 
## DOES GOD EXIST?

Peace Vision

For a large selection of free books, please visit http://www.peacevision.com
Does God Exist?

By Peace Vision

Published by Peace Vision at Smashwords

Copyright 2012 Peace Vision

# Table of Contents

A System Planned in Its Every Detail

The Ability to See the Signs of God

The Earth, A Living Planet

Common Material, Design and Designer

The Scientific World is turning to God

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

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

Scientists and Religion (part 1 of 2): Is Religion and Science in Conflict?

Scientists and Religion (part 2 of 2): Religious Scientists

The Signs in the Heavens and on the Earth

The Obvious Existence of God

The Design in Nature

Who is the Creator?

Atheism (part 1 of 2): Denying the Undeniable

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

Contemporary Physicists and God's Existence (part 1 of 3): The Eternalness of Matter

Contemporary Physicists and God's Existence (part 2 of 3): A Series of Causes

Contemporary Physicists and God's Existence (part 3 of 3): Room for God

Agnosticism (part 1 of 4): The Concept of Agnosticism

Agnosticism (part 2 of 4): Discussion on Huxley's Statement

Agnosticism (part 3 of 4): A Fruit of False Religions

Agnosticism (part 4 of 4): Settling for Less

Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design or Islam?

The Fossil Record Refutes Evolution

Atheists are Polytheists!

Rational Answers to Ideological Commitments

# A System Planned in Its Every Detail

Breathing, eating, walking, etc, are very natural human functions. But most people do not think about how these basic actions take place. For example, when you eat a fruit, you do not contemplate on how it will be made useful to your body. The only thing on your mind is eating a satisfying meal; at the same time, your body is involved in extremely detailed processes unimaginable to you in order to make this meal a health-giving thing.

The digestive system where these detailed processes take place starts to function as soon as a piece of food is taken into the mouth. Being involved in the system right at the outset, the saliva wets the food and helps it to be ground by the teeth and to slide down the esophagus.

The esophagus transports the food to the stomach where a perfect balance is at work. Here, the hydrochloric acid present in the stomach digests the food. This acid is so strong that it has the capacity to dissolve not only the food but also the stomach walls. Of course, such a flaw is not permitted in this perfect system. A secretion called mucus, which is secreted during digestion, covers all the walls of the stomach and provides a perfect protection against the destructive effect of the hydrochloric acid. Thus the stomach is prevented from consuming itself.

The point that deserves attention here is that evolution can by no means explain the system briefly summarized above. Evolution maintains that today's complex organisms have evolved from primitive cellular forms by the gradual accumulation of small structural changes. However, as stated clearly, the system in the stomach could in no way have been formed step by step. The absence of even one factor would bring about the death of the organism.

When food is received into the stomach, the ability of the gastric juices to break down food is effectuated as a result of a series of chemical changes. Now, imagine a living being in the so-called evolutionary process in whose body such a planned chemical transformation is not complete. This living being, unable to develop this ability autonomously, would not be able to digest the food it ate and would starve to death with an undigested mass of food in its stomach.

In addition, during the secretion of this dissolving acid, the stomach walls simultaneously have to produce the secretion called mucus. Otherwise, the acid in the stomach would destroy the stomach. Therefore, in order for life to continue, the stomach must secrete both fluids (acid and mucus) at the same time. This shows it was not a step-by-step coincidental evolution that must, in effect, have been at work, but rather a conscious creation with all its systems intact.

What all this shows is that the human body resembles a huge factory made up of many small machines that work together in perfect harmony. Just as all factories have a designer, an engineer and a planner, the human body has an "Exalted Creator."

# The Ability to See the Signs of God

"Say: 'Praise be to God. He will show you His Signs and you will recognize them. Your Lord is not heedless of anything you do.'" (Quran 27:93)

"This is a communication to be transmitted to mankind so that they can be warned by it and so that they will know that He is One God and so that people of intelligence will pay heed." (Quran 14:52)

In many other verses, God emphasizes that one of the most crucial purposes of the Quran's revelation is to invite people to ponder.

In the Quran, God invites people to reject blindly accepting the beliefs and values society imposes on them and to ponder by pushing aside all the prejudices, taboos and constraints on their minds.

Man must think on how he came into being, what the purpose of his life is, why he will die and what awaits him after death. He must question how he, himself, and the whole universe came into existence and how they continue to exist. While doing this, he must relieve himself of all constraints and prejudices.

By thinking while isolating his conscience from all social, ideological and psychological obligations, the person should eventually perceive that the entire universe, including himself, is created by a superior power. Even when he examines his own body or any other thing in nature, he will see an impressive harmony, plan and wisdom at work within its design.

Concerning this point again, the Quran guides man. In the Quran, God guides us as to what we should reflect on and investigate. With the methods of reflection given in the Quran, he who has faith in God will better perceive God's perfection, eternal wisdom, knowledge and power in His creation. When a believing person starts to think in the way shown in the Quran, he soon realizes that the whole universe is a sign of God's power and art, and that, "nature is a work of art, not the artist itself". Every work of art exhibits the exceptional skills of the one who has made it and conveys his messages.

In the Quran, people are summoned to contemplate numerous events and objects that clearly testify to the existence and uniqueness of God and His attributes. In the Quran, all these beings that bear witness are designated as "signs", meaning "tested evidence, absolute knowledge and expression of truth". Therefore, the signs of God comprise all the beings in the universe in that they disclose and communicate the being and attributes of God. Those who can observe and remember will see that the entire universe is entirely composed of the signs of God.

This, indeed, is the responsibility of mankind: to be able to see the signs of God. Thus, such a person will come to know the Creator who created him and all other things, draw closer to Him, discover the meaning of his existence and his life and so prosper.

Each thing, the breath a human takes; political and social developments; the cosmic harmony in the universe; the atom, which is one of the smallest pieces of matter, is each a sign of God, and they all operate under His control and knowledge, abiding by His laws. Recognizing and knowing the signs of God calls for personal effort. One will recognize and know the signs of God in accordance with his own wisdom and conscience.

Undoubtedly, some guidelines may also help. As the first step, one can investigate certain points stressed in the Quran in order to acquire the mentality that perceives the whole universe as an articulation of the things created by God.

God's signs in nature are emphasized in a chapter call "The Bee":

"It is He who sends down water from the sky. From it you drink and from it come the shrubs among which you graze your herds. And by it He makes crops grow for you and olives and dates and grapes and fruit of every kind. Therein is certainly a sign in that for people who reflect. He has made the night and the day subservient to you, and the sun, the moon and the stars, all subject to His command. Therein are certainly signs in that for people who use their intellect. And also, the things of varying colours He has created for you in the earth. There is certainly a sign in that for people who pay heed. It is He who made the sea subservient to you so that you can eat fresh flesh from it and bring out from it ornaments to wear. And you see the ships cleaving through it so that you can seek His bounty, and so that perhaps you may show thanks. He cast firmly embedded mountains on the earth so it would not move under you, and rivers, pathways, and landmarks so that perhaps you might be guided. And they are guided by the stars. Is He Who creates like him who does not create? O will you not pay heed?"(Quran 16:10-17)

In the Quran, God invites men of understanding to think about the issues which other people overlook or just dismiss using such barren terms as "evolution", "coincidence", or "a miracle of nature".

