| | | The worship of Gaps, you say?! |  |
| | | كاتب الموضوع | رسالة |
|---|
أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:30 pm | |
|
The worship of Gaps, you say?!
In this section, Dawkins flaunts over the comic book image of “god of the gaps” that he claims is an argument – or at least an intimidating objection - against all religion! We have discussed this meaning repeatedly in previous parts, and have clarified that though there is indeed a great deal of deities that have been (scientifically) proven false with the expanse of advancements in natural sciences, this is not the case with all religions all the same! He cannot prove that all religions suffer from this problem, no matter what he does! Yet the professor thinks that by joking around and making fun of some obviously corrupted texts in certain religious books; he would be making his point and justifying his position as an atheist!
He claims – first off – that religion – all religion – strangulates the quest for knowledge, on the grounds that whenever you don‟t know, you‟d easily say: “God knows” and just quit searching! Now as much as this image appeals to atheists, it may only be the case with false religions that are not delivered from the omniscient, all-wise creator, or ones that have been corrupted and spoilt! Followers of the true revelation of the creator understand that the Lord knows it all, and controls it all, yet they also know that they are here for a purpose, that purpose is based upon knowledge; knowledge that places everything in its right place, and gives a man the only wise and right justification for what he does with his life, including the ways he takes in his quest and search for advancement and prosperity in natural sciences and in all fields of human knowledge all the same! So there‟s indeed a great difference between telling people not to advance in „science‟, and telling them to let go of false or unethical paths that certain doctrines of faith (like atheism) have been driving natural sciences into!
312
A follower of the true heavenly wisdom is a man who knows exactly what he is here in this world to do! And thus, he knows when he walks into a lab, what exactly he is searching for and for what end; he holds that end or higher objective with reliable evidence that it is the truth from its only rightful and capable source, not the philosophy of another man like himself! So he does not waste his entire lifetime enslaved in his lab by the fallacious beliefs of another man! He knows that there are yet far more causes and laws that the Lord has created in this nature that we still do not know, and may have to search for and uncover by means of our human tools, for the sake of better fulfilling the purpose of our being on this earth! He‟s not doing science, posing questions just for the fun of it! A Muslim is certainly not afraid that as a believer, science may endanger his faith, or that as a scientist religion may leave him with nothing to do! Far from it!
And as a follower of the true heavenly revelation, he knows better indeed than waste time, money, and resources on a quest that is radically false or that bears no true benefit to mankind, on all levels! He knows much better!
Just listen to this quotation by Dawkins in which an atheist justifies his deep hate for all religion:
―Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do.‖ (Delusion p.126)
How pathetic is a man who just keeps working and working – blindly - with a certain practice just because “it gives him something to do”! This is indeed, my respectable reader, the emptiness of a blind and ignorant heart! He knows not what he is here on this Earth to do! At the far end of it; he knows not the meaning or purpose of life itself! He knows not what he should keep running his labs and his research for; he just sees himself enjoying the mystery and the glory of uncovering the mystery, so blindly he hits the gas and runs away… where to, it doesn‟t matter! Why and what for, who cares? He‟s just doing it for the fun of it… Only to prove that he can! Just because it gives him “something to do”!
313
If this is what it‟s all about to you professor, then by all means go ahead, close your eyes and have fun!
No, my respectable reader, religion does not teach us the virtue of being satisfied with ignorance; it teaches us the exact opposite to that! It teaches the wisdom of knowing what queries to claim and for what end! It gives the process its higher purpose, its meaning and gives it its only right path! Wisdom – to those who know it - starts from the point of knowing the right question to ask, and the right query to take to the lab! It‟s atheists who are satisfied with their ignorance in this respect!
The author then complains about creationists. He must understand though that their arguments against evolutionism are not by necessity the way scholars of every other religion would argue, and when you prove that creationism is wrong in many of its ways or arguments you certainly don‟t prove „religion‟ to be wrong! Now I will not be as naïve as he hopes, and declare – like creationists usually do - that since he cannot tell me how this evolved from that, or he cannot give me any “intermediate fossils”, or “missing links”, then “God did it” and hence it can only be “designed”! Instead, I would easily ravage his false reasoning at foundation level, as I‟ve been doing so far in this literature! My argumentation in this book goes deep underneath all that “noise” to the level where every reasonable man should be arguing against atheism in general and Darwinism in particular! I am not in the least intimidated by the slander or the expel by some academic community here or there, that many people may fear, and thus find themselves forced to compromise and seek some „middle grounds‟! It was this intimidation that spawned pathetic positions in contemporary Christian thought like (Creationism) with its many different flavors: (old Earth, young Earth, Neo-creationism, progressive creationism …etc.)! I have no reservations whatsoever in hammering mainstream philosophy wherever it is, as long as I know how to forge my arguments and present my evidence clear as day!
―The following is hypothetical but entirely typical. A creationist speaking: 'The elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog is irreducibly complex. No part of it would do any good at all until the
314
whole was assembled. Bet you can't think of a way in which the weasel frog's elbow could have evolved by slow gradual degrees.' If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, the creationist draws a default conclusion: 'Right then, the alternative theory, "intelligent design", wins by default.'‖ (Delusion p.126)
I really pity this poor “creationist” here! He so easily fell in the trap! As for me, I don‟t need to do anything to prove that the weasel frog never “evolved” an elbow joint, at all! As we observe it in its locale, we can easily see that it couldn‟t possibly do without the joint there in the first place! It could‟ve never become a species to begin with, if it didn‟t have one! Try removing that joint out from its elbow – or any part of it -, put the frog back in the lake and see for yourself! Now that would indeed be an ―interesting project for a graduate student‖, wouldn‟t it?!
The philosophical trick here is in the precise definition of the function (X) of the elbow joint in the Weasel frog! Now this particular job (X) cannot be done any better by any other biological system, and clearly enough, this kind of species, suited to this particular ecosystem as it is, cannot survive without that joint as it is in there! It thus follows – rationally – that there couldn‟t have possibly been a time when this kind of species – as a species – didn‟t have an organ that was good enough for job (X) that this organ is doing, otherwise it wouldn‟t have become a species at all! Unless of course it didn‟t need it back then, and it fitted perfectly well without it; which – in fact - makes it another species altogether, one that had no need for job (X), but for some other job (Y) that helped it survive with its own ecosystem! Now, this has nothing to do with creationism or reducible complexity or even biology folks; this is plain commonsense and elementary logic!26
-------------------------------------------
26 It may be useful to add here that this clear distinction in definition of biological function between organs of fossilized species and current ones leaves the inference of ancestry baseless! The distinction between (X) and (Y) as functions should be rationally sufficient to draw the same distinction between (A) and (B) as species! It is no plausible argumentation to infer that (B) was ancestral to (A) on the grounds that – for example – we never dug out a fossil of a (A) from the geological stratum where we found (B)! Absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence! Adaptation or even selective breeding – which are both facts known by observation - are not indicators of the possibility of such a relation between (A) and (B), because neither adaptation nor artificial selection – as we observe them – could possibly develop a
315
So I‟m not even interested in whatever new fiction he may come up with, linking some living species to one another in such a warped way, placing them in another Darwinian ladder, attempting to use that for evidence to prove his position that there is no creator! This is all child-play to me, and a waste of precious time!
Creation is the only plausible answer around (to a question that shouldn‟t have ever come to be asked at all in the first place) and it will always be so, because it is the only rational mode of thinking for every sane, healthy human being! What Darwin really did was plot a theoretical, philosophical attempt to twist human reason to the point of accepting that there could be another alternative to creation! And now Dawkins is actually condemning those scientists who speak of “intelligent design” as an alternate to evolution! Isn‟t it a pity? To twist man‟s reason –as such - is to destroy the way he thinks and the way he sees things around him! Nothing is more worthy of being labeled as “bad science” or “pseudo-science”, no matter how mainstream it has become!
This is why naturally, when we blow a Darwinian‟s arguments out of the water - with sound and solid rational arguments I must add - we are only putting things back in their right place and restoring the right order of things in a man‟s mind!
So it is supposed to be viewed as silly of him to complain and object that when creationists disprove evolution in any given particularity, they believe that by default they are proving creation! Well yes of course they‟re not! No healthy human being has to do anything at all to prove “creation”! It has always been you – the Darwinians – who bear the burden of proof, to prove to all mankind that their very own senses and their very own minds and tongues have always been fooling them! And if it may help bring some atheists back to their senses that we demonstrate in detail some of the clear rational incoherencies of Darwinian philosophy, then so be it! It has always
----------------------------------------------
new organ to serve a new function (X) instead of a function (Y) in species (B), thus turning it into species (A)! We never saw that! It’s amazing how they don’t feel that they need to – at least – show us that this phenomenon did happen one day!
316
been the atheist‟s pathetic cause and struggle – exclusively so - to sway people‟s reason and twist it to have them accept this theory!
You speak of the political immunity of ID? Well, Fact of the matter is; no other theory in any branch of natural sciences in the documented history of mankind has ever enjoyed such a faithfully devoted cult of followers and even militant apologists in scientific academia like the theory of Darwin; despite the very clearly counter-intuitive and counter-rational tenets upon which it is founded!
And again I cannot miss the chance to express the sorrow I feel towards “creationists” who hang on to the argument of lack of fossil intermediates! By this, the poor guys are actually admitting to evolutionists that there is indeed a reasonable frame of arguable evidence within which they work as they examine their fossils, and that once they could come up with the “missing link” they would be granted philosophical approval as an evidently proven theory!
This is why many Christian scientists (creationists) would unfortunately fail the debate, and instead of disproving Darwinism, they usually find themselves trapped in it, solidifying its foundations; thus giving their opponents leverage on the outset of it, that only leaves them in need to make as much of a compromise as they can! And eventually you get many versions of Christianity where people haste to give any interpretation they see fit to any scripture that may appear to come in contrast with this or that theory! I say they do indeed lose the debate from the very moment they mention the word „science‟ there!
Science is clearly not the arena of argumentation where this battle is to be fought! This is why they would only find themselves confused, trapped and strangled to death in a futile struggle among the many branches of this gigantic tree of theory, and naturally fail to address – or even see - its rotten roots deep down! The roots of its monumental irrationality! No wonder they leave their opponents making fun of what seems to be a relentless search on their part for some “gap” or “missing link” in the story to fit their god into! And no wonder they left a man like Dawkins with a final resolution of never
317
to debate a “creationist” again! I mean what on earth did they expect?! They slid down the same slippery slope with atheists, and found themselves following their very same pitiful lines of thought, ending up with the label of “pseudo-scientists”, as though they were some little children trying to prove by means of fossil findings, archaeology, genetics and microbiology that Santa Clause created the universe billions of years ago from his castle up in the North Pole! This is how they made it look, when they effectively turned the undisputable fact of creation into an “ism”! By God, What „transitional fossils‟ are you people challenging them to present? I mean what are you doing guys? Just get out of there!
May the Lord guide you all to the truth!
―We could easily have had no fossils at all, and still the evidence for evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and geographical distribution, would be overwhelmingly strong.‖ (Delusion p.127)
Clearly; the very same rational problem with the understanding of what “evidence” is! No matter how many more Darwinian interpretations of observable phenomena – in fossils or elsewhere - you may pile up to your theory, this doesn‟t fix the fundamental corruption in its rational basis!
And what does molecular biology do in favor of evolution anyway? It never demonstrated any process of ancestry with new organs emerging or the advent of any form of new genetic data that would significantly shift the set of functions a creature‟s organic makeup is perfectly set to perform! Geographical distribution does not prove common ancestry either! Darwinian ancestry and local speciation is merely a proposed explanation for it! Geographical differences among species in all cases are only the natural outcome of thousands of years of adaptation and re-adaptation to distinct natural conditions!
Actually I may argue that this persistent attitude of sheer stubbornness and blindness by worshippers of Darwin is indeed one of the major reasons why the Lord chose to do that! For the sake of the test of life, and for every arrogant heart that has seen the falsity of its methods and “explanations” and
318
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:31 pm | |
|
yet would still insist on advocating fallacy nonetheless, and rejecting the truth as clear as it sees it; to really deserve the price it will one day pay for its arrogant choices!
When on that day they say: ―Oh Lord, why did you choose to create life the way you did, fooling us into believing that it all evolved from pure chance?‖ Or ―Oh God why did you choose to cause some events in the world in ways that we do not understand and ask us to accept them as your creation?‖! What excuse would they have then? On what base of argument will they stand? You rejected what you could not explain claiming that you do that because you could not explain it (scientifically); when you know very well that this doesn‟t make it a fallacy, and that this is not the true reason you rejected it! You insisted on denying the perfectly clear mastery of creation of this world, on the basis of an idea that is so obviously false, made by a heart like your own, so what excuse do you think you may have? With the sheer corruption of their methods clarified and the irrationality of their claims exposed before them, here and now on Earth, what excuse would they really have there? Well, when a man chooses willingly to reject the clearest of rational necessities, and insists on calling his own synthetic fallacies evidence; he does indeed deserve to be fooled, for it is he who did that to himself, and it is then a perfectly just and fair reason for the Lord to create certain creatures in a certain way for atheists to fool themselves into believing them to share ancestry or to have “evolved” the way they claim they did, with no “creation” whatsoever!
Fair enough indeed!
Choice in this life is responsibility; a responsibility of an eternal fate no less!
They insist on denying the undeniable, taking solace in false reasoning and a fundamentally false application of the scientific method!
I see a wide hole in the ground, how do I explain it? I may propose it to be due to the work of a man, the explosion of a bomb, the bombardment of some meteorite, or some natural seismic activity or the motion of Earth strata above one another! I may add a few more possible explanations – according to my limited understanding and experience with similar causes to
319
similar effects (analogy) – to the sample space of probability there. Then with closer examination I may pick the most probable analogy from within that space (that set of possibilities I have proposed), make it “the” explanation, and go from there to explain all the details of the event. It would be by all means plausible science!
The question now is this: what if there is – for example – some ample rational argument that proves that it was actually impossible for any man to have ever placed a bomb in this place? Shouldn‟t it be enough to blow this line of probabilities off the sample space entirely? And what if we could actually prove - with rationally indisputable argumentation - that the hole cannot have been caused by something that we could submit to analogy in the first place, and that it is by necessity the remainder of an event that has to be like nothing we ever saw or could even imagine? Would there still be any sample space of probability to tinker with? Would this „gathering and piling up of forensic evidence‟, then, make any sense at all?
You‟d think that such a fundamental rule of rationality concerning the function and value of “evidence” is too clear to demand explanation or demonstration! However, with a mind entrenched in Darwinism; nothing is clear enough!
So we have to spell it out, over and over again.
