إجازة الشيخ أحمد بن محمد بن أحمد لبن بقراءة الإمام عاصم

Fundamental semantic corruption and Wordplay!
Quote:
But many people define 'come about by chance' as a synonym for 'come about in the absence of deliberate design'. Not surprisingly, therefore, they think improbability is evidence of design.
Clearly, the way those “many people” define “chance” has nothing to do with any mistake of reason that they or anybody may make applying improbability or probability where it does not rationally apply! Anybody who thinks “improbability” proves or means anything at all in our query, is delusional, and does not properly understand what mathematical probability really means!
As for what chance is; that‟s another issue! However, to the author it is obviously the same issue! This is because he is making an extremely senseless case here, in trying to prove that what people may put in the claimed absence of a purposeful, knowing, willing creator, is not what they would have no choice but to call: “chance”! Well this is by all means a contradiction! It means that Order = chaos, because if order can emerge from chaos without a purposeful external originator (and organizer) that initiates and enforces the organizing rule that we would then recognize as order, then there really is no difference in meaning between “order” and “Chaos” at all, because what is chaos – linguistically - if not a state where nothing happens in any organized manner or for any plausible reason we can think of? I mean this is simple linguistic reasoning here! It‟s the necessary distinction between the very meaning of order and the meaning of chaos in any human language! This rational distinction is ultimately destroyed by Darwinian logic!
This is why Dawkins is uncomfortable with the only reasonable and sensible way to explain the word “chance”!
But let‟s consult a dictionary, shall we?
201
Chance:
―The absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled…‖
 “ The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.
 A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.‖
(Middle English, unexpected event, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *cadentia, from Latin cadēns, cadent-, present participle of cadere, to fall, befall; see kad- in Indo-European roots.)
(Source: chance. (n.d.). The American Heritage:registered: Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved February 03, 2009, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chance)
Thus we can see that chance is actually a relative meaning! That is to say, something may appear to have happened by chance in the eyes of one man, while another would know that it is all planned, like when X thinks he met Y by chance when in fact the meeting was all arranged by Y or by someone that neither X nor Y expects to have anything to do with it! It‟s all but a stance of relative human knowledge!
Thus, one should point out that man‟s current incapability of comprehending or predicting the cause beyond a given event in nature, does not by any means of reason, make that particular event or element without any cause or purpose or order! The problem is fundamentally epistemic not ontological as we can see! Absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence! It is amazing how people who are supposed to have been exposed to all so many wonders of order and functionality in the way systems of nature work, and have been trained with rigorous scientific argumentation and theorization, would find it plausible to claim that within such a perfectly ordered system and such a delicate dynamic equilibrium; there could be elements that follow no rule, or have no particular purpose or function within this system! After all, it was only through our humble observation of this system itself that we learned to know what purpose and function are! Our minds work the way
202
they work, because nature is the way it is! It is the very reason there is such a thing in our knowledge that we call “natural law”!
Thus we say that the claim that there is intrinsic “lawlessness” somewhere in – not to mention at the very roots and origins of – this perfect system that cradles us; is fundamentally false! The words (chance) and (random) cannot afford these meanings they have given them; it is wrong language and anti-science position as we shall come to elaborate throughout this literature. It comes only from the shortsightedness of a stubborn atheist who insists on denying the undeniable, and placing disorder at the bottom of what is obviously a seamless fabric of perfect order!
The system is clearly made to accommodate and allow for such things that we cannot yet understand or explain, to take place the way they do, because if not; then it should‟ve crashed and failed long ago! You cannot imagine what may happen in the universe if – say – the number of grains of sand existing in it was only a handful less or more than it is! We have only little knowledge of the infinitely complicated processes running in the universe of which this sand is – was and will be - a key element! Even the most “hazardous” and “unexplainable” events in nature, are parts of the way it is made and the way it runs! By creation it is made to – functionally and purposefully - allow for them the way we see them!