In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are Signs for people of intelligence: those who remember God standing, sitting and lying on their sides, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth:

"Our Lord, You did not create this for nothing. Glory be to You! So guard us from the punishment of the Fire." (Quran 3:191)

As we see in these verses, people of understanding see the signs of God and try to comprehend His eternal knowledge, power and art by remembering and reflecting on them, for God's knowledge is limitless, and His act of creating flawless.

For men of understanding, everything around them is a sign of this creation.

# The Earth, A Living Planet

The earth is a living planet where many complex systems run perfectly and continuously, without pause. When compared to other planets, it is evident that in all its aspects the earth is specially designed for human life. Built on delicate balances, life prevails in every spot of this planet, from the atmosphere to the depths of the earth.

Exploring only a few of the millions of these delicate balances would be sufficient to show that the world we live in is specially designed for us.

One of the most important balances in our planet is revealed in the atmosphere that surrounds us. The atmosphere of the earth holds the most appropriate gasses in the most appropriate ratio needed for the survival not only of human beings, but also of all the living beings on the earth.

The 77% of nitrogen, 21% of oxygen and 1% of carbon dioxide as well as other gasses readily available in the atmosphere represent the ideal figures necessary for the survival of living beings. Oxygen, a gas that is vital for living beings, helps to burn up food and convert it into energy in our bodies.

If the oxygen quantity in the atmosphere were greater than 21%, the cells in our body would soon start to suffer great damage. The vegetation and hydrocarbon molecules needed for life would also be destroyed. If this quantity were less, then this would cause difficulties in our respiration, and the food we eat would not be converted into energy. Therefore, the 21% of oxygen in the atmosphere is the most ideal quantity determined for life.

No less than oxygen, other gasses like nitrogen and carbon dioxide are also arranged in the ideal quantity for the needs of living beings and the continuity of life. The amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere has the ideal ratio to balance the harmful and burning effects of oxygen. This ratio represents the most appropriate value required for photosynthesis, which is essential for life's energy supply on the earth. Moreover, the amount of carbon dioxide has the most appropriate value needed to maintain the stability of the surface temperature of the earth and to prevent heat loss especially at night time. This gas, comprising 1% of the atmosphere, covers the earth like a quilt and prevents the loss of heat to space. If this amount were greater, the temperature of the earth would increase excessively, causing climatic instability and posing a serious threat to the living beings.

These proportions remain constant thanks to a perfect system. The vegetation covering the earth converts carbon dioxide to oxygen, producing 190 billion tons of oxygen every day. The proportion of other gasses is always kept constant on the earth by the help of interconnected complex systems. Life is thus sustained.

In addition to the establishment of the ideal gas mixture required for life on earth, the mechanisms needed to preserve and maintain this order are created alongside with it. Any break in the balance, though instantaneous, or any change in the ratios even for a very short time period, would mean the total destruction of life. Yet, this does not happen. The formation of these gasses in the atmosphere just in the amount people need, and the constant preservation of these ratios indicate a planned creation.

At the same time, the earth has the ideal size in terms of magnitude to possess an atmosphere. If the mass of the earth were a little less, then its gravitational force would be insufficient and the atmosphere would be dispersed into space. If its mass were a little greater, then the gravitational force would be too much and the earth would absorb all gasses in the atmosphere. There is an incredibly high number of conditions required for the formation of an atmosphere such as the one our world currently has and all of these conditions should exist altogether to be able to talk of life.

The creation of these delicate proportions and balances in the sky is mentioned in the Quran:

"He erected heaven and established the balance." (Quran 55:7)

The majority of people spend their lives without being aware of the delicate balances and subtle adjustments in the gas composition of the atmosphere, the distance of the world from the sun or the movements of planets. They are ignorant of the great significance of these balances and adjustments to their own lives. However, even a minor deviation in any one of these arrangements would create very severe problems regarding the existence and survival of humankind.

There are many other balances established on earth for the continuity of life:

For instance, if the surface gravity were stronger than its current value, the atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane gasses, which would mean the end of life. If it were weaker, the planet's atmosphere would lose too much water, and life on earth would be impossible.

The thickness of the earth's crust constitutes another one of the delicate balances in the earth. If the earth's crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust and this would have severe effects on human life.

If the opposite were true, that is, if the earth's crust were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great to permit life on earth.

Another crucial balance for human life is the ozone level in the atmosphere. If it were greater than its current value, the surface temperatures would be too low. If it were less, surface temperatures would be too high, and there would be too much ultraviolet radiation at the surface.

In fact, the absence of even a single one of these balances would herald the end to life on earth. However, God has created the universe with infinite wisdom and power and designed the earth especially for human life. Despite this fact, the majority of people lead their lives in total ignorance of these events. In the Quran, God reminds people of His:

"(God) makes night merge into day and day merge into night, and He has made the sun and moon subservient, each one running until a specified time. That is God, your Lord. The Kingdom is His. Those you call on besides Him have no power over even the smallest speck." (Quran 35:13)

It is sufficient to look at millions of dead planets in space in order to understand that the delicate balances required for life on earth is not a result of random coincidences. The conditions essential for life are too complicated to have been formed "on their own" and at random, and these conditions are specially created for life alone.

These balances we have briefly described so far are only a few of the millions of intricate, interrelated balances and orders established so that people can live in peace and safety on the earth.

Examining only a part of the balances and harmony on the earth is enough to comprehend the superior being of God and grasp the existence of a planned creation in every detail of the universe. It is no doubt impossible for a person or any other living being to build such an enormous balance and order. Nor are the components of this order such as atoms, elements, molecules, and gasses, capable of establishing an order based on such intricate and extremely delicate calculations and measurements, and such fine tunings. This is because activities like planning, ordering, arranging, calculating, and proportioning can only be realized by beings that possess wisdom, knowledge and power. The Exalted Being Who orders, plans and balances the entire universe to be fit for life of human beings on a planet like earth and Who sustains it with dramatically delicate measures and balances is God, Who has Infinite Wisdom, Knowledge and Power.

In the Quran, it is stated that those people who are able to realize these facts are the only "people with intelligence":

"Indeed in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are Signs for people with intelligence: those who remember God, standing, sitting and lying on their sides, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth: [They say] 'Our Lord, You have not created this for nothing. Glory be to You! So safeguard us from the punishment of the Fire." (Quran 3:190-191)
Common Material, Design and Designer

The recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project is an important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees are 98% similar to human genes, and this is presented as evidence for the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore logical ancestors of humans, as claimed by Darwin's theory of evolution. The argument is misleading.

The claim of 98% similarity is deceptive. To claim that the genetic make-up of man and chimpanzee bear 98% similarity to each other, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man and the two have to be compared. No such completed research for the chimpanzee has been done yet.

This claimed similarity is an exaggerated generalization grounded in the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared. However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100,000 proteins coded by these genes in humans. The claim that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar is based on the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins!

Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structures of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzees, but also in completely different living beings, are very similar to that in humans.

For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75% similarity between the DNA's of nematode worms and man. ( _New Scientist_ , 15 May 1999, p.27) This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms!

Furthermore, the analyses done on some proteins have shown man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers at Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was the crocodile. ( _New Scientist_ v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19)

Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas and 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic were true, then man should have an even closer relative than the chimpanzee: the potato! The number of chromosomes in a potato is exactly equal to the number of chromosomes in a human: 46.

These examples show that genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolution schemes and, on the contrary, they yield largely inconsistent results.