Atheists would often complain that “people of religion” do not accept those forms of evidence (tons and tons of overwhelming evidence) in Biology because of their faith in their gods and religions, even though they would accept much lesser forms of evidence in many other fields of natural science! Well yes of course they would reject any such “evidence” that seeks to make them believe that by their nature, humans are incapable of telling their left from their right, and that‟s why they view the world to be “created” when in fact it‟s not! Yes of course science grants acceptance sometimes to much lower ranks of evidence than this huge forensic accumulation that we have here; but whenever a scientist seeks to pile such kind of “evidence” in any field of natural sciences for the sake of validating a
320
theory that violates a standard axiom of human reason, language and rational necessities; it is by all means bad science! 27
I repeat that it is not the ways of empirical or forensic science that I reject here! It‟s the Darwinian application of those particular ways for the sake of this corrupt philosophy they insist to believe in! It is the philosophical platform upon which this “science” stands that I am rejecting and arguing against! Because it is from that platform that their ranking and evaluation of “evidence” itself emerges; and that‟s where they have the problem! This is why we say no matter how many “tons” of “evidence” you pile up people; it accounts for nothing! This rank of evidence simply cannot validate an argument for an idea as philosophically corrupt as „natural selection‟, not to mention an argument against (creation), no matter how big the pile grows! Imagine dropping coins, one coin after another, in a money jar that has no bottom! This is what those thousands of findings (from many disciplines of science) really account for! They just fall straight from the bottom of the jar!
Some atheists would draw the analogy of Evolution theory to the atomic theory, arguing that they both come at a higher level than fact, and attempt to explain tons of facts and givens of data by means of rational hypothesis and induction, and thus they draw the conclusion that if you rejected
---------------------------------------------
27 One of the most popular parables that paleontologists like to make about their profession, and use to charge children‟s enthusiasm for their field of research, is the way they describe themselves as “scientific detectives”! They say they are doing pretty much the same job as a detective who is examining physical evidence in attempt to solve a crime! Well, I say this is by all means a false analogy, and the reason is quite clear!
First of all, as a detective, I start my search from the point where I postulate a motive! This comes from the fact that no crime should take place without a motive! If you had that basic fact removed from the process, then there shall be no way any detective could ever solve any crime, or have any grounds to hold anybody suspect at all! A paleontologist on the other hand, builds on the assumption that there can be no motive, because there is no suspect at all in the first place! He sees no purpose beyond the past events that he claims to be examining, the way a detective does!
Thus, in crime analysis, a detective does not work his way with gathering evidence to prove that such a clearly perfect crime should have had no doer at all! He does not admit it to be a crime and then seek to prove that nobody did it! Furthermore; he is never so blind as to keep up with his theories and assumptions even when the real suspect comes forth and makes his confession, and is evidently and clearly – by necessity of reason - the only one capable of doing it!
321
Darwinian Evolutionism for the mere definition of it as a theory not a fact, then you might as well reject the Atomic theory (for example)! I argue that this is by all means a false analogy! This is because quite obviously, there is a major difference between the rational foundations upon which Darwinism and the atomic theory are built! Yes indeed both are theories, and both use scientific observation in adding further propositions and explanations to support the hypotheses; but what about the basic rationale upon which the hypothesis itself is founded, and its philosophical validity? How can they even claim the philosophical foundations of both theories to be analogous?
Not even close!
The atomic theory does not demand us to actually invert the way we make sense of reality around us! We do not have to counter our natural commonsense so we could accept it! It does not force us to put new meanings – false meanings – into language (the very tool that defines all mental processes of perception and cognition in man), and to “bite our own tongues” to not describe things we see in the world around us using the only right words we can think of to describe them! In short, the atomic theory does not stand upon a philosophy that is one millionth as rationally corrupt as the theory of Darwinian Evolution! And to us, Muslims, in addition to rational evidence, there is irrefutable scriptural evidence that cannot possibly be challenged by this caliber of scientific evidence!
In a public discussion that Dawkins held with physicist Lawrence Krauss, in Stanford University 28, Quantum physics was mentioned, and Krauss argued - those are not his exact words - that if people are finding trouble accepting Darwin‟s theory because it is counterintuitive, then they might as well reject all of quantum mechanics, a field where little next to nothing is understood by anybody! He uses the double-slit experiment as an example of how “counterintuitive” the very observations that we make at subatomic level are; they are objectionable he says! He says that when throwing a baseball as a projectile, it takes a certain path that is predictable, calculable, and quite rational! However, when you throw an electron, it takes unpredictable paths, and when thrown at a sheet with two slits, it does not act like any particle
--------------------------------------------
28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLctxRf7duU
322
should; it appears as though it passed through both slides simultaneously, and comes out on the other side to interfere with itself! He tries to impress the audience with the fact that this is certainly not a behavior that any reasonable man could understand of a particle (being in two places at the same time)!
Well, first of all, Dr. Krauss, you are indeed much smarter than make such a silly analogy; making people think that at subatomic level we should expect to see particles behave like baseballs! You know better than that! You know that at subatomic level quantum particles reveal their dual nature (wave-particle duality), and you know that at that level we humans are playing close to the point where the definitive boundary between energy and matter as we know them is (at least) hazed and obscured, taking the whole thing beyond our ability to model or predict (the way we do with a baseball)! I don‟t know if we‟ll ever comprehend the quantum world the way we comprehend the mechanics of a baseball, I have no reason to believe that we may not (although I find it to be quite unlikely); but we all agree that we currently don‟t know what exactly is going on down there!
So the reason why our grasp on particle activity at subatomic level is so fuzzy and our understanding of it is so unclear; is obviously because those particles are not really particles! They are more like packets of condensed energy with wave properties that we are only beginning to understand! Scientists have known about the dual nature of a photon (and obviously of electrons and almost every other quantum particle) for long enough now that you‟d think they would realize the reason why it is clearly not behaving the way we may expect a baseball to behave! It does not conform to our mechanical definition of a particle; it‟s another physical entity. Thus an electron is certainly not to be analogized so easily to a baseball! It‟s not even a „ball‟ to begin with!
This analogy reminds me of a time not too long ago when people used to think of the atomic structure as a 2-D circle (as in Bohr‟s first depiction of it at the beginning of the twentieth century) with a nucleus at the centre and electrons orbiting around it! Little do we know today, and much less did we know back then! So you really can‟t help wondering; what impact could
323
such an anti-rational approach to what‟s going on down there have on future research in this particular field? Is it about to turn into yet another doctrine of philosophical nonsense, rather than an actual discipline of natural science?
Yes we do not yet know how to explain such a duality, when and why an electron acts as a particle, and when and why it would behave as a wave or even as a mere packet of energy, and may – in fact - be approaching the limit of our human ability to model and theorize at that point; but this certainly does not justify the nonsensical interpretation by some philosopher of physics who would easily say: ―well, this proves that unlike anything man has ever seen or accepted: a particle could exist in two places at the same time‖! Of course it couldn‟t! Nothing could! This – to build upon the only tool that we humans have and trust for explanation and understanding – is certainly impossible; for anything at all to be in two places at the same time! We are not going to question the basic axioms of our human reason because of such postmodernist nonsense, are we?! This is indeed a grieve danger to all human knowledge; do not lose your grip on reality and reason just because you cannot explain certain patterns of behavior of subatomic particles! Snap out of that, professor Krauss, before you lose your mind!
What we observe down there is to be explained and understood only if one day we could understand this bizarre interference between the properties of matter, wave and energy, and explain it in terms of 1+1=2! Those properties are only distinctively articulated and defined in our current knowledge within a theoretical (mathematical) model that only deals reliably with the level of our common perception of the world! This is why it‟s not working at quantum level, and that‟s no surprise to any reasonable man! There‟s nothing irrational or counterintuitive about that! It‟s only natural human ignorance – at this stage of human history - about something that we see for the first time! An ignorance that may indeed turn into laughing material someday in the future!
Irrational interpretation = false interpretation! We have to be capable of throwing this judgment forcefully in the face of every enthusiastic physicist who starts speaking nonsense, and getting wet dreams because of what he
324
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:32 pm | |
|
sees in his lab, because if we cannot make this distinction between rational and irrational, then science itself is a lost case, and nothing will ever make sense!
So do not make such a statement “Quantum mechanics makes no sense, so go ahead, become a Darwinian and let go of your reason”, and propagate this nonsense as “consciousness raising”! This is a typical example of a fallacy seeking to be justified by complex ignorance, in addition to what you may call (argument from incredulity)! What could possibly be more miserable and anti-knowledge than such a position? And it comes from people who are viewed to be the elites of scientific academia! Those are the people who drive the process of science in the West today to its glorious future; and they‟re out to enlighten the world with what they believe!
Darwinism is obviously attempting - through the likes of Dawkins and Krauss - to have people convinced that it‟s okay to find a theory counterintuitive or even irrational, and be satisfied with it nonetheless, just as it is the case with many theories that seek to explain the quantum riddle! Well I say sorry professor; we do not accept irrationality or counter-intuition in Quantum physics any more than we do in Biology or in any other field of human knowledge for that matter! Our minds are not to be fooled or made fun of! This is not what they are there for! “Ridiculous observations” should not be given ridiculous explanations, because first of all there is no such a thing as “ridiculous” or (counterintuitive) observation; there‟s rather a currently unexplainable observation, or an observation that defies our ability to do any form of analogy, but not a “ridiculous” or “irrational” observation! And as for proposing explanations, it should come as firsthand logic, an A-B-C of human rationality, that there couldn‟t possibly be one object in two places at the same time; so any theory that bases its interpretations and explanations on this nonsense, is easily at the same rank with the Darwinian theory and should also be rejected and ridiculed! It builds over a fundamentally false rationale!
So be aware my kind reader that while sane people who do make sense of things and who demand a path of straight and healthy rationality should reject irrational quantum explanations just as they reject Darwinism, there
325
are people on the other hand who are trying so hard to have people accept Darwinism on the grounds that many people did accept counterintuitive (irrational) explanations that have been proposed in other fields of natural sciences, and did not file lawsuits against teaching them in schools! Well, I don‟t know about you my respectable reader, but to my mind this is an outrage!
So when Dawkins comments happily saying: ―Well, ridiculous observations call for ridiculous theories!‖! I can only comment saying: ―Well, ridiculous theories only come from ridiculous people, professor!‖ And I thank God we‟re not that kind of people.
It is really sad to find so many evolutionists willing to debate with their opponents on every single aspect or detail of their marvelous story of natural history, the fossil record, the ancestry tree and so forth; yet they are so unwilling to address the core philosophy, science philosophy, at the level of rational foundations of the theory itself! It is only at that level that evolutionists might really see what exactly is wrong with the “science” of their theory; if they were ever willing to see! Good science and bad science is to be judged by the validity and rationality of the fundamental philosophy underneath any given theory of science, just as it is to be judged by the soundness of its observations and experiments! It is not to be judged by how many more findings you can explain on the same course of philosophy of an utterly “ridiculous” theory!
It‟s about time you realized, my atheist reader, that the money Jar is bottomless; it doesn‟t matter how many more coins you can drop in, through the slot on the top!
Quote:
―When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J. B. S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.' No such anachronistic fossils have ever been authentically found, despite discredited creationist legends of human skulls in the Coal Measures and human footprints interspersed with dinosaurs'.‖ (Delusion p.127)
326
Even if you did find that fossil rabbit in the “Precambrian” one day, evolution still does not accord with Popper falsification principle, because there would still be a barrage of other possible explanations to such a finding, the least of which is the conclusion that rabbits may have evolved much earlier than is currently thought! Darwinians do that all the time, don‟t they? There‟s always a way out! So how could they possibly be falsified by any direct observation or empirical experimentation?! Any observation that works as evidence only after it is given a theoretical explanation; can never end any theoretical debate on a theory of science! And that‟s the case with everything that evolutionists (and creationists in the most case) would call evidence! There will always be exclamations like: “Oh, but we never found any such fossil!” or “If we find such a fossil then we will prove to be wrong!” or “Perhaps we will find this fossil one day, we haven‟t dug up all the Earth!” … etc. But the fact that they never found a certain fossil doesn‟t mean that it never existed, does it? There will always be an endless number of possible explanations, and never any form of direct observational proof to actually falsify Darwin‟s claims! We will never find a fossil or a genetic code or a complex biological system that disproves evolution in the eyes of its followers, the way a black swan disproves the statement that all swans are white! Only if we travelled back in time would we obtain such a kind of observation that either falsifies or validates any of the Darwinian claims in a way that leaves no room for any further philosophical objections, and that‟s simply impossible!
This is why people have got to understand that the scientific method does not work in favor of either of the two sides in the debate between atheists and the rest of mankind regarding the existence of God! It‟s just healthy reason versus sick reason! Some humans have got really sick and they need serious help; that‟s why there ever came to be such a debate!
The Cat and mouse game of fossils (or you may call it the fossil challenge game) is played by both sides of the debate in the west today: Christian creationists and evolutionists all the same! In fact I could even name a few Muslim scientists - who really know less about Islam than they know about the corrupt logic of Darwinism – who got themselves trapped in this futile
327
game of fossils nonetheless! Both teams are playing the game of what fossil to come up with, and where to put it; on the assumption that not finding any fossil remains of a particular form of species, is enough evidence to prove that it never existed, or that at least, it never lived in this or that age! This conviction had both teams busy searching eagerly for certain features in remains of dead animals, on the hope that they come up with a breakthrough “finding” that ends the debate! I really feel sorry for them all! What a waste!
Now this notion, the idea that they may actually keep searching desperately for a particular type of fossils forever and never manage to come up with one, has posed a great ideological threat over researchers in the West, which did in fact lead to many famous forgeries! This is why we have seen many scandals of fake fossils in attempt to fill the so called “missing link”, mostly between man and his proclaimed ancestor! Those fakeries were indeed propagated and advocated strongly by science magazines and the media in general, deemed as scientific breakthroughs of their time, only to prove afterwards to have been nothing but cheap acts of forgery! Some evolutionists would easily fake a skull from some little fragments of a jaw bone, or even from a pig tooth for the sake of cheap glory, or for the achievement of a PHD degree or so!
Now in the light of such a poor rationale towards the meaning of a fossil finding and its radically false use as “evidence” on both sides of the debate, and the fact that they have been proven to easily commit such cheap acts; what credit of scientific integrity could any sane man still give to any of their proclaimed “substantial findings” now? How do you know they really found everything they claim they found, and that none of this is fake? They have already been proven to perform acts of deception and forgery and to have people believe them for years, so how could you people trust them on what they claim they have, and the way they manipulate it to make it support their story (according to their notion of evidence)? This is a moral question here! Not that this fossil frenzy really proves anything to either parties, we know it doesn‟t; the point here is the concept of forgery itself and the motive from whence it arises!
328
My point here is: how desperate is a scientist who would do something like this, for the sake of proving a theory of “natural science” towards which he‟s supposed to be skeptic? What does this theory really mean to him, if not a theory of natural sciences like all theories? Why not go out to the world and say: “I failed! The hypothesis in my thesis proved to be wrong, or did not prove to be right! I could not come up with a single observation that could qualify as indisputable evidence!”? Why not do that when it is revealed to you? Why lie? Why fake?
Well, the answer is simple! They lie because their personal faith depends on it; not to mention of course their academic careers as scientists!
What other theory of science in the history of mankind do you know has had such a reputation of having some researchers actually forge “evidence” to support it? This is not the work of a “skeptic” or “objective” scientist; it‟s the work of a desperate believer who feels challenged to prove the validity of his false faith, no matter what! It‟s the typical work of a minister of a false religion!
