“You do not know the first thing about Natural Selection!”
The position that most evolutionists would easily take against “creationists” or against anybody who challenges evolutionism and Darwinism, is the famous response: “You do not understand evolution”!
Well, obviously, no matter what anybody would ever come to argue; there‟s no way he‟s going to change the professor‟s mind or make him have a second thought about the concept of creation (unless of course Allah wills otherwise)! So no matter what arguments you raise against him; it‟s settled for him! No matter what rational evidence you could offer him: you‟re wrong and you don‘t understand the first thing about evolution or Natural Selection! It‟s done for him!
The point I‟m making with this is that; while Dawkins so easily dismisses the meaning of faith altogether as a disease that mutes reason and rational thinking, without making any distinction whatsoever between having faith in something that is evidently true and valid, and faith in something that stands no evidence whatsoever, while he takes his assault on all faith to extreme measures, he fails to realize that his position is indeed a position of blind faith, and that he is no different from any follower of a false system of beliefs, except in the fact that those beliefs were made in the mind of a bunch of materialist atheist scientists, rather than philosophers of metaphysics or priests of a temple or theologians of church!
Faith does not mean – as atheists would often repeat – belief without evidence! This sick extrapolation of fallacy on all faith is a fanatic reaction to the false faith someone like Dawkins may have been brought up on as a child or surrounded with in his society! The man simply does not know what it‟s like to be on a true faith which qualifies to be the valid truth in perfect
196
accord with reason and evidence! So he must understand that his personal ignorance is no argument against all “faith”! Faith in the truth and fulfilling a life of wisdom accordingly is by all mean the head of all virtues ever known to man!
Yes I‟m afraid you‟d find that definition he propagates of faith in many dictionaries (probably adopted originally by an atheist like himself!) but you must have noticed – if you have ever looked it up in a dictionary before – that there are indeed other meanings, and that the most famous and conventional meaning (taken from its etymology) is this:
“Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.‖
“Origin: 1200–50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit < L fidem, acc. of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust.”
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)
So he is indeed a man of faith, no matter how he evades or denies it! And by examining his arguments and objections against the creator and all religion, he is revealed not only as a man of “faith” but of “false religion” and “false doctrine”; “blind faith” that is! A faith he‟s working so hard to put in the place of all other religions regarding the origins and the metaphysical! This is “religion” even if he denies the terminology, and it is faith no matter what he says to deny it! He says people should let go of religion! But this belief is in fact his own personal religion! Religion is defined in the dictionary as
“a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects”
("religion." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 01 Sep. 2009. .)
So it makes no difference whether you observe certain rituals or you don‟t, you are a preacher of religion all the same! Every human being has a religion by this definition, one that defines his personal beliefs about the metaphysical, the purpose of life, and the code of morality that is implied by this belief, regardless of what that belief is and where exactly he gets it from.
197
The bias and sheer prejudice exhibited here by the professor, is the same you‟d expect of all preachers of false religion, except it goes under a cloak of “science” here! He easily dismisses and even makes fun of every other explanatory “theory” that comes in contrast to Darwinism, accuses every holder of any suggestion of an „intelligent designer‟ of ignorance, and ridicules, even insults creation as a concept that is not even worth consideration on a table of science; none of that is any different from what you would expect from say a Hindu Guru or a Zoroastrian priest when his faith and vision of the world is questioned! And if this attitude and behavior does not exhibit a phenomenon of strong faith and a total commitment to it, with a clear readiness to maybe even go to as far as wage intellectual and political wars for its sake (like his calling American atheists to arms?); then I wonder, what is faith?
As for me, as a man who admits his faith and is proud to argue for it, and to even fight for it if he had to, I speak in this book not from the position of a scientist whose subject matter is probabilistic by nature, one who insists on appealing to scientific evidence, struggling with rational and linguistic necessities as he goes, for the sake of setting up his personal fundamental beliefs the way he likes them to be! I speak from the position of a man who is certain that he does have all the evidence that a sane man needs to see the truth for what it is! So when I accuse an offender of my faith of ignorance, I can easily prove to him that he is indeed ignorant and that he does not know the first thing about the book that he‟s refuting! But when an atheist charges all people of religion with ignorance, he knows pretty well there‟s nothing on his hands by which he can prove them all wrong at any level of indisputable argumentation!