Not surprisingly, when the issue is evaluated as a whole, it is seen that the subject of "bio-chemical similarities" does not constitute evidence for evolution, but, on the contrary, leaves the theory in the lurch. Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemistry researcher from the Medical Faculty of South Carolina University, is an evolutionist scientist who has spent years trying to find evidence for evolution in the molecular domain. He particularly did research on insulin and relaxin-type proteins and tried to establish evolutionary relationships between living beings. However, he had to confess many a time that he could not find any evidence for evolution at any point in his studies. He said:

" _Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead, it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message" (Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in Biochemical Sciences. V.11, July 1986)_

Based on the recent findings obtained in the field of molecular biology, the renowned biochemist Prof. Michael Denton made the following comments:

" _Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology... At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives... There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago... the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted." (Michael Denton, Evolution; "A Theory in Crisis", London; Burnett Books 1985 pp.290-291)_

It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings because they are all made up of the same molecules; they all use the same water and atmosphere; and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and therefore genetic make-up, would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

This "common material" is not the result of evolution but of "common design"; that is, being created upon the same plan.

It is possible to explain this subject with an example. The majority of buildings are constructed with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same is true of living beings as well.

Darwinists are distorting the results of the Human Genome Project. Life did not originate as a result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the Owner of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

# 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 magazine _Philosophy 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.

# 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 behaviour. 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 behaviour 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 kilometres 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.

# 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 behaviour. 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 behaviour 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 marvellous 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 behaviour, kindness and care living beings display towards their young are merely the reflection of God's name, the "Compassionate". This is revealed in the 7th verse 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_ )

# Scientists and Religion (part 1 of 2): Is Religion and Science in Conflict?

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.
Scientists and Religion (part 2 of 2): Religious Scientists

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, Unravelling 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)

# 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; levelled 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 harbouring 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 everyone 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.

# 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 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 centre 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)

# 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)

# 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 meagre 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 scepticism but fearful of the possibility of the existence of God and a Day of Judgement, may wish to consider the 'prayer of the sceptic,' as follows:

"O Lord--if there is a Lord,

Save my soul--if I have a soul."[2]

In the face of scepticism 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 moulded 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 Sceptic_.

[3] Parke, David B. p. 67.

[4] Bacon, Francis. _Atheism_. p. 16.

[5] Bacon, Francis. _Atheism_. p. 16.

# 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 fulfil 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 favourites 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 favourites, 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 _knows_ that 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 pay check 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 fulfilment 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.

#  Contemporary Physicists and God's Existence (part 1 of 3): The Eternalness of Matter

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 pre-existing 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.

# Contemporary Physicists and God's Existence (part 2 of 3): A Series of Causes

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 non-scientist, 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 (part 3 of 3): Room for God

The idea that something is not created by anything, that it comes out of nothing, is very different from the idea that it creates itself. It is strange therefore to find some scientists speaking about them as if they are one and the same thing. It is not only Davies who confused these two notions as we can see in the quotation just cited, but others also. Taylor tells us that electrons can create themselves out of nothing in the manner Baron Munchausen saved himself from sinking into a bog by pulling himself up by his bootstraps.

It is as if these particles special particles are able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (which in their case are the forces between them) to create themselves from nothing as Baron Munchausen saves himself without visible means of support...This bootstrapping has been proposed as a scientifically respectable scenario for creating a highly specialized Universe from nothing. (Taylor, 46)

Is it science or science fiction that we are being told here? Taylor knows and says that Munchausen's is only a story; what he claimed to have done is in fact something that is physically impossible to do. In spite of this, Taylor wants to explain by his idea something that is not only real, but is of the utmost importance, and thus ends up saying something that is more absurd than Munchausen's fictitious story of saving himself by pulling up his bootstrap. At least Munchausen was talking about things that were already in existence. But Taylor's special particles act even before they are created! They "pull themselves by their own bootstraps... to create themselves from nothing."!

False Gods

The third alternative to attributing the creation of things to the true God, is to attribute them to false gods. Thus many atheists try to attribute the creation of temporal things to other things which are themselves temporal (as we said before). Davies says:

The idea of a physical system containing an explanation of itself might seem paradoxical to the layman but it is an idea that has some precedence in physics. While one may concede, (ignoring quantum effects) that every event is contingent, and depends for its explanation on some other event, it need not follow that this series either continues endlessly, or ends in God. It may be closed into a loop. For example, four events, or objects, or systems, E1, E2, E3, E4, may have the following dependence on each other: (Davies, 47)

But this is a clear example of a very vicious circle. Take any one of these supposed events or objects or systems. Let it be E1, and ask how it came about . The answer is: it was caused by E4, which preceded it; but what is the cause of E4? It is E3; and the cause of E3 is E2, and of E2 is E1. So the cause of E4 is E1 because it is the cause of its causes. Therefore E4 is the cause of E1 and E1 is the cause of E4 which means that each one of them precedes and is preceded by the other. Does that make any sense? If these events, etc. are actual existents, then their coming into being could not have been caused by them the way Davies supposes it to be. Their ultimate cause must lie outside this vicious circle.

And the philosopher Passmore advises us to:

Compare the following:

(1) every event has a cause;

(2) to know that an event has happened one must know how it came about.

The first simply tells us that if we are interested in the cause of an event, there will always be such a cause for us to discover. But it leaves us free to start and stop at any point we choose in the search for causes; we can, if we want to, go on to look for the cause of the cause and so on ad infinitum , but we need not do so; if we have found a cause, we have found a cause, whatever its cause may be. The second assertion, however, would never allow us to assert that we know that an event has happened ... For if we cannot know that an event has taken place unless we know the event that is its cause, then equally we cannot know that the cause-event has taken place unless we know its cause, and so on ad infinitum. In short, if the theory is to fulfil its promise, the series must stop somewhere, and yet the theory is such that the series cannot stop anywhere – unless, that is, a claim of privilege is sustained for a certain kind of event, e.g. the creation of the Universe. (Pasture, 29)

If you think about it, there is no real difference between these two series as Ibn Taymiyyah clearly explained a long time ago (Ibn Taymiyyah, 436-83). One can put the first series like this: for an event to happen, its cause must happen. Now if the cause is itself caused, then the event will not happen unless its cause event happens, and so on, ad infinitum. We will not therefore have a series of events that actually happened, but a series of no events. And because we know that there are events, we conclude that their real ultimate cause could not have been any temporal thing or series of temporal things whether finite or infinite. The ultimate cause must be of a nature that is different from that of temporal things; it must be eternal. Why do I say 'ultimate'? Because, as I said earlier, events can be viewed as real causes of other events, so long as we acknowledge them to be the incomplete and dependent causes they are, and as such not the causes that explain the coming into being of something in any absolute sense, which is to say that they cannot take the place of God.

What is the relevance of this talk about chains after all? There might have been some excuse for it before the advent of the Big Bang, but it should have been clear to Davies in particular that there is no place for it at all in the world-view of a person who believes that the universe had an absolute beginning.

The fact that everything around us is temporal and that it could not have been created except by an eternal Creator has been known to human beings since the dawn of their creation, and it is still the belief of the overwhelming majority of people all over the world.[1] It would, therefore, be a mistake to get from this paper the impression that it hinges the existence of God upon the truth of the Big Bang theory. That certainly is not my belief; neither was it the purpose of this paper. The main thrust of the paper has rather been that if an atheist believes in the big bang theory, then he cannot avoid admitting that the Universe was created by God. This, in fact, is what some scientists frankly admitted, and what others hesitantly intimated to.