So given this fishy reputation with fossils; when Darwinians wage wars of propaganda against other findings that come from the opposite camp (like giant human skulls or mega-fauna 29 or the so-called out of place
-------------------------------------------------
29 On a side note, it is narrated in the most authentic books of Hadith (AlBuhkary, Muslim and others) that prophet Muhammad Sallalahu Alihi wa sallam said: “Allah created Adam at the height of sixty cubits, and then He said to him: Go and greet those Angels, and listen to their greeting; that should be your greeting and that of your offspring after you. So Adam said to them: “Peace be on you”, they replied “Peace be on you and mercy from Allah”, they added “mercy from Allah”. Everybody who enters heaven will be in the size (and shape) of Adam. And ever since his time, humans have been decreasing (diminishing) in that.” (AlBukhary, no. 3326)
This Hadith tells us that the first man to walk this Earth was about 32 meters high (one cubit is about 56 cm), and ever since then, humans have been dropping gradually in size until today the tallest man would hardly exceed 2.4 meters! Some stubborn enemies of the truth would make fun of this Hadith and say it proves that Islam or Sunnah is false, whereas some ignorant Muslims would argue that it is not authentic because it cannot be true! First of all I emphasize that this Hadith is indeed at the highest level of authenticity there can be after the Qur‟an, in the scholarly science of Hadith, so we have no reason whatsoever to doubt that those were the exact words of the prophet (Sallalahu Alihi wa sallam). Having said this, we remind every Muslim reader that there couldn‟t possibly be any rational objection whatsoever against a positively authenticated scripture of Islam, and this one is no exception! There‟s nothing irrational about Adam – regardless of how far back he lived in the past – being 32 meters tall! There‟s nothing irrational about the generations after him dropping gradually in hight, in lifetime spans, in physical power
329
(anomalous) archeological finds … etc) findings that are thought by creationists to support the opposite position, how is their media machine to be trusted on that? I mean, when they claim that all that their opponents ever claimed to have found – all of it – was nothing but myth or forgery, who could ever trust them on that claim?
I‟m not claiming that the opposite team does not have cases of forgery as well (though I do not know of any particular case that was reported and exposed as forgery on the creationist side)! I can easily understand that when some immoral Christian scientist who lacks scientific integrity and honesty
----------------------------------------------
and even in intelligence (and the capacity of memorization, for it is narrated in the Qur‟an that Allah taught Adam the names of everything on Earth)! We Muslims need nothing more than the authentication of a single narrative of this story to believe it to be true! As for missionaries and atheists we tell them that we do not care what fossils say, we do not care what archeological finds may say, we do not raise such forensic theories at any level of valuable argumentation for or against such a story in our scripture! I can argue right now that those remains of mega-fauna and giant lizards (Dinosausrs) indicate that there was indeed a time when all – or most - elements of natural life were orders of magnitude larger than they are today (including man)! I can even argue that the proportion between man and the largest lizard in his time was kept the same even as this decrease in size took place! The Komodo Dragon (considered to be the largest Lizard on Earth today) could go as large as 3 meters (from tip of tail to tip of nostrils), whereas the average man today is 1.8 m tall. Keeping this proportion, how large do you expect man may have been at a time when the largest lizard around may have exceeded 40 meters of length? Well, you do the math! I can even argue that many “creationist” researchers did find remains of giant human skeletons, and highly sophisticated artifacts in strata where man was supposed to be nothing but a miserable hominid still hunting and gathering; findings which were all – for obvious reasons – expelled by the Darwinian community! I may even argue that ancient megalithic remains like the great pyramid in Egypt in which a single brick of stone weighs over seventy tons, could not have been built in antiquity time by any of those nonsensical Egyptologist explanations, and that at the time of its construction (whenever that was), it was in fact – relative to the scale of man – no higher than a two storey building at our current scale! I can go further with this, but I wouldn‟t do that! None of this conjectural archaeology proves anything or is even worthy argumentation to me, not to mention whatever conjectural responses atheists may come up with in response! A fool is a man who hangs his acceptance of the truth on such arguments! You want to believe there were never any giant humans on Earth because you never found such remains, or that the great pyramid was built by some aliens who have been toying with us ever since the dawn of mankind, or that man evolved only after dinosaurs became extinct; have it your way then, but do not dare accuse our scripture because of this nonsense! Muslim scholars do not take such ways to prove the validity of what their prophet teaches them! It suffices perfectly to blast away those silly objections, to say that there can be no rational objections whatsoever against this Hadith! Suppose you spent your entire lifetime and died without ever finding the fossil remains of a giant man, or any remains of certain great civilizations the Qur‟an tells about (like the kingdom of Solomon for example, the remains of which Christian archeologists have been trying to find in total vain) what argument would you have on the Day of Judgment rejecting the truth because of this? Quit fooling yourselves atheists, and reconsider your choices before it‟s too late!
330
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:34 pm | |
|
is driven by mainstream thought into believing in the value of fossils as “evidence” for or against Creation, he may easily be tempted to forge some fossils to help his case! I do understand this urge in a helpless man who openly declares that he is defending his faith (which doesn‟t change the fact that it is a forgery)! But when it comes from the opposite party, which claims to be skeptic regarding the tool of their science, and “faith free” (so to speak), and to be only doing a normal “natural sciences” research on a theory that is by nature, a man‟s proposition that should be open to refutation and replacement; this is something that should not be taken lightly! It further demonstrates that whatever atheists say about their being “skeptic” in their scientific query; they‟re actually lying to themselves as well as to others! It is indeed a war of faith on both sides, not just a debate on a theory of natural science!
Please note that when I say they cannot be trusted, I‟m not talking about a scientist who can test every fossil in the lab first hand to check for himself the validity of the claim! I‟m basically talking about the rest of the scientific community and the world on the watch; people to whom a fossil finding – its story and its denunciation all the same - is basically a piece of news; one that could impact the illiterate public deeply! How can they trust them now?
So when the author here speaks of “discredited creationist legends of human skulls in the Coal Measures and human footprints interspersed with dinosaurs'” I can only just sit back and enjoy the show! No sane man should decide his position in the most crucial issue of concern to every human being in this world; his position of faith towards his own creator (for or against), on the outcome of such a game of fiction and archaeological emptiness! None of this nonsense – on either sides of the debate - does any good at the level of argumentation and evidence at all!
The problem with the word “evidence” is that it does not always mean “proof”! It may sometimes only mean “a sign that supports a certain claim”. So easily would an ardent atheist come to say that this is what they mean with their use of the word evidence! He‟d say: “I never said that this or that evidence “proves” Darwinism! This is not what “evidence” means to me as a scientist!”
331
I‟d then say; in all cases, and whatever the meaning you give to the word, or whatever the level of “proof” you think it establishes; the concept of using a hypothetical explanation for a certain finding to support a theory (a hypothesis in itself), and claim that the more of such “explanations” you can come up with and make accord with that theory, the more “true” it becomes: is only plausible argumentation if and only if you are not building the case for a rationally invalid or inconsistent theory! No such accumulation of evidence could be strong enough to oppose – or to even challenge - the rational necessity of certain givens of axiomatic human reason! This is a serious epistemic fallacy, and it is to be viewed as such in all disciplines of human knowledge!
I hope I do not have to make it any clearer that we do understand what a theory is, and how it is regarded in different disciplines of science and human knowledge. It is precisely why we so often say: “Darwinism stands no chance in this debate when it is only a theory”! 30
Had the debate been held between two diverse theories that followed the very same methods in their postulation, building on equally justifiable rational basis, then we would‟ve said: okay, let‘s weigh the evidence on both sides and see which theory will tip the scale, and hence be viewed as a better candidate for an explanation. However, neither is Darwinism in debate with another “theory” (creation was never a theory!), nor does it stand on sound foundations of reason to begin with! So there‟s no “scale” to tip at all!
Thus I say, I would‟ve had no problem accepting such a model of accumulative supporting propositions and explanations (as a good suggestion for what the truth may be, as it is the case with many theories in many branches of science), had I not known in certainty that the rational
--------------------------------------------------
30 In the literature of (Usoul al Fiqh: The foundations of jurisprudence in Islam) there is indeed the richest legacy of argumentation to be found anywhere on earth, on the issue of the ranking of evidence and the assessment of theorization in the deduction of rulings from given scriptures; a legacy that I say all scientists need to study, to take wisdom on how to evaluate the power of an evidence)! I do not describe it as „rich‟ because of the efforts of its scholars – as great as it really is – but because of the fact that it is built – as a discipline – on the given wisdom of revelation! An argument or a rule is valid in this discipline basically because it relies on scriptural evidence and the induction thereof, in addition of course to its demonstrable rational validity! There‟s much that the world needs to learn from this discipline of knowledge to see how far atheistic reasoning has taken science and human knowledge in general from the ways of sound rationality and coherent argumentation.
332
foundations of this theory are scandalously false! This is why in debate, atheists are often reminded that unlike the meaning of creation, Darwinian evolution is only a theory! They need to understand what exactly they are pushing it against!
However, to them it is much more than “just a theory”! It is as deep a faith to them as every theist‟s faith is to him! So you see them use the word theory and the word evidence over and over again, without any proper accord with its actual “size” as a proposition, in comparison to its opposition! They keep coming up with more explanatory stories for fossil findings thinking that the more they could come up with, the stronger their position of “evidence” becomes in the debate!
That‟s what a Darwinian paleontologist – for example - does, typically! He follows his deep faith in making up every new explanation and theory for every new finding. He digs, brings out fossil remains, uses his imagination in identifying by selective analogy what kind of a species this specimen may belong to (no matter how scarce those remains may be), hypothesizes the rest of its structure and even gets an artist to fantasize what it may have looked like, in accordance – usually – with the “dating” info he gets, or the stratum he finds it in, makes up a story for it and places it somewhere in his flexible myth of Darwinian ancestry tree, then puts it – when he‟s done - in some museum of natural sciences and have people believe that this is another breakthrough that further solidifies Darwinism! This is what they typically call a new addition to their score of “overwhelming” evidence!
I have to admit that their ability to make up such stories the way they do on every fossil they add to their gallery, and accumulate upon their mainframe of theory is really impressive; takes a vast span of creativity and imagination I should say; I mean not everybody could come up with such detailed sketches of a “hominid”, the way it looked, the way it fed, lived, and “hunted” its food, based only on a tooth, a fraction of a lower jaw bone, and some piece of crude pointed stone! But what on Earth does any of this fiction, offer to human knowledge at the level of “proof” for Darwinism versus the rational necessity of creation?
333
It offers nothing – in reality – for the sake of proving Darwin‟s case! No matter how many of such “evidences” they come up with, the theory will always be no more than a monumental work of fiction that could‟ve never lived that long, had it not been for the faithfulness and sheer devotion of atheist scientists all over the world!
Thus I stand justified when I hold that Darwinism is simply an out of scope theory! It‟s a fundamentally wrong application of the scientific method! It seeks answers to certain questions in all the wrong places, and refuses to see why it is wrong! After admitting the irrefutable necessity of God being there, questions like, who He is, where we came from, Why He made us and what He wants of us, and where we all go to when we die, are clearly not questions of natural science or even philosophy! This knowledge has to be received from Him; and nowhere else, and it has to be authenticated – as a source – beyond any reasonable doubt! It‟s an epistemological necessity!
Thus we say that believers in the creator, followers of all religions other than atheism and its branches, do not take what they have about the question of origins and the existence of God for the work of theory proposed by a man in some branch of natural sciences or philosophy; this is not what they claim it to be! So you cannot ask them to approach those issues with skepticism! Regardless of whether or not they can prove their particular position of faith to be the truth; it is – naturally – a position of certainty to them, by definition! This is why emphasis is made here and in every argument by every follower of religion on the heaviest meaning of proof rather than this wishful probabilistic thinking that Darwinians – like many other theorists in other branches of natural science - would call “pieces of evidence”! This is why they‟re usually saying, as they criticize Darwinian argumentation for atheism: “This doesn‟t prove anything”! 31
The position is usually expressed as such: “who are you to tell me to let go of the existence of God, the omniscient creator, for the sake of some human theory?” This objection stands justifiable regardless of the validity of the
--------------------------------------------
31 This is why when some humanist association once placed a poster on the side of a bus in England that read (There‘s probably no God, Now stop worrying and enjoy your life), all sensible people made a joke out of it!
334
particular doctrine of faith to which its holder may belong! Basic belief in the existence of the creator is independent of what this or that religion teaches about Him! It is a rational necessity upon which all theistic religions are built!
Naturally a believer in God has full support of pure human reason at the level of accepting the creator; the kind of reason that Darwinians are fighting windmills for the sake of subverting! This certainty in the natural meaning of creation is what makes us dismiss and ridicule – with confidence - everything that they have ever come to view as evidence for their miserable theory, because quite simply: Rational necessities (naturally qualifying as certainties) cannot be overcome by accumulating theoretical probabilities! They must offer an irrefutable proof; which is something they know they don‟t have and never will. And it is not possible – rationally - that there could ever be a case where man discovers irrefutable proof for something that destroys the very basics of rationality!
So what are the options now for a Darwinian preacher to have people accept his theories in place of their rationally necessitated and intuitively ascertained faith in the creator?
Well, he finds – just like Dawkins does here in “the Delusion” – he has no choice but to move to plan B! To shift from the strategy of attempting to convince a believer in God with Darwinism, to the strategy of proving to him that his religion is false; which is of course an easy task to take on when the religion is indeed not the true revelation of the creator! So once the poor victim loses the grounds of certainty that he has always granted for his book and his religious leaders, he is left in deep confusion, uncertainty and bitterness; and at that point, he is easily fooled into believing that all religion is fiction all the same, and that only in “science” – namely Darwinism - could he find his asylum! It‟s this extreme psychological reaction that atheism really feeds upon!
At that point they would have him convinced that there is no creator at all, even though they actually did nothing more than prove to him that his own religion in particular – which ascribes itself to the creator like all other
335
religions do – is false or corrupt! So whatever does this particular conclusion have to do with the natural and perfectly rational necessity of there being a creator? Nothing at all! They‟d tell him: “well, now that you‘ve lost your previous certainty in your religion, come join our camp and accept the closest thing we can get to an answer to the major questions of life; Darwinism‖!
This is why this book, this “Delusion”, is structured as such! If you don‟t find Darwinist beliefs about the metaphysical convenient enough through the first couple of chapters, then let us show you before we wind up, what “evils” religion has caused in the world! Becoming a Darwinian is a typical act of conversion from a previous religion to the doctrine of atheism, and that‟s exactly what Dawkins admits his book to be about!
So do not speak of those fossils or any other findings as evidence; because clearly they are not! This pathetic chase of remains of dead animals is not the way to learn the truth about our origins for those who truly seek it!
Thus in conclusion I say; those “pieces of evidence” really account for nothing in terms of “proof” here, no matter how plentiful they are, or how coherent they may seem to be! They would always be nothing but additional detailed assumptions branching from a big assumption that is basically un-provable; and is fundamentally anti-rational and counterintuitive at the core!
It doesn‟t matter how many more bricks you can pile up in a wall or how you can make a brick fit in some hole in this wall, when you actually have no footing down at foundation level for the wall to keep standing in the first place!
