heavens and the earth and everything in between, the Infinitely Compassionate and Oft-Forgiving has control over all living things.  Their instincts, which Darwin was unable to explain within the scope of evolution, are actually the inspiration given by God to all living things.

All life in nature is created by God.  All living things come into being by the Will of God and behave in compliance with His inspiration.  The self-sacrificing behavior, kindness and care living beings display towards their young are merely the reflection of God’s name, the “Compassionate”.  This is revealed in the 7thverse of the 16th chapter:

“Your Lord is All-Gentle, Most Merciful.”

The Prophet himself stated:

“Indeed God specified one portion of His Mercy to the world, and with that a mother cares for her young, and wild animals and birds care for each other.” (Saheeh Muslim)

Instincts, Science, and Religion (part 1 of 2): Self-Sacrifice in Animals

Living beings have to reproduce to continue their species.  However, reproduction by itself often proves insufficient because, if living things fail to provide adequate care for their offspring, the newborn cannot survive.  In other words, if living things did not feel the need to protect and look after their offspring and did not do this successfully, newborn creatures would not be able to look after themselves and would soon die.

When we look at nature, we see the majority of living things display amazing self-sacrifice in order to protect and provide the best of care for their offspring.  Sometimes it is in a selfless form, incomparable to any form of sacrifice shown by human beings.  Furthermore, these living things risk their lives for their young without a moment’s hesitation.  So, how did such self-sacrifice in animals develop?

Evolutionists claim that self-sacrifice displayed by living things, especially that shown towards their offspring, is instinctive behavior.  What then does the word instinct mean?

Evolutionists define instinct as a sense of intuition inherent in living things.  They claim that an inner voice whispers to a spider, a bird, a lion or a tiny insect to practice self-sacrifice to keep the generations going.  In reply to a question regarding the source of this voice, they desperately say “mother nature”.  In the view of evolutionists, every phenomenon in nature is a miracle of nature.

However, it is evident that this claim is futile and meaningless, because nature, itself, is already a created entity consisting of the stones, flowers, trees, rivers and mountains familiar to all of us.  It is obvious that these entities cannot come together to furnish a living being with a new trait, which is a product of intelligence.

As a matter of fact, even Darwin himself was aware of this logical failure from the very beginning.  In his book The Origin of Species, which he wrote in 1859, he expressed his self-doubt about his own theory in the following words:

“I have thought that it would be more convenient to treat the subject separately, especially as so wonderful an instinct as that of the hive-bee making its cells will probably have occurred to many readers, as a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 233)

Research conducted by scientists on living things has revealed that they live in astounding harmony, coordination and collaboration with one another.  Wherever one turns in nature, one is likely to see examples of this.  For instance, some little birds utter a shrill alarm call when they see a bird of prey like a hawk or eagle approaching their flock, to warn their companions of the danger.  In doing so, they attract the attention of the attacker to themselves.  This behavior considerably reduces the chance of survival for the bird who sounded the alarm.  But despite this, the bird puts its own life at risk for the hundreds of other birds in the flock.

A majority of animals undertake all kind of self-sacrifice for their young.  For example the incubation period of penguins is during the polar winter.  Female penguins lay only one egg, leave incubation to the males, and return to the sea.  During the four months of incubation, the male penguin has to resist violent polar storms at times reaching speeds of 120 kilometers per hour.  Making great sacrifices for four full months without leaving the egg, the male penguin loses half of its body weight through lack of food.  Although it goes without for months, it does not go hunting, and resists the violent storms without ever leaving the egg.  After the end of the four months, the female penguin shows up with a huge store of food.  She has not wasted time in the meantime, but has worked for her young and stored food for it.  She empties her stomach and takes over the job of caring for the young.

The Scientific World is turning to God

“As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done.” (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Antony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher.  The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950.  In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles.  In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation.  Flew realized, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

“Biologists’ investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved.”[1]

“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”[2]

“I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature.”[3]

The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation.  The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design.  Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact.

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.[4]

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs.[5]  Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:

“What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex.  It’s like it was designed… There’s a huge intelligence there.”[6]

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws.  Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject:

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.  All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.[7]

Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flew’s acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings.  In recent times Flew participated in debates with scientists and philosophers who were proponents of creation, and exchanged ideas with them.  The final turning point in that process was a discussion organized by the Institute for Metascientific Research in Texas in May, 2003.  Professor Flew participated in the discussion together with the author, Roy Abraham Varghese, a physicist, and the molecular biologist, Gerald Schroeder.  Flew was impressed by the weight of the scientific evidence in favor of creation and by the convincing nature of his opponents’ arguments and abandoned atheism as an idea in the period following that discussion.  In a letter he wrote for the August-September, 2003, edition of the British magazinePhilosophy Now, he recommended Schroeder’s book “The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth” and Varghese’s book “The Wonderful World.”[8]  During an interview with the professor of philosophy and theology Gary R. Habermas, who also played a major role in his change of mind,[9]  and also on the video “Has Science Discovered God?”  he openly stated that he believed in intelligent design.

The “Intelligence Pervading the Universe” and the Collapse of Atheism

In the face of all the scientific developments outlined above, the acceptance of intelligent design by Anthony Flew, famous for defending atheism for many years, reflects a final scene in the process of collapse which atheism is being subjected to Modern science has revealed the existence of an “intelligence pervading the universe,” thus leaving atheism out of the equation.

In his book “The Hidden Face of God,” Gerald Schroeder, one of the creationist scientists who influenced Flew, writes:

A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe.  The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom.  In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter.  Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.[10]

Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior knowledge and wisdom.  There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and wisdom that designed the universe at all levels is Almighty God.  God reveals these truths in many verses of the Quran.

---

Footnotes:

[1] Richard N. Ostling, “Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator,” The Washington Times 10 December 2004; (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041209-113212-2782r.htm.)

[2] Antony Flew, “Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology,” Philosophy Now; (http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm.)

[3] Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, “Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all,” The Sunday Times, 12 December 2004; (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1400368,00.html)

[4] Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88

[5] John Whitfield, “Physicists plunder life’s tool chest”, 24 April 2003; (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030421/030421-6.html)

[6] San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001

[7] Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79

[8] Antony Flew, “Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology,” Philosophy Now; (http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm.)

[9] “Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew;” (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm.)

[10] Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, Touchstone, New York, 2001, p. xi.