There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? ... It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo, Divine will constituting nature from nothingness. (Jastro,122)

As to the first cause of the universe in the context of expansion, that is left to the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him. (Jasrow,122)

This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us. (Hawking,127)

Footnotes:

[1] "...the first published avowal of speculative atheism appeared in 1770 on the Continent, and in 1782 in Britain." (Russell, Atheism. 3).

"The most recent Gallop data indicate that 96 per cent of Americans say they believe in God... " , (Carter, Culture, 278). The percentage must surely be greater in the non Western world.

# Agnosticism (part 1 of 4): The Concept of Agnosticism

"We cannot swing up a rope that is attached to our own belt."  
\--William Ernest Hocking

The issue of Agnosticism is of integral importance to any theological discussion, because agnosticism complacently coexists with the broad spectrum of religions, rather than assuming a separate or opposing theological position. Thomas Henry Huxley, the originator of the term in the year 1869 CE,[1] clearly stated,

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."[2]

The word itself, as Huxley appears to have intended it, does not define a set of religious beliefs, but rather demands a rational approach to all knowledge, including that claimed of religion. The word 'Agnosticism,' however, has since become one of the most misapplied terms in metaphysics, having enjoyed a diversity of applications.

At varying times this term has been applied to a variety of individuals or subgroups, differing greatly in degrees of piety and sincerity of religious purpose. On one extreme there are the sincere seekers who have not yet encountered substantiated truth in the religions of their exposure. Most often, however, the religiously unmotivated utilize the term to excuse personal disinterest, attempting thereby to legitimize escapism from the responsibility of serious investigation into religious evidences.

The modern definition of 'Agnostic,' as found in the _Oxford Dictionary of Current English_ , is not strictly faithful to Huxley's explanation of the term; however, it does represent the most common modern understanding and usage of the word, which is that an Agnostic is a "person who believes that the existence of God is not provable."[3] By this definition, the Agnostic view of God can be variously applied to such hypothetical entities as gravity, entropy, absolute zero, black holes, mental telepathy, headaches, hunger, the sex drive, and the human soul – entities which cannot be seen with the eye or held with the hand, but which nonetheless appear to be real and evident. Clearly, not being able to see or hold some specific thing does not necessarily negate its existence. The religious argue that the existence of God is one such reality, whereas the Agnostic defends the right to such belief, just so long as proof is not claimed.

As an aside, the philosophy that nothing can be proven _absolutely_ appears to take origin from Pyrrho of Elis, a Greek court philosopher to Alexander the Great, commonly acknowledged to be the 'father of scepticism.' Although a certain degree of scepticism is healthy, protective even, the extreme position adopted by Pyrrho of Elis is somewhat problematic. Why? Because the confirmed Pyrrhonist logically stimulates the sceptic of scepticism (i.e. the normally thinking person) to question, "You claim that nothing can be known with certainty...how, then, can you be so sure?" The enemies of logic can create a great deal of confusion by such compilation of paradox and philosophical compost. One great danger is to seduce an abandonment of logic, in favour of decision by desire. Another danger is to allow immersion in intellectual contortionism to stifle common sense.

Humanity should recognize that if common sense prevails, stubborn detractors begin to look a tad daft when the apple has fallen on their heads a few too many times. After a point, those with the common sense to accept vanishingly small confidence intervals (or 'P' values, as they are known in the field of statistical analysis) begin to hope for bigger, higher, and harder apples to either convince the academically defiant Pyrrhonists or simply remove them from the equation.

So, by common sense (and common experience), most people accept whatever theories appear most reasonable, whether proven in an absolute sense or not. Hence most people accept the theories of gravity, entropy, absolute zero, black holes, the hunger drive, an author's headache and a reader's eyestrain -- and well they should. These things make sense. In the opinion of those of religion, all mankind should also accept the existence of God and of the human spirit, for the overwhelming evidence witnessed in the many miracles of creation support the reality of The Creator to the point where the confidence level approaches infinity and the 'P' value diminishes to something smaller and more elusive than the last digit of Pi.

With regard to T. H. Huxley's invention of the term 'agnostic,' he was quoted a having explained,

"Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there (the Metaphysical Society), and expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were – _ists_ of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I, the man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic.'"[4]

According to the above, individuals who identify with the label of 'Agnostic' should recognize that the term is a modern invention which arose from one individual's identity crisis in a circle of metaphysicians. The one who coined this term identifies himself as a man without a label, analogous to a fox without a tail -- both of which imply the self-perception of a certain degree of personal inadequacy. What part of this man's pride did he leave behind in the jaws of a spring-loaded religious enigma? Fairly obviously, Huxley, like many prominent metaphysicians and theologians throughout history, was unable to find a doctrinal pigeonhole to suit his concept of God.

Regardless of the above considerations, even if a person were to argue that Huxley did nothing more than attach a label to a previously un-named but ancient theology, the two word question "So what?" jumps the synapses of consciousness once again. Labelling a theology does not imply validation or, more importantly, value. If there were value to the concept, a person would suspect that it would have been voiced earlier -- like 1800 years earlier and in the teachings of a prophet like Jesus. Yet the prophets, Christ Jesus included, seemed to have a very different message, the point of which was the reward of faith in the _absence_ of absolute proof, _despite_ the inability to view the reality of God with one's own eyes.

Footnotes:

[1] Meagher, Paul Kevin et al. Vol. 1, p. 77.

[2] Huxley, Thomas Henry. _Agnosticism_. 1889.

[3] Thompson, Della. p. 16.

[4] Huxley, T. H. _Collected Essays_. v. Agnosticism.

# Agnosticism (part 2 of 4): Discussion on Huxley's Statement

"According to Huxley, the word was designed as antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of early church history, and was intended to be opposed not simply to theism and Christianity, but also to atheism and pantheism. He meant the word to cover with a mantle of respectability not so much ignorance about God but the strong conviction that the problem of His existence is insoluble."[1]

The tail-less fox searching for a "mantle of respectability?" So it would seem, but who could blame him? It was a difficult and confusing time -- given the setting, many intellectuals must have been pretty frustrated and imagined themselves to be short not just a tail, but both hindquarters as well. In a time and place where, as Huxley describes, the choice, in a practical sense, was Christianity or nothing, anybody who pondered the theological difficulties would have been forced to reconsider the oath of membership to any of the exclusive Christian clubs. Invention of the label of 'Agnosticism' was no doubt born of the frustration of having had to deal with those whose doctrines could easily be discredited by men and women of intellect, but in a theological void where an acceptable alternative was not yet presented to the English-speaking world. What could a person who believed in God, but who did not believe in the religions of his or her exposure do? Escape was the only alternative, and that, so it appears, is exactly what Huxley did. Huxley coined a term which encapsulated an ages-old concept which afforded all who claimed allegiance an escape route from the overheated, overcrowded room of religious discussion, and into the private den of personal convictions.

Yet, although the term afforded a popular relief valve for those who evaded the pressure of serious religious discussion in the time of Huxley, the question arises, "Does the term have value in the present day?" The truth of the concept remains, but the question is not whether there is truth in the concept, but whether there is value in the truth. A rock has truth, but what is its value? Very little, under normal circumstances.