Quote:
―The speedy resort to a dramatic proclamation of 'irreducible complexity' represents a failure of the imagination.‖ (Delusion p.128)
One can easily take notice of a lot of similar comments throughout the book by the professor! It‟s the typical attempt by every atheist to depress or intimidate his opponent by describing him as “unimaginative” or “un-insightful”, making him feel like a mindless advocate of faith who really has
336
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:35 pm | |
|
no conception of “science” and no valuable knowledge to offer to the question in hand! Atheists do that all the time. However, without reasonable evidence and good argumentation, it is nothing but empty noise! Only the power of one‟s arguments is what justifies his tone of speech and his attitudes after all!
As for failure of imagination, I just admitted that Darwinians do enjoy a great deal of imagination indeed! And so does every talented fiction novelist around! But we‟re not in for science fiction, are we?! We‟re here for the truth! How much imagination you have in the stories you make up is – thus – irrelevant to our query here!
I have also elaborated that the reason we always come out from refuting Darwinian mythology by going straight to “Creation” is that creation is really the only rational and sensible meaning that every healthy human mind is bound to see by default! All along their literature, Darwinians themselves admit repeatedly that Darwinism is to them but a “worthwhile substitute” or “alternative”! They are always on the quest and claim to “prove” it to be a good alternative! They do admit that by default all healthy humans think nothing but creation and perfectness at it nonetheless! Thus they acknowledge that humans have to alter the way they normally make sense of things, in order to swallow Darwinism! So how come they complain now that whenever a certain “particular” postulate of Darwinism is refuted or argued against, people would resort by default to creation in its stead?
What – on Earth – do they expect?
He comments:
―You might as well simply assert that the weasel frog (bombardier beetle, etc.) demonstrates design, without further argument or justification. That is no way to do science.‖ (Delusion p.128)
Now this statement here is by all means a disgrace to human knowledge, rationality and common sense! It exposes – in the clearest possible words – the magnitude of the mental darkness that Darwinism – like many nonsensical philosophies - has befallen on humanity! If I cannot assert that
337
the weasel frog “demonstrated design” without further argument or justification; then I cannot assert that anything at all demonstrated design without further argument and justification, and if this is the case, then I should really go get some serious help! If I cannot identify such a meaning in what I see around me, and I feel I still need further justification to describe something as “beautiful” or “organized” or “systematized” or “designed” when I see it, and realize by virtue of linguistic meaning that there must be a perfectly creative doer of these deeds; then I am no better than a poor postmodernist who questions the meaning of “truth” or doubts the existence of “reality” and suspends his belief in those meanings until they are proven by “further argumentation or justification” to be “true”! Don‟t you agree, professor, that this a joke? Seeking to prove truth to be true? How do people know that truth is true?
When some poor psychopath argues that there‟s no truth, or that truth is a relative value, people should have the courage and the mental integrity to deplore him forcefully saying: If that were the case then there‟s no proof for the validity of any argument whatsoever (including this argument of yours here); so go play with little kids! There would be no such thing as “proof” or “evidence” to begin with, if we went down to this level! Some meanings and axioms of human reason and language cannot and should not be messed with; otherwise, nothing will have any meaning, and argumentation would only be a pathetic play of empty words! No decent man who respects his mental integrity should allow this nonsense or give it any degree of credibility! Yet you, professor, see those sick people made into intellectual icons and heroes in your society, and you don‟t find it a noble cause to spout your disdain on them! Probably you don‟t understand a single word they write; so you figure; well, there should be others who do, otherwise how did people like (Derrida, Baudrillard and others) become members of western intelligentsia? And even though this intrinsic contradiction and sheer irrationality in postmodernist nonsense is too clear to demand a proof (it destroys the meaning of proof itself!); postmodernism did pervade and people found themselves applauding the meaningless mental vomit – pun and offense intended here! - that postmodernists present in their works, just in fear that if one of them stood up and said: “This is nonsense”,
338
he would be accused of stupidity, ignorance, or at least poor intellect and a consciousness that is not sufficiently “raised”! ―You don‘t know the first thing about postmodernism‖ those “pioneer philosophers” would easily say! Is this not sheer hypocrisy?
If I cannot trust my natural human faculties of cognition and sensibility, then what is the point of thinking or even living at all?
If every time I look at an obviously well functioning system (it cannot be described by any other words) and say “it was made up – set up – composed – created - … etc - masterfully”; I have to be reminded by some deranged philosopher that when I say “made up”, I shouldn‟t by necessity mean that it is “designed” or “made up BY X, where X is a masterful maker who designed everything in it, and put it in its right place according to a previously determined purpose”, and that in fact the truth could be the exact opposite to this meaning; then the world is indeed a sorry place! The end result is that we have no reliable conception of any of these very meanings themselves: Design, purpose, making, maker, … etc.! If every time a man says “selected” he is told that he still needs to make an argument to prove that this meaning necessitates that there be a “selector”, and to justify this linguistic necessity inherent in the very definition of the “passive voice” itself, then we are indeed in deep trouble, and we can no longer make sense of the words we use!
“Anti-rational” is indeed the only proper word to describe such a philosopher, not just “irrational”! That‟s what Darwinism is in reality; Anti-rational philosophy in a disguise of science and rationality! But in a crazy world where our very conception of reality and truth is no longer valid, and our perception and natural linguistic abilities are no longer to be trusted; whatever does the word “rational” even mean at all? And whatever should stop people from accepting Darwin‟s contribution to such a world in demise? After all, life is only a meaningless crazy place where nothing is certain or makes any sense!
This is why it never fails to amaze me to see Dawkins emphasize on the meaning of “evidence” and “proof”, lamenting postmodernists and the way
339
they mess around with those meanings! What on Earth – then – do you think Darwinism is doing to your own cognition, professor?
It does not take a scientist to make out the difference between night and day! What argument does any sane man need beyond the overwhelming perfectness of a weasel frog which only takes two eyes and a healthy mind to admit? You say: that‟s no way to do science; I say actually that‟s no issue to do science for in the first place! Science does not test basic axioms of human reason or challenge them; it presupposes them! Science is only one of many fruits of those axioms in human life! That‟s how things work! The very simplest and clearest of all meanings that a man knows, needs no “science” done to argue for it or justify it! I do not need to „demonstrate‟ the fact that the weasel frog is masterfully created; not by removing its limb or any other part of its body! I just need to have a pair of eyes and a healthy mind that works properly; that‟s all!
No reasonable man needs any demonstration to prove that the frog would go cripple – malfunction – at the loss of a limb, or blind at the loss of an eye, and would be in great danger of perishing because of that loss! I wonder now, if this is not – in concept - “irreducible complexity” then what is it? What is the outcome of removing a frog‟s limb that would have him admit that it is ‗irreducibly complex‘? Does he expect it to – perhaps – die or to fail in survival? Well, nobody can prove that survival is the only function or purpose of a living being – Darwinians have it for a given fact though! – Yet, even with the little that science knows today, it is evident enough that without a limb, a joint or an eye, it will indeed fail to survive!
A living being is indeed a huge set of functions and purposes, as we elaborated earlier; systems and subsystems that make it this perfectly adapted and perfectly functional creature that we see in nature! So what kind of a demonstration is he asking for to believe that it is indeed perfect just the way it is, and that it can‟t be this way without a maker who defines this perfection in the way that it is and the way that we perceive it? And if the only purpose of an element of any compound system in organic life is – to him - to assure survival, then what good is half a limb every time it‟s imperative for it to escape the attack of a predator, for example? Will he
340
rejoice in finding a part that when removed from the frog‟s body, it will not die, and he will not see any obvious, immediate or long term change in the way it lives? Will he then claim that it is reducible? Typically; an argument from complex ignorance!
Quote:
―The logic turns out to be no more convincing than this: 'I [insert own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which [insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step. Therefore it is irreducibly complex.‖(The Delusion p.128)
Well, how about this: ―I (insert own name) am so arrogant and stubborn and thus I‘m personally unable to admit the perfection that I see in the way organic systems work, and the rational necessity that follows from there, that every part of it must have a function even if I did not know it yet!”?
Think about it!
It should be made clear that whatever meaning an atheist gives to reducibility, it is false! Nothing in natural life can be reduced the way they claim, and not fail on one or more level of functionality!
In a TV interview, Kenneth Miller commented that Behe‟s famous example of the mouse trap does not prove irreducibility! 32
His point was that without a bate and a pin (two parts without which it cannot work as a mouse trap), it can easily serve as a tie holder or a paper clip or even a “spit ball” launcher; ergo it is reducible! Now what on Earth is this man talking about? Behe‟s example was the mouse trap! The artifact that serves as a mouse trap; not as a paper clip or a tie holder! Once you remove one of its parts; it‟s clearly no longer fit to function as a mouse trap! When you reduce it, you are obviously demolishing the particular job it was made for! And that‟s the whole point of irreducibility in a well
-----------------------------------------------
32 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW2lLG9EZM)
341
“designed” system! This artifact only works as a mouse trap with all those parts fit in place! It doesn‟t matter then what other job it may be used for in its new “context”! That would be you thinking of a new job for a new system that emerged from your modification, which is not the original purpose for which the designer of the original artifact made it!
So whatever the artifact may be used for after the modification is clearly irrelevant to the debate, because we are only talking about the function of trapping mice for which it was already designed! We define an organ by the function (or the top function in a set of functions) that a certain part of an organic system appears – within our currently limited knowledge of it - to perform. So once you speak of another function or a different set of functions; you‟re clearly speaking of another organ, part of another system, in another context, by definition!
I remember watching a somehow “smarter” young atheist fellow on Youtube trying in vain to demonstrate that a mouse trap may still work well as a mouse trap even with some of those parts removed! The guy obviously understood the concept of irreducibility better than Dr. Miller did, but his attempt was equally pointless. It was pretty obvious that after the reduction, the trap wasn‟t as efficient as the original design was, due to all those parts he removed! And yet I will have to disappoint him and say that if indeed this thing was at least equally efficient as a mouse trap after the removal of those parts, then this is because the human designer who made it was not good enough, and this modification of yours will indeed be a good economic suggestion to develop this artifact in the future! So good for you kid, you proved smarter than the designer of the mouse trap; but that‟s all you really proved! Organic systems are obviously not mice traps designed by limited humans like ourselves! We know too little indeed about the infinite number of subsystems in function in even the smallest and simplest of organs in our bodies!
Behe‟s definition of an irreducibly complex system was originally put as thus: “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the
342
parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” (Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p39, 2006 edition)
Now even the clearest of organs we know of cannot be said with certainty to have exclusively one function for each and every element in it, which serves none but the apparent function of the organ itself! Sets of functions may intersect and overlap, and since the definition of an organ is based upon function, and since we still learn more about those functions every day, a system‟s purpose will never be final or absolute to our notion! You do not have the blueprint for this design and you are only beginning to understand the perfect and unbelievably complex way in which it works! We can only speak of particular functions that we know relate directly to a particular part or set of parts, according to the amount of knowledge we currently possess of a given organic system! Thus, Any part that may not appear – at our current status of knowledge - to contribute to a certain organic function that we currently recognize and attribute to one system or another as its “basic function”, cannot be dubbed – so arrogantly - “reducible”!
Evolutionists used to make this boorish claim about the appendix in man, (placing Darwinism in that „gap‟) and now they are only starting to learn some of its functions!
In an article in (The scientific American) 33, Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma state university declares:
For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other
-------------------------------------------------
33 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t)
343
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:36 pm | |
|
role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.
He adds:
Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.
Now I wonder how much more we may learn about it tomorrow! And how dare any Darwinian then dismiss it as a functionless “leftover”? 34
The point is: Nothing in nature is reducible! Nothing is functionless! The nature of human knowledge does not give any man the right to pass such a judgment on a system that is obviously and infinitely flawless!
Translation of the meanings of the Qur‟an (67|3-4): (((He) who has created seven heavens in harmony. You can see no fault in the Beneficent One's creation; so look again: Can you see any rifts? Then look again and yet again, your sight will return unto you weakened and made dim.))
----------------------------------------
34 Even the coccyx which some evolutionists so presumptuously dismiss in man as an “evolutionary leftover”, is mentioned in authentic Hadith as the part of the body from within which humans will be resurrected in the day of resurrection. We may or may not get to discover other functions that it plays in our bodies as it is, but the point is that even if we never found out why it is there: We know too little, and we will never have the knowledge that gives us the right to judge it or any other organic system as “functionless” or “leftover”! Any biologist who respects himself and the nature of his object of research should make this confession! Why wouldn‟t he just say: “We don‟t know yet, maybe we will find out tomorrow”? Why jump and place Darwin‟s nonsense in this gap of knowledge, on the previous judgment that the „design‟ is – against what our very eyes tell us –“imperfect”? Well, we all know the answer to that, don‟t we? Because they are at war with human reason and perception for the sake of convincing themselves and others that none of this was “created” to begin with! That‟s what atheism does to its followers! Imperfection and reductionism in the Gaps!
344
Now, suppose I rephrased the concept of irreducibility as such: “For any single functional system composed of several attached parts; the removal of any one of those parts should cause the system to effectively cease functioning entirely or partially (in one of its functions).”
Meaning that by reduction it either ceases to function entirely, or its performance drops due to loss in some of its sub-functions.
What would you say to that?
To cut it short: Reducing parts = altering design = damaging (or changing) original function. This meaning applies to everything that we may call “composite system”. It follows from the determinism of causality in nature. A function may be defined (causally) as a desired „effect‟ that follows naturally every time a group of specifically organized „causes‟ is put to work in a predetermined manner. Thus it is clear that once a cause is altered, the effect will be altered. A particular effect (X) should demand a particular cause or set of causes (Y) to be obtained! If (Y) is changed, then (X) (which may be a set of effects as well) cannot be obtained!
If the system could work after the reduction as something else, and that was intended as a purposeful modification to it, then that‟s a change in the system, a redesign so to speak! But if not, then it‟s simply an act of “sabotage”, because functions will be wasted; data will be lost! Period! And if the removal of a certain part does not affect a functional system in any way, then it wasn‟t part of the system in the first place; by definition!
So it stands perfectly clear that the rephrased argument of irreducibility is as rationally sound and straightforward as the meaning of the word “function” and “system” itself! It is just like saying: a system that is obviously functioning in perfectness; must be a perfectly designed or created system, where every part or component should matter in a way we may or may not know! No functioning system that is made –as a system – of parts, would continue to function – by definition - as the same system that it was, once a part of it is removed! This is true of everything that a sane healthy man could call “functional” and “system” by linguistic definition!
345
So to sum it up, the basic logic beneath IC is quite clear and irrefutable, - regardless of Behe‟s particular statement - and should not be described as a “theory”! To put it again in biological terms: “Any organism that has parts (organs), will never be capable of functioning as properly as it should (failure at some level), if one of those parts was removed”!
In their debate against IC, Darwinians often bring up – like Dawkins does here – the example of the eye, and claim that they have evidence to prove that even the eye could be reduced!