This is the frame of rational intuition than every healthy mind should work within, in seeking to model and explain the way this magnificent system works! This has always been the way with mankind and the way humans do science until at some late point in the history of the west, certain philosophers started to rebel against reason and knowledge itself! It was there that the positive became negative, and axioms of reason and language started to be put to the guillotine! And today, scientists can easily insert corruption and failure in the very system that gave them the meaning of order, beauty, function, time, and law, and not only get away with it; they even find themselves justified! Certain meanings that were only – rationally - used to describe the characteristically limited way by which we humans understand and explain nature; are now assigned to nature itself! This is a problem far more fundamental – in terms of philosophy – than most of
203
today‟s militant atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and others) could possibly realize! It is the reason why they think they stand justified in their counter-intuitive position! It is the reason why someone like Dawkins actually thinks – ironically enough – that he is raising people‟s “consciousness” with such a book!
The very fact that nature continues to run in perfect equilibrium with no crash or collapse, as perfectly suited for human life as it is, proves that nothing takes place or exists within it without a function, and a code of balance that when examined closely would tell us that it actually had to take place precisely the way it did, or exist precisely where it did when it did! A natural scientist who doesn‟t exhibit humility towards this amazing system that we call the universe; and instead he would seek to plant chaos and chance in the middle – even at the bottom - of it; is a man who is in deliberate rejection of what he knows he cannot deny! This is what we call in Islam (Juhood جحىد defiance)!
When mathematicians first pondered on what they now call (Chaos mathematics) they were motivated by the need to reconsider the way they viewed many phenomena as “disorder” or just “noise” that followed no particular rule or pattern, and could not be fit within the linear code of mathematical expression. They came up with a model that is more of a conjectural attempt to plot or model the way a system “looks” or “behaves”, in an expression that is deterministic, but yet leaves room for the unpredictability that characterizes many parts of that system (in the view of man). They simply developed a mathematical model (a set of rules) that simulates in its unpredictable outcome, the way we observe many complex systems in nature.
And even though they cannot afford to deny the rationally necessary – and clearly evident – determinism and consistency within any system in study (like climatic and weather systems for example) and in the way it relates to all other determinate systems in nature, you would still find them confused about the philosophical meaning of (Chaos) in this context of theory nonetheless! Chaos in this context is only an expression of unpredictability and nonlinearity in the way we seek to model such unimaginably complex
204
systems; it doesn‟t mean that the system lacks any masterfully determined rules! It wouldn‟t work if it did! As unpredictable to man as those phenomena may be; the system is clearly organized in perfect accordance and equilibrium with such phenomena nonetheless! There are forces that we know we cannot comprehend or predict in our current state of knowledge – as fundamental components of the system as they actually are -, yet scientists would so easily dismiss them as random and just plain “noise”, in the sense that there is no determinate law in nature to control them! It is here that the atheistic philosophy of science goes wrong! And while we hold that every single part of this magnificent system must be perfectly created for a purpose, regardless of how much of that we may currently or may ever come to know, atheists on the other hand would easily put chaos „in the gaps‟; the very antonym of system and natural law itself!
So the problem is indeed a radical problem of epistemology! It manifests in this line the distinguishes between the way man comprehends and models nature by his limited human tools of knowledge on one hand, and the way it really is, on the other! It is often neglected – this line - or even erased by the pompous and arrogant approach of atheists to the understanding of nature. And thus we can‟t help wondering: If whatever we don‟t see is not there, and whatever we cannot comprehend is just “chance” or “chaos” in its very nature, then why are we still doing science at all? The very progress of science itself from one age of man to the other refutes this corrupt approach, and exposes it as an actual escape from the „bigger questions‟!
So this is how it works for an atheist: Those parts of nature the orderliness of which serves his belief about the reason he‟s here; are orderly and perfectly systematic, whereas those parts the perfectness of which suggests the fallacy of his belief in the reason why he‟s here, and thus endangers his fate after death because of his choice of belief regarding it; have to be chaotic and unorganized by nature! And thus, God has to be a delusion! Let him then be reminded that what was yesterday chaotic and functionless, is today known for a fact to be a necessary functional part of more than one system and subsystem in nature! Let him be reminded of his limits as a human who is
205
only beginning to learn a little part of a little part of the very little that he can currently see of this magnificent system that we call the universe!