So on one hand, the 'So what?' factor remains. Encapsulating the ages-old concept of the non-provable issue of God sounds so neat and practical, but does the concept of non-provability change anybody's belief in God? A person can embrace any of the myriad belief/disbelief systems while at the same time admitting that the truth of God cannot be proven. Yet such an admission does not change the depth of conviction each person holds in his or her heart and mind.

And most people know this.

Few devotees believe they can support their religion or the existence of God with absolute and irrefutable proof. Growing challenges by increasingly intelligent and well-informed laity have placed an impossible burden of proof on the clergy of the Judaic and Christian faiths, in specific. Questions and challenges, which in previous ages would have brought charges of heresy as a practical measure for the suppression of sedition are now commonplace, and deserving of answers. The fact that Church responses to such queries defy logic and human experience has resulted in clergy often having no other resort than to reverse the challenge upon the questioner, in the form of asserting, "It's a mystery of God, you just have to have faith." The questioner may respond, "but I do have faith – I have faith that God can reveal a religion which would answer all my questions," only to be counselled further, "Well, in that case, you just have to have _more_ faith." In other words, a person has to stop asking questions and be satisfied with the party line. Even when it doesn't make sense, and even when the foundational scriptures teach otherwise.

Hence, over the past few centuries the hierarchy of the many Judeo-Christian sects have been driven back on their heels by God-given logic to a teetering, bowed-back, arm-spinning posture of Gnostic ideology, which in the early (i.e. the period of those who knew best) history of Christianity was regarded as a no-holds barred, no doubt about it, 'gather-the-firewood-and-plant-the-stake' heretical sect. The scenario is bizarre; it is like saying, "Sure, that oven was last year's model. The prototypes didn't work. In fact they exploded and everyone who used one burned to death, but we're bringing it back anyway because we need the money. But we promise you, if you believe -- I mean really believe -- then we promise you'll be OK. And if it _does_ explode in your face, don't blame us. You just didn't believe enough." The sad thing is, lots of people are not only buying it, they're setting one aside for each of their kids.

The overall scheme of things is one in which clergy considered Christian faith to be founded upon knowledge up until the educated laity came to know better. For many centuries laity were not allowed to own Bibles, with the punishment of possession in more than a few cases having been death. Only with suppression of this law, manufacture of paper in Europe (14th century), invention of the printing press (mid-15th century), and translation of the New Testament into the English and German languages (16th century) did Bibles become readily available and readable by the common literate man. Hence, for the first time, laity became able to read the Bible (where available – publication and distribution remained limited for many decades) and present rational challenges to established doctrines based upon personal analysis of the foundational scriptures. When such challenges defeated the arguments of the Church apologists, most Christian sects did an amazing thing -- they disavowed the nearly 2,000 year-old claim that doctrine should be based upon knowledge, and instituted instead the concept of salvation through spiritual guidance and justification by faith. Particular emphasis was placed on the alleged virtue of blind, unthinking (and hence unquestioning) commitment.

The modern 'spiritual' defences which sprung from the new church orientation mimic the heretical 'mystic exclusivity' of the ancient Gnostics, all echoing familiar sentiments such as, "You just don't understand, you don't have the Holy Spirit inside you like I do," or "You just need to follow your guiding light -- mine is levelled, laser-straight and Xenon bright, but yours is flickering and dim" or "Jesus doesn't live inside you as he does inside me." No doubt such assertions appeal to each speaker's 'aren't I special' personal ego inventory, but if someone insists on belief in spiritually exclusive pathways, then no doubt others will insist on a discussion of the difference between delusion and reality. T.H. Huxley, no doubt, would have been happy to chair the debate.

The problem is that claiming mystical exclusivity as the key to guidance and/or salvation is to claim that God has arbitrarily abandoned the 'un-saved' of creation -- hardly a God-like scenario. Does it not make infinitely more sense for God to have given all of humankind equal chance to recognize the truth of His teachings? Then those who submit to His evidences would deserve reward, while those who deny would be blameworthy for failing to give acknowledgement, credit, and worship where due.

But unfortunately, the nature of delusion is that the ones who are deluded rarely are capable of recognizing the errors of their misunderstanding; the nature of the Gnostics is similar in that they typically are too enamoured with their self-satisfying, self-serving philosophy to realize the falsehood of their foundation. And indeed, it is hard to believe the waiter has spat in the soup when the restaurant is rated five-star, the service refined, the presentation impeccable. Appearance and taste may be so good as to defy reality. But it is the patron who regards the bearer of truth as an inconvenient kill-joy rather than as a sincere benefactor who is going to wear the sicknesses of the server home.

Footnotes:

[1] Meagher, Paul Kevin et al. Vol. 1, p. 77.

# Agnosticism (part 3 of 4): A Fruit of False Religions

So why the contemporary return to heresy-slash-Gnosticism, with the official sanction of so many religious institutions? Well, it is understandable. Since no logical defence of modern day Judaism or Christianity withstands the pressure of present day scriptural analysis, this 'mystical exclusivity' is a last ditch defence of a rapidly crumbling doctrinal status quo. Significant attrition has occurred in numerous Judeo-Christian sects already. The remaining faithful are largely forced into 'believing agnosticism,' holding personal faith in the existence of God and a specific doctrine as the approach to Him, while at the same time recognizing that such beliefs cannot be objectively proven.

Immanuel Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason_ , Sir William Hamilton's _Philosophy of the Unconditioned_ (1829), and Herbert Spencer's _Principles_ (1862) laid the cellulose foundation of the concept, and T.H. Huxley packaged and popularized it.

So, does the concept of Agnosticism have value? Returning to the rock, which only has value to those in need of one, Agnosticism has practicality for those who feel the need of a theological defence system. Those who are satisfied with such theology end religious discussions by deflecting the threat of rational argument off the shield of Agnostic defences. To all others, it is just a rock. It doesn't change anything, it doesn't do anything. It just sits there like the impotent and self-evident lump it is, occupying metaphysical space.

Examination of the Islamic religion fosters an interesting thought, in this regard. The teachings of Islam were not available in the English language until Andre du Ryer's French translation of the meaning of the Holy Quran was rendered into English by Alexander Ross in 1649 CE. This first translation into the English language being notably of hostile intent and filled with inaccuracies, it fell hugely shy of inviting objective analysis of the Islamic religion. As the translator stated in his address 'to the Christian Reader,'

"There being so many sects and heresies banded together against the truth (by which the author refers to Christianity), finding that of _Mahomet_ wanting to the muster, I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou maist the better prepare to encounter, and I hope overcome them....Thou shalt find it of so rude, and incongruous a composure, so farced with contradictions, blasphemies, obscene speeches, and ridiculous fables...Such as it is, I present to thee, having taken the pains only to translate it out of French, not doubting, though it hath been a poyson (poison), that hath infected a very great, but most unsound part of the universe, it may prove an antidote, to confirm in thee the health of Christianity"

The translator's prejudice clearly evident, a person should hardly be surprised to find the translation fraught with error, and inclined to exert little positive impact on Western consciousness. George Sale, having been unimpressed, picked up the torch and attempted a new translation of meaning, criticizing Ross as follows:

"The English version is no other than a translation of Du Ryer's, and that a very bad one; for Alexander Ross, who did it, being utterly unacquainted with the Arabic, and no great master of the French, has added a number of fresh mistakes of his own to those of Du Ryer; not to mention the meanness of his language, which would make a better book ridiculous."[1]

Not until George Sale's translation of meaning into the English language in 1734 did the Western world begin to receive teachings of the Holy Quran in an accurate, though all the same ill-intentioned, exposure.