When they so easily claim that they do have evidence in nature to prove that the eye „could have evolved‟ through lesser (simpler) steps; they neglect one major fact that cannot be dismissed! Let alone the fact that they take “simple” to be synonymous to less perfect, they forget that each and every one of those species they see today in nature; has an “eye” – or some analogous organ – that is perfectly functional for its host species just as it is!
A nautilus for example clearly needs no more of an eye, and no more of the functions of sight than it has! Thus it is clearly false to claim that a more complex eye like ours is an evolution for it! And clearly, on the other hand, we need not have a compound 3D eye like that of a gnat, a fly or a bee! So a fly‟s eye isn‟t any more “evolved” than ours! Why is it so difficult for them to see that those many species they view as “lesser” or “primitive”, and claim to have been steps on the ladder of evolution, are indeed all perfect, each in the particular place it in is today, doing just what it does, with no need for any additional biological parts or subsystems?
What I see is the perfect work of a perfect creator who puts everything He creates in its right place, for its exact purpose, not a single cell lacking or in excess! The obvious perfectness of each and every step they use as example for their claimed “evolution” of the eye proves just that! Perfectness of creation is by definition the success of a created system in doing what it is supposed to be doing! And obviously, this is the case with every living species that we have ever seen on Earth! It is – in itself, as it is – perfect and needs not evolve in any way! Yet they use “less complex” organs in certain
346
species to prove nothing more than the mere “probability” of there being lesser forms in our claimed ancestry! Again I say this position of lesser and more evolved is rationally false, because just like we see such life forms today in perfect accord with their places in the system, we have no reason to believe that it was any otherwise, any time in the past! And clearly, no reason to believe that such an organism ever had to evolve by natural selection! Just the fact that we can see different species with different “structures” of an eye, varied in the degree of complexity and optical power, does not mean that they represent lesser – or higher - eyes on any ladder of heredity!
None of them is in fact any less perfect than the other! Because to judge them, we should not compare them to one another according to the degree of their complexity, or according to the job that one of them in particular is doing, but according to whether or not every one of them is doing what it is supposed to be doing; and that‟s clearly not the same exact job (set of definitive functions)! Complexity is not a standard prerequisite for perfectness of functionality! If device A is more complex by design than device B, and both devices seem to be doing the same kind of job but in two different systems that have different purposes of design, then it is not at all a necessity that device B will function better in its place if it was made as complex as device A, or that A would function better in its place if it was reduced in complexity to be similar to B!
Something may be too complex, just as it may be too simple; in both cases it is not perfect! Quite clearly, nothing in nature or in natural life is too simple or too complex to do what it is there to do, just the way it is!
If an organism will do perfectly with only a patch of photoreceptive cells, according to the extent of eyesight that it needs for its vitality and for the purpose for which it is made, then it is perfect with nothing more than just that; not a single cell more! And if one day such a species was discovered, it will only prove further variety and mastery in the works of the creator; not that there once was no eye on Earth but this patch of cells as ancestor to all eyes! Its mere existence today and its survival and prosperity with no more than just this, is in itself a sign of perfectness in design, not otherwise!
347
Additional complexity in this organ in this context will then not be an “evolution” for that species at all; it will actually be a defect!
Watch as the author gives an example that is totally irrelevant for the attitude of humans that are not atheists. He recounts the story of a magical trick that he watched by Ben and Teller, and comments:
―I [Richard Dawkins] am utterly unable to think of any way in which this could be a trick. The Argument from Personal Incredulity screams from the depths of my prescientific brain centres, and almost compels me to say, 'It must be a miracle‘ ―(The Delusion p.129)
It is sad really, but this is the “high” place where Darwinism places the “consciousness” of its followers! I ask the professor: Do you really believe that the way those magicians pulled their trick, is comparable to the way the universe and natural life came to be? Do you really believe that creation and people‟s natural acceptance of it and belief in it; is a trick they are all just fooled into believing? Do you really think your mind is playing a trick on you? Well yes it is! All atheists suffer from that, because they chose to do it to themselves! They chose to challenge their own minds and their own senses!
Translation of meanings of verse (7|179): ((…(They) have hearts wherewith they understand not, and eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. These are as the cattle; nay, but they are even worse! These are the neglectful))
I quote the Qur‟an as it describes in one of many verses how blind they are, for they act as though they never saw a single sign or heard a single argument to prove them wrong; they would reject it no matter how clear that proof is!
Christians would probably quote Psalm 53 (The fool has said in his heart there is no God), and it would also fit right in place! Although one cannot tell the authenticity of this text, thus I cannot ascribe it to the Lord; I find it very expressive in this context nonetheless, and it may in fact be part of the remains of heavenly revelation that are scattered in „Psalms‟!
348
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:37 pm | |
|
Personal incredulity, professor, is what a man suffers from when he refuses the givens of sound human reasoning, insists on taking in corrupt philosophies and embraces them regardless of the strain and effort he has to exert in order to convince himself that he is okay with them, and that they could qualify for the truth!
Look at the incredulity in his comment on the analogy of a stone arch as an irreducibly complex structure. He admits that it must have had scaffolding, and then he says:
―In evolution, too, the organ or structure you are looking at may have had scaffolding in an ancestor which has since been removed‘
Can‟t he listen to himself? What is “scaffolding” now, if not a device made precisely for the purpose of bracing and carefully laying bricks on it in a predetermined way for a predetermined purpose? The injection of scaffolding in evolution certainly destroys both its pillars (random mutation and natural selection); even an atheist should see that much! But we must not be tempted to believe that he actually means (scaffolding), mind you!
We are now supposed to believe that some lucky random mutation not only came around just in time, and not only offered a new working addition just in place; it actually offered us a scaffolding for a design that would work once it is finished – all by the success of many steps of chance –, to save the species and offer it a perfect organ that it desperately needed at that point! How impressive indeed!
And as I argued earlier, the parable of mount improbable should be rewritten – using their understanding of probability – to state that by climbing mount improbable, you are actually going: (improbable) x (more improbable) x (much more improbable) x … etc.! So obviously once at the peak, you will have gone through something that may indeed be – as a residual - a billion billion times as improbable as the single leap of willful creation at the other side of the mountain is claimed to be!
It is very interesting that he makes this confession:
349
―The origin of life only had to happen once. We therefore can allow it to have been an extremely improbable event, many orders of magnitude more improbable than most people realize, as I shall show. Subsequent evolutionary steps are duplicated, in more or less similar ways, throughout millions and millions of species independently, and continually and repeatedly throughout geological time. Therefore, to explain the evolution of complex life, we cannot resort to the same kind of statistical reasoning as we are able to apply to the origin of life.‖(The delusion p. 135)
Well, In fact professor, you must do much more work in revision of the very definition and meaning of statistical reasoning itself, because this is not how it should be applied; this is not what it is for!
He then argues against the example of the flagellar motor as an irreducible system. He snatches at the understanding that for a system to be irreducibly complex, none of its parts should be functional on its own! Again I should state that this is a corrupt understanding of the very concept of functionality as a definer of a particular system! Yes of course if I detached a pin from a computer machine, I could easily use that pin in another machine, or even use it to hang a painting on the wall of my room! But this is not what the original system uses this pin for, and it is obviously not working as properly as it should without that pin! The system would not function the way it should, with any of its parts detached! Forget about the fact that every part of it may easily be used in separate for another function (by another designer), because clearly on doing so, you are speaking of a different system, doing another function that cannot be done the way it should be done, with any of that other system‟s parts detached as well!
Quote:
―The protein molecules that form the structure of the TTSS are very similar to components of the flagellar motor. To the evolutionist it is clear that TTSS components were commandeered for a new, but not wholly unrelated, function when the flagellar motor evolved.‖(The Delusion p.132)
350
He celebrates Miller‟s description of TTSS and bacterial structures, explaining how he finds it to be identical to that functioning in the flagellar motor, concluding that this proves the motor to be reducible! There you got it; they have proven to you that there is indeed another biological system that has similar parts, meaning that those very same parts could be seen to have another function in another system! That‟s great! But, whatever does this have to do with proving that the system of the Flagellar motor could be reduced, in the sense that it could be made to perform this very same function without the previous assembly of all those parts in it in this particular composition beforehand?!
We have two distinct systems, the TTS structure and the Flagellar motor; both share common parts but with different functions; now what on Earth does this have to do with the fact that none of the two systems can function properly without its parts attached to one another and in exactly the right places? How did it come to be ‗clear to the evolutionist‘ that the TTS components were “commandeered” (By whom?) to function as components of the Flagellar motor, just because they are apparently identical in a huge part of their molecular structure?
Again, another false unacceptable explanation, because I could easily claim that both systems evolved from a different source (which I equally find impossible); a third system of my picking or of the making of my wild fantasy, and they couldn‟t tell me I‟m wrong! Or I could easily claim that they had nothing to do with one another and that they both evolved separately and it‟s only out of sheer coincidence that they happened to share parts that are identical! I could easily think of a dozen other possible stories for the origins of both systems, but I don‟t need to; all I see is that those parts were determinately created for functions that demand of them to be identical in structure but with different roles for each of them in its particular system in its particular context! Nothing more needs to be said!
The point is: not a single evolutionist could possibly prove me wrong when I claim those explanations to be possible!
351
So what is it that makes it clear to you as an evolutionist, professor, that this is what happened back in time and it is what justifies this similarity in particular parts between the two systems? Sheer bias and „blind faith‟ driven arguments; that‟s what!
We are obviously talking about two parts of two distinct systems with two distinct functions! So it‟s really sad that someone would actually insist on claiming such a hypothetical link between their origins imagining that this claim would work as an argument to disprove irreducibility in the way they both serve their distinct purposes as they are, and would thus refute the very meaning of irreducibility altogether!
Again we remind the reader that a mouse trap is not a mouse trap unless it has all the “mouse trap parts” in place, prepared specifically for this purpose! So when he takes away some of its parts and says it could function then as something else; this is totally irrelevant, because quite clearly we are not talking about something else! We are stating the fact that a mouse trap could not be called a mouse trap – on the outset of it - without those particular parts attached! Anything else is just that: Something else! Pure and simple!
An organism could not have come into being and survived as a species without a certain system with a particular function in it, and that system could not do that function without those very parts attached to one another, all doing just what they are supposed to do! This remains to be the case no matter how simple a system is (even in a unicellular organism) Therefore this system with this function could not have evolved from a different system with a different function! How many parts should come around, all in the exact place that each of them should be, and each by a purely random event of mutation, and stay there through generations of an endangered species, all so that eventually a working organ will start to work once all its parts are in place? And how are we supposed to believe – based on the Dawkins argument from probability - that this „unbelievably lucky‟ emergence of parts was the source of information for all organs in every species on Earth?
352
The fact that a system with a certain function is seen to have more functional parts or elements than another system in another being that may be doing a similar function or sharing the same components of the other system but in a different structure; this fact cannot be taken to refute creation or even the concept of IC as worded by Behe! It proves that there could be another system with similar parts doing a different job! This is true, and it is quite obvious indeed! But it is clearly not an argument to refute creation or irreducibility of biological systems, not to mention proving common ancestry! Irreducibility is actually a definitive property of any set of elements that could be called „system‟ to begin with, so those examples they bring forth of systems that have common parts doing a different job in each one of them; they really prove nothing!
For any given function (X), if organ (A) is working properly in its context (at any given instant of time), then it cannot be reduced, neither does it need any “evolution”! If however it is not functioning properly, then it should fail! The addition of a new part to that organ is not as simple as a number of cells just popping up in place, giving rise to the new desired part! The entire system has to be redesigned and reprogrammed in order for the new part to come in its right place – which would then be (the right place) by definition – and raise the performance as desired! Not only the organ itself has to be changed, the entire body has to be modified in the way its biological processes run, for the sake of the new comer to work in harmony; the brain itself and its neural paths have to be modified! Do you think that all we need to do if we one day wished to evolve our eyes into those of a fly – for example – so we could see front and back at the same time, all we will need to do is take off those eyes in our faces and fix big fly eyes in their place? Whatever you claim, we are talking about a change that is no less than a purposeful and perfectly organized act of “redesign” here, which includes the entire body; one that couldn‟t possibly be pulled off by some blind random mutation! We‟re talking about total redesign for the sake of a new set of functions all over!
I mean, come on; if that‟s not determinate (function redefinition), setting down a previously determined course (scaffolding) for the process which is
353
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:38 pm | |
|
of course not something that Darwinian mechanisms could do, then what is it? Or are we supposed to imagine gradual steps for that change between the two systems, the initial and the final, where some parts had their specific functions altered (for the sake of the new function that is to emerge at the end), while others did not? Well this would easily mean the failure of the old system plus the impossibility of there ever emerging a new one from it! Because at that intermediate point it‟s clearly neither doing the old nor the new function! It has lost some of its parts for the sake of a new function that cannot be performed by those few altered parts alone! So it is neither working as the old system, nor as the new one at that point, and thus; it couldn‟t possibly be selected to continue, could it? There would certainly be no meaning for this change of function of some of the parts of a given system; because selection only keeps stuff that works; and this initial mutation (the first step) leaves us with something that does not work! Or should we wish for a great number of successive mutations that come – all by chance - to do the desired job (desired by nobody of course!) fast before the species becomes extinct? Or should we expect the desired changes to come all in one happy leap of “random” mutation for the entire body to be restructured in favor of the new organ or part? Of course you have to be reminded that there is no previous plan, purpose or intent in Darwinian mechanisms whatsoever!
Thus we conclude that there is no way that this “evolution” of a system with a new function, from an older system with a different function, could possibly take place gradually! It either happens in one amazing leap (as in creation and previous determinate plan), or it doesn‟t happen at all!
All you have to do as a sane human being – really - is to properly understand the basic rational concepts underneath a given theory or statement in order to make good judgment of whether or not it is worth taking to the lab in the first place!35
-----------------------------------------
35 Let me make it clear – one more time - to my atheist reader that I am not a creationist and I am not in the business of making up a new „theory‟ for biology! My argumentation is purely philosophical, and my discussion of the concept of irreducibility is only intended to demonstrate to the atheist – by more than one argument – that no matter what he does, and whatever plot he resorts to in explaining the steps of his evolutionary story, he cannot escape the necessity of there being a purposeful agent of some sort with a
354
This is why it is wrong and unacceptable - by the way - for professional biologists to be bothered by people from different scientific disciplines, sometimes not even scientific at all, for so easily barging into their theories and criticizing them as they do! If judging the theory demands particular knowledge of biology then certainly it is not allowable for people other than biologists to make a judgment on that theory! However, this is not the case with the core tenets of Darwin‟s theory! It clashes with A-priori axiomatic reasoning! So non-biologist debaters certainly need nothing more than possess a proper understanding of the rationale of Darwinism and natural selection to effectively enter the debate! They do not need to have a certificate in biology before they could judge the fundamental aspects of the Darwinian proposition! They are discussing basic rationality here (philosophy you may say); not how to get a reading from a radiometric dating device, or how to identify a given fossil!
And if evolutionists cannot have those people convinced with the rationality of the very core of their position with simple arguments; then they should not bother trying to convince them that they all should let go of their religions for the sake of Darwin‟s theory! It really doesn‟t take a rocket scientist to understand the basic mechanisms of Darwinian evolution, and the false reasoning it applies!