Now, let‟s proceed with our response to this „religious‟ campaign against reason and knowledge.
I quote:
“Some observed phenomenon - often a living creature or one of its more complex organs, but it could be anything from a molecule up to the universe itself - is correctly extolled as statistically improbable‖
(Dawkins, p. 113)
198
Absolutely wrong! Statistical improbability does not apply to this problem! I do not look at a complex creature and say: how “probable” is it that something like this could come into being from nothingness, or from inanimate particles? It does exist indeed, (hence it is not impossible!) and it obviously cannot be anything but the outcome of a perfect process of informed and purposeful creation! I never saw anything come into being from nothingness, or inanimate matter turn into a living being (and the actual difference between a living being and a dead being is obviously not a question of chemistry!), so obviously the very first event that brought that thing into being, whatever it was, is something we‟ve seen nothing like; and hence there‟s no place at all for applying statistical probability here as we explained earlier!
False application and conceptualization of mathematical tools always results in nothing but bad science!
I quote:
―In fact, as I shall show in this chapter, Darwinian natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable riddle of where the information comes from‖ (Dawkins, p. 114)
In fact, as I hope my reader will be able to judge by the end of this literature; Darwinian natural selection is by no means a solution to anything, and the least it could ever do – in fact - is explain where all the information comes from!
―However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747‖
Again we say: Our Lord Almighty is not a created creator! If we‟re talking about a “Created designer” that is bound (by the very meaning of being created) to the same laws that restrict all creation, then yes of course, it only makes sense that this creator be more improbable (too complex to have any similar match that may have ever come under the reach of human experience). But this is obviously not The creator we speak of, because
199
obviously it does not end the regress in the only rationally plausible way! So it is not “probable” or “improbable” that The Creator exists; it is rationally necessary that He Does!
―The argument from improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance.‖
It seems that I will not be able to proceed with my reading in (The God Delusion) without making a stop at almost every single statement! Now this statement is a trick of terminology! When I say that complex things could not have come around by chance, I‟m not talking probability! I‟m clearly saying that it‟s impossible for complex things to come about by chance.14 It‟s impossible, not improbable, that any system would ever emerge into being as the outcome of an unplanned, unguided, unconditioned and purposeless event, not to mention a countless number of such events!
---------------------------------------------------
14 Chance and purposelessness are only in the eye of the limited human beholder! They only describe our current model of things, not the way they really are. A process that had no doer (agent) and no purpose does not exist! It simply cannot be! Many things may appear in nature to be “functionless”, but this doesn‟t make nature un-designed, and it doesn‟t mean it came about “randomly” or by chance! That‟s only a statement of current knowledge of a particular set of natural phenomena! Nature is a grand system that keeps unfolding its secrets to the limited reach of man‟s hand, and if there‟s any lesson that a scientist should learn from this gradual growth of human knowledge; this is it!
There are a countless number of things that scientists once used to think had no function in nature and had no guiding rule; and only further observation, examination and advancement at that, proved them wrong! What else did they expect anyway? In a perfectly purposeful and functional universe like the one we clearly live in, it‟s impossible that there be anything that is missing, or that is excess or functionless, or was not made for a particular purpose, regardless of how much we currently know about that function or purpose!
It really amazes me how a scientist could so easily challenge his own eyes and insist on nullifying the necessary perfectness of what can only be – rationally - the other end of a clearly perfect system! I mean if it is this perfect at one end, then how could it possibly be chaotic or unruly at the other? This makes no sense at all! It‟s basic reason and language here! This a dynamic system where every element has a track of different functions that it assumes through the course of time according to a perfect code of balanced progression! At any point of this progression, if anything is lacking then this only means failure! Even if a tiny grain of sand may appear now to do nothing but work as part of a soft walking carpet on the beach, tomorrow, some of its molecules may actually be part of the body of a whale, or even the body of one of your own grandchildren! This is a complete, closed (conserved) and perfectly balanced system where nothing is excess or has no function! Nothing could be more obvious and yet they insist on denying it!
200