George Sale's perspective is evident in the first few pages of his address to the reader, with such statements as,

"They must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion, or be but ill grounded therein, who can apprehend any danger from so manifest a forgery....But whatever use an impartial version of the Koran may be of in other respects, it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture..."

and,

"The Protestants alone are able to attack the Koran with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow."

The translation of Reverend J. M. Rodwell, first published in 1861, coincided with the nineteenth century rise of oriental studies in the scientific meaning of the term. And it was during this period of dawning Islamic consciousness in Western Europe that Huxley presented his proposal of Agnosticism.

Many Muslims might wonder, had Huxley lived in the present 'information' age of ease of travel, broad cosmopolitan exposure to people, cultures and religions, complete with accurate and objective information on the Islamic religion, would his choice have been any different? It is an interesting thought. What would a man have done who, as previously quoted, stated, "I protest that if some great Power would agree to make me always think what is true and do what is right, on condition of being turned into a sort of clock and wound up every morning before I got out of bed, I should instantly close with the offer."[2] To such a man, the comprehensive canon of Islam may have been not only appealing, but welcome.

This section began with the assertion that Agnosticism coexists with most religions of established doctrine. Doctrinal adherents can be divided into functional sub-categories on this basis. For example, the Theistic (Orthodox) Christians who conceive the reality of God to be provable, the Gnostic Christians who conceive knowledge of the truth of God to be reserved for the spiritual elite, and the Agnostic Christians, who maintain faith while admitting inability to prove the reality of God. The distinguishing difference between these various subgroups exists not in the presence, but in attempts at justification, of faith.

Similarly, most religions can be sub-divided by the manner in which individual adherents attempt to justify faith within the confines of doctrine. At the end of the day, however, these divisions are of academic interest only, for the how or why of belief does not alter the presence of belief any more than the how or why of God alters His existence.

Footnotes:

[1] Sale, George.

[2] Huxley, Thomas H. _Discourse Touching The Method of Using One's Reason Rightly and of Seeking Scientific Truth._

# Agnosticism (part 4 of 4): Settling for Less

To return to Francis Bacon, he once opined, "They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea."[1] Believers would offer advice to Atheists and Agnostics alike that God exists, whether seen or not, whether desired or not, whether considered proven or not. Argument to the contrary is just a distraction from a reality which will unfold as undeniable truth on a future day of joy for some, deep regret and horror for others.

A great many people need not await the Day of Judgement to entertain such a conclusion, for all people faced with insurmountable trials find themselves drawn to belief, for when faced with desperate circumstances, Who else do people instinctively call upon other than God? Although few make good on the promises of fidelity made at such moments of desperate appeal, the evidence of the oath remains long after the promises to God are cast aside to lie neglected in the gutters of the memory.

Can anybody help the insincere? Very likely not. The concept of recognizing God and living in satisfaction of His commandments only when, and for as long as, it suits one's purpose, demonstrates an unwillingness to submit on God's terms. Take, for example, St. Augustine's pathetic prayer, " _Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo_. (Give me chastity and continency—but not yet!)"[2] Here's the prayer of a ' _Saint?_ ' who on one hand was praying to God, and on the other hand wasn't ready to leave the houses of prostitution, to the compromise of his sexual incontinency. Compare this with the exemplary lives of the disciples of Jesus, who are reported to have deserted infinitely more honourable pursuits when called to follow Christ Jesus. These men left their worldly priorities, such as their livelihood of fishing and their obligation of burying the dead, when the truth came to them, without delay to a time of greater personal convenience. The religious might be inclined to comment, "Wow! Those are my kind of guys!" The more important understanding, however, is that those appear to be _God's_ 'kind of guys.'

Of course, that was then and this is now. In the present age prophets walk on water, heal lepers, and bid mankind to follow only in the imaginations of those with a view to history. All the same, a lot of people still seek the truth of God and, once recognized, will follow immediately, regardless of the sacrifice required. But first, they must know the truth with certainty.

So what's the problem? Simply this: information has never been so readily available, and yet (on the surface at least) never so confusing and religiously obstructive. Most people have been raised with the intellectual tools to root out and identify the inconsistencies and fallacies of the religions predominant within their exposure. Sincere seekers log a certain depth of experience in discrediting various faiths, a few of which are truly twitty cults, but the majority of which are sects claiming to be based upon some version of the Old or New Testaments, but in fact diverging from the balanced and fundamental teachings found therein. After a while, one sect begins to look very much like the others, many times with only shallow doctrinal differences, and almost always with the same questionable foundation. Most such sects have evolved to a modern conglomerate of truths, half-truths (or in other words, half-lies) and solid unadulterated deception. The problem is, mixing truth with falsehood is like mixing beauty with ugliness -- it doesn't work. Any one particular religion is either entirely truthful or to some degree impure. And since God doesn't error -- not even once -- if people can't trust one element of that which is presented as revelation, how can they know which teachings _can_ be trusted? Furthermore, many of the religious have difficulty conceiving that God would leave humankind to hang the hereafter on an impure understanding of Him.

The problem screams in the doctrine-stuffed ears of man that a person cannot mix truth with falsehood and continue to consider the blend to originate from God any more than a person can mix loveliness and ugliness and continue to win beauty pageants. Place a single, hairy, multilobulated mole (not a beauty mark, but a true _ugly_ mark) smack dab in the middle of any picture of facial perfection and what does a person get? Pure, unadulterated 'Angelic' beauty? On the contrary, the end result is the all too human reality of beauty marred.

Place the tiniest of falsehoods in a religion, which is reported to be from a perfect and flawless God, and what is the result? A lot of sincere people walking, for one. But for those who wish to hang on to the canon of a flawed belief system, apologists assume the role of religious cosmetic surgeons. These apologists may succeed in smoothing the uneven surface of scripture by way of doctrinal dermabrasion, but anybody with depth of insight recognizes that the foundational genetics remain faulty. Consequently, while some see straight through the lame attempts at excusing the absurd, many follow anyway.

Amongst those who do choose to embrace a faith, many arrive at their choice by throwing up their hands in frustration and choosing whatever religion suits best or, at the very minimum, offends least. Some file a telepathic communiqué with God to the effect that they are doing the best they can, others rest comfortably on insecure conclusions. Many become Agnostic with regard to all doctrinal faiths, pursuing an internal, personal faith for lack of exposure to a doctrinal belief which is pure and consistently Godly.

Refusal to compromise belief in a perfect and infallible God for a 'settle for' religion possessing shaky foundation and demonstrable doctrinal weaknesses is understandable – respectable even. After generations of distracting family traditions, centuries of confounding cultural misdirection, and a lifetime of prejudiced propaganda, many Westerners have become spiritually immobilized. On one hand the concept of a pristine, pure religion devoid of adulteration, corruption and, in short, the grimy and fallible hand of religion-engineering man is much sought after, but elusive to Western consciousness. On the other hand, many see too clearly the inconsistencies of any present day religion founded on that with which the West is most familiar—namely the Jewish and Christian Bibles. Some may remain trapped within the narrow confine defined by the horn-tips of this dilemma. Others look deeply into Biblical scriptures and recognize that as the Old Testament predicted the coming of John the Baptist, Christ Jesus and one remaining prophet, so did Christ Jesus predict a prophet to follow himself—one who would bring a message of truth to make all things clear.

Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and a variety of other Christian sects claim to fulfil this prophecy with the founder of their flavour of belief. Many others are sceptical and still searching. It is for the latter that this book has been written.

Footnotes:

[1] Bacon, Francis. _Advancement of Learning_. I.vii.5.

[2] St. Augustine, _Confessions_ , bk. viii, ch. 7

# Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design or Islam?

Creationism, natural selection, intelligent design, the theory of evolution. Thinking about the creation of the world, the universe, and humankind can be confusing. There are theories, opinions, and beliefs that state that the creation of the universe was a random act, that humankind evolved from apes and that living creatures climbed out of the primordial swamp. In general, science proves some sort of intelligence designed the universe.

Confused? You should be, because that is not all. There is also neo creationism , old earth creationism, flood geology, the big bang theory, evolutionary biology, the common descent theory, and macroevolution. What does it all mean?

For many people it must be a kind of lottery, or a theory of the year choice. Each group has its evidence, some believe in God, others do not. Some use science to prove their opinions, others use the book of Genesis or other creation myths. In Islam, the story of creation is clear. There are no partly formed theories or strange opinions to add to the confusion. The creation of the world and all that exists is attributed to God. The most merciful, most wise, most forgiving.

" **God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days." (Quran 7:54)**

" **Then He completed and finished from their creation seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-Mighty, the All-Knower." (Quran 41:12)**

" **And indeed, We created man from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud." (Quran 15:26)**

" **And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to create a man (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud." (Quran 15:28)**

God created Adam the father of humankind from mud (clay, soil, earth, or dust mixed with water) and He created his wife Eve from a rib bone. The traditions of Prophet Muhammad, may God praise him, relate that God created Eve while Adam was sleeping, from his shortest left rib and that, after sometime, she was clothed with flesh. God then endowed Adam and Eve with the ability to procreate.

" **God has created every moving (living) creature from water. Of them, some creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills. Verily! God is Able to do all things." (Quran 24:45)**

" **And God said: 'O Mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam) and from Him (Adam) He created his wife (Eve), and from them both He created many men and women.'" (Quran 4:1)**

" **And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a** _Nutfah_ **(mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge) (and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the** _Nutfah_ **into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be God the Best of creators.** " **(Quran 23: 12 -14)**

In Islam, unlike other religions there are no great debates involving the separation of science and religion. Islam teaches us that great scientific discoveries and break throughs are simply evidence of the existence of God. If scientific theories conflict with the Quran and the authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad, may God praise him, Muslims simply reject them. However apart from the premise in Darwin's theory of evolution, that man descended from apes, the Quran, and modern science are remarkably in accord.

" **Indeed, the creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of mankind, but most of mankind do not realize it." (Quran 40:57)**

More than 14 centuries ago the Quran mentioned scientific facts that have only recently been discovered using modern scientific methods and advanced equipment. The development of scientific disciplines, such as cosmology and astrophysics have explained some of the mysteries of God's creation. Cosmic events that were previously part of the unseen now make sense according to modern scientific theory.

" **Then He rose over towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: 'Come both of you willingly or unwillingly.' They both said: 'We come, willingly.'" (Quran 41:11)**

Modern cosmology indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of 'smoke', an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition. It is now possible for scientists to observe new stars being formed out of the remnants of the 'smoke'. Dr. Loretta Dunne from Cardiff University says, "Cosmic dust consists of tiny particles of solid material floating around in the space between the stars. It is not the same as house dust but more akin to cigarette smoke."[1] Astronomers studied supernovae SN 2003gd using the Spitzer space telescope, and found that it had produced tremendous amounts of dust.

In the creation of humankind we are also now able to see modern scientific evidence that seems to be in accord with the words of God in Quran. Many elements present in the earth are also contained in the human body. The most critical component to land-based life is the top soil; that thin layer of dark, organically rich soil in which plants spread out their roots. It is in this thin, vital layer of soil that microorganisms convert raw resources and make them available to the myriad forms of life around and above them.

The Quran instructs Muslims to **"contemplate the wonders of creation" (3:191)** Imagine the precision and timing that allows the world and all that is in it to function. Complex systems run perfectly. The earth is specifically designed for human life and life on earth is a delicate balance, from the lofty skies to the depths of the ocean.

" **The sun and the moon run on their fixed courses (exactly) calculated with measured out stages for each (for reckoning, etc.)... And the heaven He has raised high, and He has set up the Balance... And the earth He has put for the creatures." (Quran 55:5-10)**

God created the universe and He created humankind. Certain sections of all the theories and opinions that are abound agree with the words found in Quran and the authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad, may God praise him, but really that is of no consequence. Nor is it important when theories try to disprove the existence of God.

The sun and the moon are fixed in their orbits and life continues. Muslims know with certainty that the world and all that exists was created by God. When new discoveries prove this _beyond doubt,_ believers smile and wait for the other miracles of God to reveal themselves. The complexity of life is almost to simple to grasp. God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe.

**Footnotes:**

[1] Smoking supernova; Science daily (July 24, 2003)

# The Fossil Record Refutes Evolution

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously-existing species turned into 'something else' with time and all species have come into being in this way. According the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this was the case, then numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past, which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they are believed to have had in the past, as "transitional forms."

If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in fossil records. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:

"If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains."

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realized that the biggest stumbling-block in his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory":

" ...Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional form must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust to the earth?... But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me."

The single explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century CE, all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. In their enthusiastic efforts to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British palaeontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."

Another evolutionist palaeontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

"A major problem in providing the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fuelled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."

They have also had to deal with the futility of waiting for "missing" transitional forms to appear in the future, as explained by a professor of palaeontology from Glasgow University, T. Neville George:

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."

Life emerged on earth suddenly and in complex forms

When terrestrial strata and fossil records are examined, it is seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

Living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record -- there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly, that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

Most of the life forms found in these strata have complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system and advanced physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts. For instance, the double-lensed, combined eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester and Chicago Universities says: "The trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".

These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.

Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to evolutionists:

"A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today."

How did the earth come to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden? How could these distinct types of species with no common ancestors emerge? These are questions that remain unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that invalidates the very roots of all the arguments he has been defending:

"For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."

As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."

Darwin himself recognized the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera of families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification."

The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist and paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses to the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says: "Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us.''

As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

# Atheists are Polytheists!

An atheist is said to be someone who denies the existence of the Creator. This is a good definition, provided that we mean by it that the creator whose existence they deny is the only God of religion, the one true Creator. Otherwise, atheists do believe in creators, albeit they do not recognize them under that appellation. This is so because atheists, in their endeavour to find alternatives to God for explaining the existence of the temporal things we see around us, invent some imaginary entities and give them some of the essential attributes of God.

Thus materialistic atheists used to believe in matter as such a god. But this matter-god of theirs is not the matter with which we are familiar in our daily life; it is something that is eternal and everlasting, hence the statement, which used to masquerade as a scientific fact, "matter is neither created nor destroyed." But when you ask them to point this eternal and everlasting matter you discover that they are only chasing a will-o'-the-wisp. The matter that we can recognize and to which we can point is matter in the form of the large heavenly bodies, in the form of earthly physical things, and in the form of the constituents of these things: molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, photons, etc., none of which is eternal. Atheistic materialists used to believe in an eternal matter behind all such material things which come and go, but the advent of the "big bang" theory shattered all hopes in the existence of such matter. Scientists now believe that everything—matter, energy, even space and time—had a beginning. In fact they speak about a moment of creation of all these things.