Whenever a layperson (in Biology) says in response to Darwinism: ―This must be wrong, I cannot find any good reason why I should not believe this magnificence and perfectness in nature to have been created by a perfect creator‖, he is really blowing evolutionism away at first shot; and that‟s really all the argument any sane man has to put against it! Because no matter how much evolution or Biology he learns, he will never find that good reason, good enough for him to let go of his natural logic and intuition in such a twisted way; in fact the more he learns about nature and living things the more convinced he will be that this creation is perfect; and thus the higher he will naturally think of its creator! Evolutionism – as he will realize - asks him to go against his natural stream of reason, to run it in absolute
----------------------------------------------
previously determined plan somewhere, for everything to fall „in place‟ in due time and to work properly in a collective equilibrium.
355
reverse! I am, of course, speaking of a lay-person whose natural sense of things has not been depleted or reversed by Darwinism!
At conception level, the core idea is clear enough for any sane man to refute; no science certificate required here! Just as it is the case that you need not acquire a PHD in theology to see how fundamentally corrupt the concept of the Trinity – for example – clearly is! In fact it is orders of magnitude more corrupt – rationally – than the basic philosophies of all other doctrines of faith that we know today! However, like every preacher of irrational faith, they would easily argue: “You people don‟t understand it” or “You know nothing about evolution”! So typical indeed!
So again; it is against the core mechanism of evolution that the biological change from a certain “function (A)” system to a new “function (B)” system would take place in gradual (or simultaneous) steps of random mutation! “Gradual” by definition cannot be random! „Gradual‟ can only describe steps taken on a predetermined path! This is why no matter what examples Darwinians resort to in explaining the difference between natural selection and chance (like the example of a random code generator), they can never escape the rational necessity of a previously determined order of some sort! This is why we argue – with no regards to whatever they may call „scientific evidence‟ - that it is against the very meaning of random or chance – as used by Darwinians in evolutionary discourse - that there should be “steps” or “gradual” or “simultaneous”!
The model of evolution of a certain system through the advent of new parts in it for the sake of better performing the same overall function of the system (like the alleged evolution of the eye or the wing); this model cannot take place in gradual evolutionary steps, or else the organ will fail entirely! A few mutations that are only a few steps in the way of changing a simple eye into a compound eye, will leave the eye functionless, until all the steps are complete; which should actually mean total failure of the organ in doing even its old function! We have to get a single set of mutations that adds a new part, and at the same time has the specific job of all the other parts of the organ redefined (which means to have them all work in a rather different way at cellular and molecular level), which means an unimaginable number
356
of simultaneous “random” mutations in different parts, for the sake of accommodating the new part and working with it properly! This redefinition should at least preserve the original function of the organ throughout its transformation into a more complex organ by means of those alterations and additions of new parts! The only other option is failure! I mean they don‟t suppose that when a new part (patch of cells) is added to an organism it will work as a (plug and play) device, do they?! Even “Plug and play” devices are specifically designed for this model of detachable performance!
So it turns out that very much indeed is demanded from “random” mutation, far too much for any reasonable man to find the word “random” to really do any good describing it (I use the Darwinian terminology of random here, not the actual (eye-of-the-beholder) meaning that it should have, as we elaborated in an earlier section of this book)!
What “selection” then are we talking about, when we cannot imagine a number of species surviving through a few generations lacking a certain function, when it is evident that without this function they cannot have survived, bred, speciated, or co-existed in balance all across this cosmic time span? For a gradation of genetic changes to keep natural life up and running, well adapted and in perfect balance (as a whole) with every changing aspect of nature, the way we say it must have been, and for every favorable change to come along before the entire system crashes, and the balance fails irreversibly; it takes a model of constantly and perfectly determinate control, not a “series” of “steps” of “chance” where only that which happens to work by chance would survive! The system must have always had those strict binding rules.
What we‟ve always been trying to tell them, and we hope they think about it someday, seriously, is that there is no proper code of reason for any man to amalgamate within the very same process in its every step; process with non-process, perfectness with chaos, system with chance; steady long term mechanism with random instances and uncontrolled events, and attribute all that work – in origin – to no willful creator! The pathetic position they seek to uphold between chance – as they ascribe it to certain natural processes rather than the human modeling of those processes
357
– and creation, only gives us a creator who runs a system of random generation! All they are actually doing do here is model a lousy process of creation, rather than acknowledge perfection thereof! Darwinians in fact believe in a blind creator; and this is all that Darwinism boils down to, no matter what they do!
I quote:
―A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will be. Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a lazy default such as 'intelligent design theory' would encourage.‖ (The Delusion p.132)
What “lazy default”? I‟m sorry but if you people are only looking for something “interesting” to keep you busy, then by all means go have fun somewhere else!
It is wisdom to know what you‟re aiming at, and to have a clear answer to the “why” before the “how”! A lot of work needs to be done on what exactly, and for what end? Yes of course a lot of research in natural sciences still needs to be done to further expand human knowledge, but for what end and in what fields? Wise people do not do science for science, or for the fun of it, or just so they find something to do! Atheists on the other hand have already chosen not to know the purpose of their being on this Earth! So the question of purpose is to them an entirely ridiculous proposition! They do science because they have fun doing it! Because it makes them feel better! Because it would be “lazy” not to, or because it would be “stupid”! They use this absolution in their position towards everything they like to do, regardless of whether or not they could justify it properly!
A wise man on the other hand, knows his ultimate purpose, and the specific objective of every single thing that he does, in the light of this purpose! People who know the heavenly truth from the creator, stand in the middle between two extremes: an extreme that holds it a necessity and a must that humans put all their resources in researching every single idea that could possibly come across a man‟s mind, regardless of the rationality or the justifiability of its meaning and purpose, and another extreme that shuts it all
358
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:38 pm | |
|
off, and closes the gates of research and empirical experimentation altogether! Wisdom has it that only a purpose of research that positively (and evidently) benefits people should be put to the claim! But that which does not, or that which would evidently harm them, should certainly be prohibited (not just abolished)!
Imagine a man who chooses to design a huge machine that – for example – does nothing more than scratch his back! This is stupidity! The purpose itself is stupid! Yes he may do wonders of innovation in the way the scratching device works; but in the end, no matter how sophisticated it may be; it remains to be a total waste and a fool‟s work, because even something as simple as a wooden stick would suffice to do the job!
I remember one day, when I was a student at High school, my math teacher challenged me and a couple of other students to solve a problem in calculus, and said that whoever solves it first will be given a reward. We took it home, and I remember I spent about three hours trying to work it out, squeezing my head, approaching it from every end, and I practiced every trick in mathematics I could possibly think of at the time, and ended up writing a solution that spanned three long pages! It was unbelievably complex that I can almost swear that even the designer of the problem itself couldn‟t possibly imagine such a solution! I had all the fun in the world solving it and was very proud of myself! I delivered it to the teacher the next day with an air of victory, and was shocked to find that he had given the reward to another student! When he explained the winning solution, it turned out to be as simple as a four or five steps operation! It was a single idea or trick, for which the problem was designed! I didn‟t capture that trick at first glance, so I took a very long way around! I was disappointed for the moment but then I realized that this is what mathematics is about: The shortest way to the query! I doubt that the teacher really bothered to go through the long and very complicated steps of the solution that I came up with, although it was indeed quite creative! Perhaps he thought I was bluffing and dismissed it at first impression as a joke or something!
359
When I remember this story now, I do not blame him! The purpose of the problem was not just to solve it in any possible way, but in the simplest way and the most relevant to the course learning outcome! And even though my solution was perfectly correct; only one solution fulfilled the learning outcome and particular purpose of the problem, and mine was not it!
The moral is; not every product of the human mind is to be appreciated or encouraged, based on how sophisticated, imaginative, or creative that product is! Not every research objective is to be supported and supplied with the resources it needs! Not every idea of a research is by necessity brilliant, not to mention: acceptable or Justifiable! Only a fool would stand in admiration of the technology of a tank that has come to take down his own house!
So when we say to Darwinians: “Stop! Your research objective is fundamentally false and unacceptable and is destructive to man” it is not “laziness” or “satisfaction with not knowing”! It is the wisdom of knowing how to make the right judgment of a research query, and how to put human and material resources in their perfectly right place!
Just look at this outrage:
―Here is the message that an imaginary 'intelligent design theorist' might broadcast to scientists: 'If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them. Don't squander precious ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.' (The Delusion p.132)
360
Now who on Earth is he trying to fool? Where in this world did you ever find a religious man who – regardless of his particular creed – would say: “'If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it‖? Could you – please – name just a single one?
Even if there is or was somebody whose false religion or his wrong understanding drives him against something that is evidently useful to mankind, then it is he who should be blamed, or his false religion in particular, not “religion”! The ignorance of a man is not an argument against knowledge itself!
We, followers of the true revelation of the creator, answer saying “The Lord did it” only in reply to the stupidity of those who say: “Natural selection did it”! We do not refrain from performing beneficial research and development because “God did it”! We do not tell people not to do science because “God did it”! We most certainly do not tell them to be satisfied with “ignorance” because “God did it”! And we are not to be blamed for the historical crimes of other corrupted doctrines of faith that once took authority over Europe, and enforced dark fallacious rulings in the name of the Lord, may He be praised! We are not to be blamed for the corruption of a comment by Saint Augustine, when he says, as quoted by the author:
―There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn'
We, Muslims, have nothing to do with the way Dawkins understands this statement! Nothing at all! Even if ever a Muslim scholar expressed such a meaning as understood by the professor, it is not to be taken for argument against Islam because it cannot be derived from any of the four sources of revelation and legislation in Islam (Qur‟an, Sunnah, Ijma‟, and “quias”)! Actually even Christians would tell you they have nothing to do with this understanding he derives from the quotation!
Muslims are people whose holy scripture tells them:
361
((…Say (O Muhammad): Is the blind man equal to the seer, or is darkness equal to light?...)) Translation of meanings of the Qur‟an (13|16)
((…Ask people of knowledge if you know not)) Translation of meanings of the Qur‟an (16|43)
((It is He who appointed the sun a splendor (luminance) and the moon a light (reflection), and determined its stages, such that ye could learn the number of the years, and learn calculation. Allah created all that in none but truth. He details the revelations for people who have knowledge.)) Translation of the meanings of the Qur‟an (10|5)
((…Allah will exalt those who believe among you, and those who have knowledge, to high ranks. Allah is aware of what ye do.)) Translation of the Qur‟an (58|11) (knowledge in this verse is primarily knowledge of the Lord, and all other forms of useful knowledge follow in graded ranks)
It is a subject of absolute consensus (Ijma‟) among scholars of all ages in Islam, based on more general texts, that we should seek everything that yields benefit in this life and in the hereafter (both on an individual scale, and on a collective scale). This includes the claim of every beneficial knowledge to man, which is adequately obligatory to the society, (Fard kefaya فرض كفايح ) such that when there is no sufficiency in those who work in a certain field that is necessary for Muslims, then the entire nation is to be charged with sin! This is what the ruling (Fard kefaya) means in Islam; it is any obligatory act which if done with adequacy by the least amount of competent people who could do it as demanded, then the rest of the nation is free from obligation and blame, but if not, not! I must add that absolute consensus of scholars in Islam (Ijma‟) is a source of legislation; based on scriptural evidence we have no room to discuss here.
So as you can see, my reader, in the true revelation of the creator, seeking beneficial knowledge in general is not inhibited! It is not even optional to Muslims; it is in fact mandatory! And the manner of its obligation over Muslims is indeed a perfect legislation that cannot be laid down by a man! Had it been a man who made up the Sharee‟a law from his own mind, he would have made all pursuits of knowledge mandatory for every Muslim, or
362
optional for every Muslim; or he would‟ve neglected it altogether! He would have spoilt the extremely delicate balance between the welfare of the individual and that of the community, but this is not the case at all!
The creator knows that not all men could qualify to specialize in every field, and that humans vary by necessity in their mental powers, and their natural talents and faculties, and they cannot shift their fields of specialty repeatedly, or specialize in a multitude of delicate fields at the same time! So this obligation cannot be laid down equally upon every individual for every desired practice! On the other hand, had it been only favorable, there would be no guarantee that sufficient amount of experts would specialize in the desired field of knowledge and suffice for the necessity as it comes!
So the law in this way guarantees that whenever there is necessity or need, the nation would understand that there is a collective responsibility of obligation to suffice for the demand and work for it, and the ruler should see that it is fulfilled! 36
A nation governed by the law of Islam (sharee‟a) is a nation that has a religious obligation, a religious duty, to seek knowledge, and to produce – in wisdom and purposefulness – as many scientists and experts as demanded in every field of human practice that is necessary for the nation‟s welfare and prosperity. Tell me now, what other religion or system on Earth do you know, places knowledge – all forms of evidently beneficiary knowledge – at such a rank?
As for the Aquinas quotation, this understanding by Dawkins is clearly not what it means! The man is obviously talking about the claim of knowledge that is beyond human understanding, that is, beyond the very ability of man to understand! The problem with atheists is that they do not accept the fact that there are things that do go beyond the ability of man to imagine or
-----------------------------------------------
36 And of course, keeping in regard a corner stone of Sharee‟a that Allah only assigns a man to that which he can do, and he is not to be charged with something he could not do, we say that without a precise vision by the ruler of a Muslim nation of the real demands of Muslims in every particular field of practice of sciences and crafts, and thus with our current incapability of deciding upon that as a nation (or many nations), we are currently free from deserving punishment provided that we never quit doing what we can for the sake of better upholding such collective responsibilities in the future, working for that which is better. Only the ruler in this case would deserve the heavenly blame for not taking up his responsibility in this concern.
363
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:39 pm | |
|
analogize! Ask any atheist if he knows any plausible way to describe whatever is out there beyond the universe (or beyond mathematical infinity)! For instance, the concept of how the Lord is, or how He does what He does, is by necessity of reason beyond the human ability to imagine or analogize, pretty much so like the necessity of His very existence itself!
So healthy humans do realize that there is – by necessity – much that they should not be capable of comprehending and much that they could not find out on their own as humans (and hence should not waste their time and resources seeking to obtain it the way they do)! They do realize that there are questions that cannot be answered by means of analogy or by any other means that the human mind works with, so no matter how advanced man could one day become, they will always be unanswerable by those methods! It is not a crime to have people satisfied with learning their limits and placing their abilities on the right track and purpose; it is by all means a virtue!
So yes you do have a limit, and there is indeed – by necessity of reason - knowledge that no man can or will ever obtain!
- There is knowledge that cannot be obtained by man at all, and he needs not obtain it for his life on Earth, or for the purpose of his creation. (like the knowledge of how the Lord is; The way His attributes are and the way they work, for example)
- And knowledge that cannot be obtained by man on his own, through reasoning or observation (empirical science, or philosophy), but is at the same time essential for man to learn nonetheless, and can only be delivered to mankind from the creator Himself. (like the question of origins, the question of purpose, the question of death and the afterlife and so forth)
This is what separates those who know wisdom from those who don‟t. Those who know wisdom, will know their limits and their end goals and will know that as long as the query of research is justifiable by the source from which that ultimate goal along with all ethics of knowledge is taken, and does not contradict with a rational necessity (claiming something that is rationally
364
impossible for man), or violate a basic teaching of the true heavenly revelation; then it is as favorable and positively commended as can be! They will know what questions are to be asked in a laboratory and why, and what questions are to be asked somewhere else and where, and what questions are not to be asked at all! The wisest of all are those who know their limits!