Another such imaginary god is Nature (with a capital N). The nature with which we are familiar is the totality of natural things. But when we are told that Nature does this or that, as atheists are prone to say, we find ourselves at a loss. What is this Nature? If it be the one we know, how can it cause or create itself? But if it is something else, then we want to have proof of its existence.

The same applies to Evolution. Now evolution, scientifically speaking, is "the gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primary organisms..." (Concise Science Dictionary) But the Evolution of the atheists is not this process; rather it is the agent which brings about the process. Only in this unscientific and imaginary sense can evolution take the place of God; otherwise, a believer who accepts the theory of evolution can easily reconcile it with his belief in God, by saying that that process is itself the work of the Creator.

There are, on the other hand, atheists who say in a misleading way that they believe in God; but on inspection, their god turns out to be the god of the atheists. I am referring here to people like Einstein, who is said by some to have been a believer, but whose god was in fact not God the Creator in whom we all believe. Einstein declared that he believed in "Spinoza's god," i.e. in a god that is identical with the universe, and who does not thus interfere from outside in its working. "The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation, "says Einstein, "cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events." [Quoted by Hans Kung, Does God Exist? Vantage Books, 1981, p. 629]

Thus all atheists are in fact polytheists, or _mushriks_. A _mushrik_ , according to Islam, is one who believes in a god or gods besides, or to the exclusion of, the one true God, or who worships such gods, even if he also worships the true God. That perhaps is the reason why the Qur'an never talks about atheists, but only about _mushriks_ (or polytheists).

# Rational Answers to Ideological Commitments

Why Islam? The question "why?" demands a rational answer. However, many people think that it is not possible to give rational answers to ideological commitments (by ideology, we mean a system of thought). They believe that a commitment to any theistic ideology is an irrational act. One cannot deny the fact that many people do commit themselves illogically to various ideologies and continue to hold onto them only because they find themselves to be raised up in particular communities. They accept such ideologies in just the same way as they would accept a traditional form of dress handed down to them through the generations. For example, a person might be deeply committed to a nationalistic ideology simply because it may be the best way to win the support of the masses and thereby gain personal political power.

Let us analyze two commonly found views regarding ideological commitments:

 The first states that a commitment to any ideology which involves some type of deity must necessarily be irrational.

The premise of those who say this is that the fundamental claims of all such ideologies are beyond the comprehension of the human mind. Those who have accepted such a premise have concluded that all types of such 'belief' must be based on irrational and imaginary thoughts rather than on reality.

 The opposite view is held by people who seek to justify their 'belief' in certain irrational ideas by claiming that reason is limited.

In fact, the followers of this ideology state that people should commit themselves to such ideas by simply having 'faith'. The conclusion of these people is that ultimate reality must be irrational in essence and therefore incomprehensible to the human mind. They go on to say that their ideology must be accepted or 'believed' without reason, in order to attain some type of 'salvation'.

This kind of argument is very difficult to accept because as human beings, we may ask: **What do we have other than the usage of our minds for acquiring knowledge?** If we are told to 'believe' in something that is irrational (i.e. beyond all reason), such as a type of being which is both mortal and immortal, we cannot possibly digest such an idea. Therefore it does not seem unnatural for us to demand that our way of thinking and living be based solely upon those concepts which can be _verified_ as being true.

Going back to the first view regarding ideological commitments, we see that this view contends that we cannot and should not believe in that which we cannot _comprehend_. The emphasis lies on the word comprehend, and so it must be defined. It is true that one cannot have an adequate mental picture of some mathematical and scientific facts. For example, one cannot have an adequate mental or visual picture of the curvature of space, or one of the mathematical concepts of infinity. Nor can we really have an adequate mental picture of the way in which certain animals experience things, such as the way in which bats 'see' by using ultrasonic waves. However, we know these concepts to be true because of solid evidence and not because of some non-rational ideas. Therefore we can say that we do indeed comprehend them.

Now what about the concept of a singular, all-knowing entity which has created the universe? It is impossible to have any mental or visual picture of such an entity, for evidence tells us that this entity must be unlike anything in the universe because this entity must be independent of space and time. The _evidence_ for the existence of this single intelligence lies in the design of nature itself, which we can freely examine; hence, such an ideology is rational. If one realizes this - through confirmation - then one can proceed to answer the question: Why Islam?

One of the main problems with an atheistic ideology is that it _cannot explain intelligence in the processes of the universe_. Another problem is that it tends to deprive life of meaning. Furthermore, we know that human beings are naturally inclined to be honest; however, in atheism there is a denial of an ultimate originator and of anything beyond death, which creates a contradiction and leads to an inconsistency in behaviour – on the one hand a person would be inclined to be honest, and on the other to be dishonest 'to make the most of this world'.[1]

Broadly speaking, with regard to theistic ideologies we have the revealed, the distorted and the man-made. One can easily say that a way of life communicated to humankind by the creator of this universe is preferred to man-made ideologies. If one wants to follow the advice of that which has made the universe and all that it contains - regarding what is beneficial or harmful - then it is better to refer to pristine communication from this originator, than to that communication which has been fabricated or distorted by man.

Those ideologies claiming to be based on revelations can be subjected to a number of tests, the first and most important of which is that of consistency. We must look for two types of consistency: internal and external. **Internal consistency** means that a statement made in a book must not contradict another statement in the same book. **External consistency** means that a statement made in a book must not contradict facts as we know, be they psychological, physical, chemical, historical, geographical, biological and so on. Applying these tests, consider the most important truth that all the supposedly revealed ideologies proclaim, that is, the existence and perfect attributes of God. God for all ideologies, that claim to be revealed, is supposed to be all knowing, all merciful, everlasting etc. However, some books imply that God's knowledge is limited and imperfect by saying that, for example, God was deceived by a human. In contrast, the Quran provides the perfect concept of an all-knowing, singular originator of this universe.

This leads us to the next test - that of **authenticity**. The question that should be asked is whether the scriptures that we have today are indeed a communication from the Creator to humankind. A study of the history of Islam would show that the present Quran is exactly the same as that which was communicated over one thousand four hundred years ago. During its revelation it was committed to memory by a large number of people and also written down.

Yet another test is that of **comprehensiveness**. A truly comprehensive ideology, revealed to humankind by the designer of the universe, would describe the most beneficial system in all spheres of life including the political, economical, social, medical and environmental spheres.

Lastly, we might look at the test of **universality**. Clearly, an ideology which is historically or graphically bound is not as good as that which applicable to all human beings, irrespective of the time and place of their origin.

In conclusion, if one uses the criteria of universality, comprehensiveness, authenticity and above all, consistency, one would find the Quran unique and worthy of investigation. It is interesting to note that the Quran itself stresses the above-mentioned approach. For example, in verse 82 of chapter 4, it is said, " **Will they not ponder about the Quran? If it had been from other than God, then they would have surely found in it many inconsistencies."**

Footnotes:

[1] If everyone insisted on 'making the most of this world', society as we know it would not exist. As a case in point, let us suppose that all those who wanted to 'make the most of this world' resorted to thievery. If this happened, no one would be producing the goods (growing food for instance) that the rest of us could steal. Hence it seems that 'making the most of this world' as system of action is doomed to failure. Could it then be a viable system of belief?