The professor then proceeds to make an argument from the events of the trial known as (the Kitzmiller-Dover trial), picking on the position that Behe took regarding the peer-reviewed publications that he was presented on the trial in response to his claim that science will never find an evolutionary explanation to the immune system. Well, I can easily dismiss this argument altogether simply by saying that Behe was indeed wrong in this claim! He shouldn‟t have said that!
There is indeed no limit to the number of imaginative “explanations” one can come up with that could be added to the mythical story of “evolution” one way or another! The theory tells the story of ancestral lineages to currently existing beings or organic systems, and simply places systems (both existent and fossilized) that may look proximal in shape, function or structure, together in a long storyline that is claimed to be an historical line of heredity that started off from the simplest system of them all and ended at the most complex we currently know of! Now when you think of it, this is not – at all – a proposition that we could find difficulty stretching and applying to every system in life (which is exactly what Darwinians are very good at doing)! Yet none of this proves it to be the truth, or gives it any proper justification whatsoever for the way it reverses the very polarity of human reason! The Darwinian objection to this very simple and reasonable claim by Behe here under the name of “science” is a perfectly clear example!
Imagine that one day, you found two photos buried underground of two individuals that look pretty much alike! Now, you may easily claim that they must be family; they must be twins or something, then you would start gathering what you think could be taken as evidence to support your theory
365
(or to dismiss it)! That – by far – is fine by me. But what would it make of you if even though I could easily prove to you – irrefutably - that they were totally unrelated, and that the two photos came to this place from two absolutely distinct places, or I can prove to you that they are both fake, or even that they are two photos of the same individual!; what would it make of you if you still insisted on adding further “explanations” from here and there that would accord with your hypothesis, taking them for “Evidence”? That‟s what it makes of you: A blind believer who can‟t see himself waking up from a dream that he favors so much, he cannot imagine letting go of it!
I couldn‟t care less what Dr. Behe said or did on that particular event! His personal misjudgments or anybody else‟s on this or any other matter, are not evidence against creation! The philosophical concept he seeks to prove should not be put to the test of „science‟ in the first place! Actually when you listen to the statement by Rothschild in comment on Behe‟s attitude, it is indeed no more than a cheap appeal to emotions of the Jury! He says (as quoted by Dawkins):
―Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system . . . It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother.‖ (The Delusion p.133)
What does the general meaning of learning about immune systems and how to deal with them in medical and genetic treatments, have to do with deciding on their “Darwinian origins”? Any sane man should see that the two queries of research are not relevant (philosophically), and that they are only made relevant by the convictions and beliefs of atheist scientists! Nobody is denying them merit for discovering what they do know about those systems; but their faith in the origins from which those systems came from is something we do not accept! It is a claim of knowledge that is by
366
nature out of their empirical reach, and we do not care what they believe about it! So what this man is saying is simply this: “Oh people bow and pay homage to those scientists who serve you well and supply you with answers along with medicine, and do not listen to anybody who wishes to falsify a single one of their claims for whatever reason! Those are evil people who added nothing to medical knowledge and who do not even want you to progress in science!‖
Now what kind of an argument is this? Is this really worth the quotation? Well, to Dawkins it is of course!
He concludes this part by claiming that there are “flaws” in the way certain forms of life are composed! He mentions liability to certain forms of disease, in an argument that goes in line with the way they would explain the fact that certain individuals are born with disabilities or defects every now and then! They claim it all to be exactly what would be expected if natural life progressed through “evolution” not “Design”!
I say this is argument from sheer ignorance! Because as I stated in an earlier section, in order to properly judge the perfectness of a certain given system (which is obviously perfect with – and maybe even because of – all those things you hate in it), you have to fully understand its purpose of making beforehand! And you cannot possibly obtain that knowledge from any other source but from the maker of the system himself! So what the professor and every other atheist know not (or rather insist on neglecting), is that in the knowledge that is evidently delivered to us from the creator Himself, we do learn the purpose of the making of this life, the purpose of the making of disease, pain, defection, and the exact purpose why the world has to be exactly the way that it is! We know why there has to be mutations and disabilities in this way that those people would claim – in their ignorance and utter irrationality – it proves the system to have been founded on random events and “natural selection” rather than creation!
If it were indeed the case that God meant for the world to be a paradise where nobody suffers or gets sick, nobody dies, nothing decays or decomposes, and we all live in eternal bliss as a single happy family; then I
367
would totally agree with your claim that this is not how you expect a purposefully and perfectly created world to be! But how on earth do you know that? How do you know what God meant for the world and what His exact purpose of creation was?
He claims that the fact that the recurrent laryngeal nerve takes a mysteriously long detour on its way to its destination; proves this to be a waste and the remainder of an incomplete evolution from an ancestral life form!
Now I find no shame in admitting that I do not currently know why this nerve has to be that long and take such a strange path to its destination! We may or may not find that out through further research, and I would certainly do endorse such a research if I knew it would help in the purpose of developing medical sciences that would help us cure diseases (not for the purpose of supplying “evidence” for or against Darwinism!). However, my position of justifiable certainty is that our current ignorance of the exact function of this particular structure of the nerve, does not by any means give any man the right to claim that this is a “waste” or the remainder of a process of evolution that should have gone better!
This is indeed another Darwinian attempt to use gaps of current human knowledge in favor of their theory! It is them, planting their own god (Darwinian chaos) in those gaps in the most arrogant and irrational manner of all! And when the time comes and better knowledge is revealed to us of why this nerve has to be exactly the way that it is; they would retreat with their pathetic god of insolence to another gap in human knowledge, the way they claim followers of religion to be doing! Had this nerve been badly created, with any excess or waste as they claim, it wouldn‟t have functioned as perfectly as no one can dare deny that it does! But what should anybody do to make them see that?
The same is to be said of other examples that he gives for what he views to be “errors of evolution”! Just listen to this statement:
―Many of our human ailments, from lower back pain to hernias, prolapsed uteruses and our susceptibility to sinus infections, result
368
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:40 pm | |
|
directly from the fact that we now walk upright with a body that was shaped over hundreds of millions of years to walk on all fours.‖ (The Delusion p.134)
Another argument from blind faith indeed!
One cannot escape wondering, why, in the religion of Darwin, did man ever have to become upright at all?! What evolutionary necessity could possibly have man evolve into walking upright; what “survival privilege” do humans have over apes because of the upright structure of their bodies? Obviously none at all!
Well, maybe somewhere in some of their textbooks you will find a researcher proposing an evolutionary scenario of some sort to “explain” it! Another twisted Darwinian fiction, that is. Or when they run dry on imagination, they would just resort to random mutation: It just happened by chance! You know how the story goes!
My concern here, however, is in his extremely arrogant and clearly false claim that the human body is defected, (imperfect)!
Well let‟s start where every sane researcher should start; by defining terminology! What is a defect and what is an imperfectness?
A defect is by definition a failure to comply with the exact function or purpose for which a particular system is made! This failure may be anything from a minor error to total failure! So how do you know that people who get back pain are not meant by their creator to have this pain for a particular purpose that is part of what their bodies are made for?
It is interesting how under the very tag of evolution itself, Darwinian researchers have come up with a new discipline that they call “Evolutionary medicine” where they are actually examining many diseases and physical symptoms that though they would still view as “imperfectness” they find to be amazing survival necessities and mechanisms as they are! An archetypal example indeed of human stubbornness and presumptuous denial! You can see in the very language they use, the unbelievably deep contradiction and inverse-reason in their explanations!
369
As much as you hate to cough, for example, and it troubles you and maybe even pains you, you have to do it because it does good things to your body (least of which is alarm you to the danger)! And so they claim that this is why natural selection kept this “imperfectness”, and this is not how a human designer would get around with design! I ask: Now that they understand its perfectly balanced function, how dare they call it a “defect” or “imperfection”?
Well, yes indeed this is not how a human designer would create a system; that an annoyance and source of trouble of this sort would actually be made into a necessary component of the very way the system works; but we keep telling them: whoever said that we believe in a human designer who made natural life or the entire Universe?
Neither the ways are analogous, nor the purpose itself! The purpose of creation of our bodies, and every subsystem in them, is clearly not analogous to the purpose for which any human creator would create any artifact of any sort! We humans create out of need, we need what we create to serve us, so the prospect of creating an artifact with a deliberately designed mechanism of noise or self damage and decay that is in itself a necessary subsystem for the artifact to work properly, this is not something we – humans - would do; and certainly not in such an outstanding perfectness! This is obviously a system that is perfectly prepared for a purpose that is far more than just “surviving” or “breeding”! A purpose that should have those negative agents serving it just as good as the positive ones! This is how it is made perfect!
This is obviously not the way things are in biological systems alone; it‟s the way the whole world is! It‟s the way of the universe at large! Earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, floods, and all other forms of natural catastrophes, do hit life on earth, and inflict damage (system decomposition) to parts of it; however, scientists have no choice but to admit the sheer necessity of the occurrence of such catastrophes the way they do, for the welfare and continuity of nature and life itself on Earth! There is no escaping this duality of poles: The positive and the negative, and the perfect balance between them on all levels in this magnificent system. Thus there is no way in the world any of these negative agents could be called an
370
“imperfectness”! How could it possibly be imperfectness, when the system cannot work without it? There is no way this world and the life in it could be made to do without those disasters, those tragedies that we hate and fear so much! Without death, life on Earth will fail! Without decay, there shall be no composition! Newborn specimens are composed of the very same matter that is left behind by the dead, and fed into the living through nutrition! Without those subsystems „failing‟, there shall be no life on Earth! This is quite obviously how it is built! It‟s how it works.
A masterful system indeed, perfectly organized to be in the exact way that it is! So instead of denying the extremely obvious, atheists should be asking themselves: Why is it created in this particular way? Why does there have to be pain, suffering, disaster, and death? What‟s the point of all so many things that we hate in the world? And where could we obtain the only true, verifiably true answer to this question? Well, first they have to admit that it is not a question that natural sciences could answer! Higher meaning, first order cause and purpose, can only be known by direct teaching from the creator Himself! The purpose does indeed include and perfectly justify all those negative aspects that atheists would whine about, and call “imperfectnesss”! Holders of the beacon of heavenly knowledge, true heavenly knowledge, never claimed that we humans come to this world to live in absolute happiness! Absolutely not! Our knowledge as Muslims goes in perfect accord with the way the world is created! We simply know what this is all about!
Now this idea of a system that works on destruction as well as on construction, in every single part and on every level of it, is high above our limited creative powers as humans! And it is – as such – just the way you would expect of a system that is perfectly created for the purpose of testing humans for choice of faith and deeds, the way the Lord teaches.
We, human designers, would not work our way with design of a manmade system in such a way that a clearly dangerous and corruptive agent that if left unchecked may actually damage the entire system, would be made of such an immense functional importance and value to that system! We wouldn‟t place a built-in virus in a computer, keep it balanced or
371
quarantined by antivirus software, and in the mean time, give that virus itself an important function in preservation of the system; knowing that if ever it happened that the antiviral agent was to crash, the computer would fail! I mean, unless we needed that virus there for a particular end, we wouldn‟t choose to do that! And we wouldn‟t need it there because our purpose of designing a computer does not include the option of its deliberate damage! We will never choose to damage that machine on purpose! And if we wished to do that, we will never bother giving the damaging agent a stabilizing function in the design! It will just be a self destructive mechanism that remains “off” until it is chosen to run and only then is it to be turned on! We cannot design a machine that works in such a perfectly delicate balance between negative forces that have the capacity to ravage it, and positive ones that hold them back, while each of the two forces has a set of positive functions of its own that has to be fulfilled for the sake of the general purpose of the system!
It‟s an interesting point to make in this context; that if what we have today is only the lucky remainder of a very long history of billions of failing species and failing generations that were not selected because they lacked survival equipment – or internal balance - and waited to no avail for the lucky mutation to come about; chances are we should be stumbling upon such “unfit” unselected freaks of nature in fossil findings much more frequently than those “selected” fossils that we have! No such a thing was ever found though; we don‟t see it today and there‟s no way anybody can prove it ever took place any time in the past either!
Total and utter wishful thinking, that‟s all they have!
They would say that natural selection did not develop those balancing agents, turning a defect into a benefit, it cannot do that! It was random mutation that did it, and had it not done it, natural selection would have driven the poor species to extinction because of that defect! Well, the word “perfect” doesn‟t even begin to describe what this “random” mutation is claimed to have “done”!
372
Look at the way a pregnant woman carries her baby. Scientists discovered recently that a woman is capable of doing this without this serious change in the gravitational center of her body damaging her ability to walk steadily, or causing her to topple over, because of certain features in the base of her spine and her hip joints that help her twist backwards for better balance as she walks without damaging her back! It is an adaptive feature that is found only in bipedal females. The question to the evolutionist now is this: had this biological feature not been there in women exclusively ever since they started walking on two rather than four (!); how possibly could the human race survive? You can easily imagine what the fate of the species would be if pregnancy at any point in history had a damaging effect to a female or would cripple her body! Obviously, if Darwinian evolution was true, then women had to have this feature developed in them prior to breeding as a bipedal organism; otherwise bipedalism would not be selected! So are we again reducing the story to another unbelievably lucky mutation that – for no survival necessity at all - enabled women to move on two rather than on four, and walk steadily with that load in their bellies?
Thus we ask: how possibly could this feature be selected for humans? Why did this feature prevail, along with this essential change in the female spine? Why do we not see any species of humans (like species of apes) walking on four today? No “evolutionary” justification whatsoever there!
It is thus unthinkable that those Harvard researchers who recently published this discovery – the special features in female spine - in “Nature” magazine would still term it: an “evolutionary trick”! This is badly written fiction indeed! It‟s just like every follower of a false religion would do! He would easily twist every amazing discovery that any researcher makes giving it an “explanation” that accords with his beliefs; and would take that for a plausible explanation no matter how senseless and irrational it may actually be! And when accused of that, the atheist would make the famous complaint that his opponents are anti-science and do not wish to have this gap filled with “science”! What Science?
To sum up I say; A fundamentally essential element in a certain system cannot be considered a flaw of design, and as long as the normal
373
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:40 pm | |
|
condition is not one which has the negative effect of that element up and running all the time, but has it under a perfect balance in keeping with its purpose; we are clearly speaking of perfectness of creation! So again, instead of claiming this to be a defect that “Natural selection” could not get around, we should rather ask ourselves: Why did the creator choose to create things in this particular way!
And the answer is simply because we are here to be tested for choice. Tested by the good as well as the bad! Part of this test is of course, infliction with different sorts of troubles, diseases, and malfunctions! Translation (2|155): ((And surely We shall try (test) you with something of fear and hunger, and loss of wealth and lives and crops; but give glad tidings to the steadfast))
This test not only justifies the way the world is, it justifies the way we are, the way we seek justice and righteousness, the reason there is such a thing as morality, the reason there is responsibility and accountability, we are here to choose to do right, and to be judged for it all!
The point I‟m making here is that life is not to be justified by what those people wish it to be, but by what its creator made it for! The purpose of a system only comes from the maker of that system, not from a user who just opened his eyes one day to find himself using it as it is! This is the actual reason for the quarrel between us and Darwinians or holders of materialistic philosophies in general! They seek to deny creation so they could decide on the purpose of life and the reason why it is the way it is, all on their own; so they could make up whatever lie (philosophy) they wish to make and live by whatever rules they choose, and not stand accountable for any of their choices after their lifetimes are consumed! They know very well what it means to admit creation! It means direct and instant submission to the will of the creator and they just cannot see themselves do it!
Well, like it or not; it is the truth! You are obviously not in this world to live in perfect happiness, and the more you work for pleasure the more pain you get! And though you find it in you that you have the capacity to imagine a place where there is no bad, no evil, no pain, no death, and you‟d certainly
374
love to go to it; you contrast that image to the way you observe the world around you, and find it to be very distinct, very distinct indeed! Bad and evil are overwhelmingly fundamental elements in the very fabric of this world, not occasional failures of a place that was originally designed to be a paradise!
Calamity is a fundamental, definitive, component of what this life is made for! If He so willed He could‟ve easily made it into a perfectly positive system all the way, but that‟s not how it is built! That‟s not how it works for its purpose! There has to be a struggle! Now unsurprisingly, while Darwinians do realize this amazing property of the system; instead of using it as an example of how perfect this creation really is - given that its perfectness is something that goes without any effort to see and detect - they would ride their vehicles in the exact opposite direction and claim it to be a sign of “imperfectness”!
There is evidently always a positive system and a negative system that have to be in perfect balance in the human body in normal condition all the time, otherwise man would become sick! And when he is meant by his creator to get sick, his balance is determinately breached! It is caused to fail! Whereas the system – at large - is made in such a way that it balances and absorbs this “failure”! Thus it is wrong to even call it a failure in such an absolution! It is only a failure relative to the individual element that suffers the decay or the malfunction, in biological and physical terms. But as for the purpose of creation of the system as a whole, it is perfectly justified, it is doing just what it was made to do, and the human individual who suffers this physical failure may indeed make those choices that would have him pass the test and get all good out of that negative experience!
The way we move, the way we live is made in such a way that normally we would not suffer because of the way our backs are formed (for example)! Each one of the two “poles” of the process is made as such for obviously very good reasons, and we do perfectly with both poles in constant balance! Yes indeed this perfect balance could easily be shifted – purposefully so I should say – so that a particular individual would suffer back pain under the will of His creator! But this is not evidence against creation! If anything, it is
375
in fact evidence for the exact purpose that the creator teaches about His creation! Had he willed to spare humans the possibility of ever coming to suffer back pain, things would‟ve been much different in that spine, and in the whole world for that matter! But every single element in our bodies – as in the rest of the system - has this amazing property built in, precisely because it was not made to run this way forever! What we hold is that this is exactly how it is created, and purposefully so!
So fact of the matter is, this „back-pain conducive‟ structure is by all means perfectness of creation, not the outcome of an incomplete evolution from a quadrupedal bone structure!
Now, Dawkins concludes this part of his book with a sarcastic comment that I really should not waste printing ink commenting on; however, it is an icon as to how superficial an atheist‟s take on the idea of “God” is!
He says:
―Predators seem beautifully 'designed' to catch prey animals, while the prey animals seem equally beautifully 'designed' to escape them. Whose side is God on‖
I say, had you not been drenched up to your nose in “fairy tale” stories and pagan mythologies of false gods, and had that not been all that you know about “religion”; you would‟ve never made such a silly remark!
The creator obviously created animals to be just the way they are! Perfect balance between preying and breeding; perfect balance between the skills and powers of the predator on one side, and the abilities of the prey to escape and camouflage on the other, not to mention the perfect accord with external natural conditions! This is no “cruelty”! Man has always been intimidated by the sight of a hungry predator beast ravishing its prey! Yes indeed it is violent and bitter, and naturally this is how it feels in all species that come at a low level in the food chain. But don‟t we all have our own dangers and threats to deal with and our different ways to survive them?
Obviously the least amount of knowledge that this animal that you sympathize with has about itself and about its place in nature, is that it is
376
food for this particular predator, and that it should have no bigger concern in this life – after worshipping the creator in its own way - than making sure not to end up as its dinner! Eat and avoid being eaten; they do accept that code of living on this Earth, they do it as best as they could, they don‟t find it unfair, and you most certainly have no route of knowledge to prove otherwise!
In the Qur‟an we are taught that all animals (all species that move around: Dawab دواب ) are nations (peoples) like mankind!
Allah says (translation of the meanings of the verse): (6|38): ((There is not an animal in the Earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, that is not of “peoples” (nations) like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will all be gathered.))
They do have intelligence, proper reasoning, and languages of their own! They do have systems of order, tribal order, and they know how to do what they are here to do! You‟d think that science has advanced far enough for people to actually see clear signs of this meaning in the way that animals live and communicate! Yet, they don‟t! This is because of a fundamentally wrong approach to understanding how animals reason and communicate, and of course “judging” them: The accursed Darwinian approach!
Animals do have reason, languages of their own (to us they are seen to be nothing more than a number of unexplainable noises and gestures, just as our languages would appear to be to them), that are in full accordance both mentally and physically with the purpose of their existence, just as it is the case with us. So it is ultimately wrong to claim that man is more intelligent than other living species in any way; the features and purposes of human intelligence do not by any means compare to those of animal intelligence in other species.
A Darwinian would easily think that since he cannot communicate with other creatures, and cannot comprehend their means of communication, then they must be incapable of practicing the same forms of communication amongst themselves in ways that suit them! He would easily claim that man is the most “evolved” species in terms of intelligence, language and verbal
377
communication! The definition man holds in his book of knowledge for the term intelligence is a definition that is built entirely on a human datum (frame of reference), related to human problems and human ways, so it is ultimately wrong to apply that very same definition upon other living beings. The fact that we cannot talk to birds or monkeys or that they cannot respond (on the human datum of response) to human conduct and speech does not by any means suggest that they are void of the property of knowledge, completely expressive language or intelligence, or even that they are lacking therein.
If intelligence is loosely defined as the way the mind of a creature deals with different situations in which the creature is put, it is through the creature‟s body structure that this way is executed, and it is within the nature of the function (purpose) of being for that creature on earth that this execution is justified and performed. This means that, intelligence of a bird for example is measured fairly when the bird‟s behavior is compared to that of other birds of its kind and of the same species, not to our human patterns of interaction, response or behavior. Definitely the challenges and problems that we face in our human life are not equal to those that a bird faces! Same goes for apes and all other species!
Yet Darwinism has spoilt this very clear datum, (along with everything else that it inverted really!) and turned all life forms into steps on a stair of evolution; placing human means of communication, mentality and reason, as datum for understanding and judging the corresponding features in every living being, and the way they should be when they have fully evolved! You say we are more intelligent than a monkey because for example we found that we cannot manage to teach a monkey to talk like we do or read and write like we do? Whoever said that a monkey should be capable of developing those skills or learning to do them in the first place? Other than Darwinians who believe they are only a species of evolved apes, I don‟t know anyone else who could find any proper justification for such an approach. There are absolutely no common grounds between man and ape in terms of purpose that would justify our judgment of their intelligence in reference to our human standards of intellect, the way they do, and would
378
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 49023
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: The worship of Gaps, you say?! السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 5:41 pm | |
|
give us the right to call them less “evolved” in terms of reasoning and language.
Yes indeed we humans come at the top of all living beings in terms of physical sophistication, regarding the purpose for which we were made and the honoring that Allah bestowed upon our father. Translation of the Quran (95|4): ((Surely We created man of the best stature)). However this doesn‟t make humans more evolved and it certainly doesn‟t give us the right to judge those creatures according to our datum of purpose and our physical and mental faculties!
This is indeed a major error of reasoning that is - as we have elaborated repeatedly in this literature - a fundamental problem with the philosophy of Darwinian science. Do not judge a machine by the purpose and performance of another machine, and without obtaining the blueprint of the machine you judge! We have no right to say that a fridge is for example less “evolved” or “advanced” than a laptop computer! Yes the technology in the latter is indeed far more advanced – with respect to the history of human development with industrial technology – but those are two different artifacts that are not to be judged in terms of the way they both serve their own distinct functions, by comparing them to one another!
This is wrong!
Thanks to Darwin, the term intelligence has always been used ever since, according to the human reference of what intelligence is in man, to judge all other creatures as inferior to man in terms of evolution (mentally). It makes no sense as we have seen to take human intelligence as a datum to classify and measure intelligence of other species, because none of them has the same function or purpose in life, or the same tools, not to mention the purpose and tools of man.
Human intelligence is not the datum for anything but for judging individual levels of human intelligence. Each species has a perfectly consistent role to play, and every creature knows exactly what it is supposed to do (evolutionist humans not included of course!). Survival is thus not for the fittest; survival is for those whose purpose of being on Earth continues to be.
379
As long as a species still has a role to play on this planet, it is kept existent, and this is how Allah preserves this perfect harmony of existence on Earth, all out of high heavenly wisdom and within a perfect unbreakable order. So when in the Qur‟an the creator states that every single species is similar to man in that they are peoples and nations, peoples that possess language and wisdom, we should not deny that on the basis that we do not understand how they communicate, how they think, or how they obtain knowledge of their own! The very little that we have come to know by far through testing and experimentation, is no argument against what the Qur‟an is telling us!
Actually I would say that this single verse in the Qur‟an (6|38) contains – alone – much more knowledge about natural life than any biologist could even begin to dream about! All those researchers who have wasted their lives in attempt to prove something as clear as the fact that whales and sharks – for example - do have a distinct language of their own, should find this verse and the likes from the Lord their creator to be terminal to their end; a prize of knowledge by all means! You now know what you‟ve been trying to prove! So start from there, and take the right course!
Prophet Solomon and David his father were given the unique ability to comprehend the language of birds and beasts, and in the Quran Solomon is narrated to listen to the wisdom of something as tiny as an ant, and debate with a hoopoe! So easily would an arrogant atheist make fun of this story, claiming it to be just another legend by the poor people of old! But in fact, he cannot afford a single rational proof for the impossibility of this being true of Solomon or of the nations of ants, birds and other beasts, the way God narrates! There is no reason whatsoever for us to view such stories as irrational or “impossible”! They just choose to think little of it, just as they do with every other story of religion, in all religions! And to them, I‟m not at all making any sense when I make such quotations and study such verses!
Even though proper reason and observation tells them that animals do have languages and tribal orders of their own, some of which are quite amazingly complex indeed; they would easily make fun of those stories in the Qur‟an, just because it is there in the Qur‟an! They would easily appreciate a science fiction novelist when he imagines a time in the future when man has
380
managed to discover the languages of certain animals and find no problem accepting the idea as science (take Dr. Doolittle for example!), but when the Qur‟an tells them that the Creator did indeed give this knowledge to some of His prophets, they would readily make fun of it and dismiss it as mythology and fairy tales! What ways could you take to the mind of a man who has blocked his heart and his senses in such a way?
So animals and beasts do have a notion of justice and penalty, and they know about the reasons they are here, and actually the reason why humans are here, far more than someone like professor Dawkins himself knows! None of the pains they suffer in this world is without a code of justice by their creator that they understand and accept! And this is why they will be resurrected in the afterlife to be judged just like we will be judged, except the nature of the punishment and the reward to them will be different, because the nature of their assignment in this life was fundamentally different!
Translation of meanings of the Quran (10|39): ((Nay, but they denied that, the knowledge whereof they could not compass, and whereof the interpretation (in events) has not yet come unto them. Even so did those before them deny. Then what the consequence for the wrongdoers was!))
So rebounding to the Dawkins‟ “silly” comment on the cruelty and wastefulness of natural life; we have all the right in the world to scream in his face: You just don‟t know!
Those prey animals do not find the way they live: cruel or unfair! They know what you don‟t, they are normally equipped to survive, escape, hide, and die naturally without ever being caught by that predator! And they know since early stages of their lives what exactly they are here to do and how to do it! They know their creator; they have not been given the choice against Him like we have, because they are not here to be tested with a choice of faith! They do not dream of a paradise on Earth or anywhere, they do not dream of becoming gods and becoming immortal, they do not dream of ruling the entire universe! In fact, they know much better indeed than any atheist thinks he knows about this life and what it is all about!
381
This is why I often make the remark that if one day we were given the ability to understand the language of apes, Darwinians experimenting on apes in their labs would certainly not be pleased with what those apes would have to say to them! They would then wish they were indeed apes themselves, for at least they would be comfortable with knowing what life is all about and what exactly men are here to do with all that knowledge and that unique power that separates them from all other species!
This is why it is a recurrent meaning in the Quran that the Kuffar (especially stubborn unbelievers who refuse to accept the truth when they see it) are indeed lower in rank (of knowledge) than cattle and sheep! This is true, because they choose not to submit to the will of their creator and do what they are made in this world to do, while beasts and cattle on the other hand do submit to the assignment of worshipping Him! Beasts know what they should do with their lives and they know that they have no choice but to submit, they know they have no eternity after death, and they know that whenever they do injustice to animals other than the ones they should prey on (or even if they torture their preys unnecessarily as they capture them), they would get paid in full for that! Yes their range of choice is not as vast as ours, and it does not include choosing who or what to worship other than their creator; but they do pay for their choices nonetheless! So do not feel sorry for the cruel sight of a beast being ravaged by another beast! It is not without a fulfillment of perfect justice that they do understand and accept.
This mortal life is all there is for them; they simply know everything they have to know! Atheists on the other hand, know not what they were created for, they know not why they were given choice, they know not what will be of them after death, and whatever they know of the tools and resources of this Earth, they do not know what they should be doing with it, and when compared to the vastness of what is there for them after death, which they know almost nothing about; it is clearly no more than a big zero! Cattles are thus much wiser and higher in the rank of knowledge!
((Or perhaps you think that most of them hear or understand? They are but like cattle, nay, but they are farther astray!)) (Translation of the
382
meanings of verse (25/44)) They are lesser than beasts in knowledge! In keeping with the human purpose they are farther astray than beasts (who are not to blame for not doing what humans are supposed to be doing), and in keeping with the general purpose of creation of all living beings, they are lesser all the same because the refuse to submit to their creator the way those beasts do!
This is no waste; it‟s a vast richness and openhandedness in creation! One that is part of the overall wisdom and purpose of variety in nature! There are lessons for man to learn in every corner of this Earth, there are benefits for him to make, there are rulings to be abided with, all to be known and obtained from no other source but the heavenly manual of life: The revealed knowledge of the true religion of the creator.
|
| | | | | | The worship of Gaps, you say?! | |
|
مواضيع مماثلة | |
|
| | صلاحيات هذا المنتدى: | لاتستطيع الرد على المواضيع في هذا المنتدى
| |
| |
| |