In our blindness and shortsightedness we humans have been bombing, cutting, exterminating, polluting the seas, damaging the atmosphere, causing the extinction of many species for so long, and yet the system continues to be perfectly fit for our miserable kind to live and to do what they are here to do! It is made in such a way as to absorb the “stupidity”, arrogance, and sheer blindness of humans, and balance those relatively limited damages and add them to the negative side of its continually balanced scale! Many atheists would look at certain events of natural catastrophe and claim them to demonstrate the lack of order and control in the system! They are blind to the bigger picture, and they forget that in order to make such a judgment they have to build upon verifiable knowledge of the exact detailed purpose or function for which those elements of life exist the way they do! The very notions of system, subsystem and functional composition did not come to us from anywhere but the careful observation and examination of this world around us! So by what wisdom do they seek to project our human ignorance unto this system itself, its purpose and the necessary functionality of its every part? If I don‟t know what a Watch is made for, by what reason do I give myself the right to judge it as purposeless or defective?
Atheists just need to sit down, and realize that we humans are only ants dancing on the tip of the tail of a huge elephant! And while every reasonable and sensible man would find this overwhelming magnificence and vast richness of the universe an unmistakable sign to the grandeur and mastery of its maker, atheists on the other hand would claim it to indicate that contrary to what the three religions teach, man is too small to be of any significance in the vast universe! And instead of fueling fear and humility in their hearts as it naturally does; they take it to indicate that life on this tiny earth must have came about by chance! They‟d look to the sky and claim in arrogance that if the world was indeed specifically suited for man‟s life, then the creator couldn‟t possibly have any purpose in making the universe so unimaginably vast, with so many cosmic events happening in places so far away that we humans will never get any chance to observe them!
206
The point is; atheists have taken it for a faith to steadily and forcefully deny that the picture is far too big and too perfect for any man to dare call any part of it “chaotic” or “purposeless”!
And again; chaos is only a relative expression of something that we humans have no knowledge of a similar pattern of order in our minds to analogize it to! You enter your kid‟s room and see things thrown around randomly and you say: This is chaos! Yes it is, but in that, you are making a reference of analogy to a particular notion or image that you have of what “order” you expect to see! This comes from your previous knowledge of the way your kid normally places things in the room, or the way he is supposed to do that anyway! Those books should not be on the bed, that shirt should not be hanging on the back of the chair, the chair itself should not block the door, the pillow should be aligned with the edge of the bed, the sheet should not be wrinkled, but should be stretched to cover the bed evenly … etc! Whenever you miss any of those patterns of what you call order (relative human notion), you see chaos and disorder instead! You know (according to a previous plan and purpose that defines this particular system) that this is not the way it should be! But is this the case with natural phenomena? When you see certain phenomena that do not fit by analogy to any model that you previously knew or expected to see; do you have the right to call it “disorder” or “chaos” in the sense that it cannot be intended just as it is by its creator? No of course you don‟t! Because quite clearly, the overarching system where this phenomenon is observed to take place, is far more consistent and determinate in the way it is ordered and run than what your kid does to his room! And obviously enough, you do not possess a frame of reference of previous knowledge about the exact purpose of creation of those phenomena and thus the exact way they have to be in order for the system to work as it should!
The system is perfect and complete in itself; only we are too limited to grasp it! Yes we are growing more knowledgeable with time, but we must admit our limits!
In their arrogance, atheists would look at earlier ages of man – within the documented history of mankind – and view the current advancement of
207
sciences that they now possess, as evidence to the mental primitiveness of humans in those earlier ages! They would even use it as additional evidence to further support Darwinian “evolution”! This is sheer blindness that builds upon the very same fundamental problem, because even the most intelligent human being in our current time will probably come up with no bigger solutions, inventions or discoveries than the smartest of them could, if he were to start from the exact same point where they started! A genius tribesman living in some “secluded” tribe in the Amazons today – not by necessity in the past – is not expected, as I gave this example earlier in this literature, to come up with the invention of a chainsaw – much less a laser cutting device – when he is faced with the problem of cutting down a tree! I mean it would be a “miracle” if he did, wouldn‟t it? He does not have even one tenth of the input of knowledge and technology that the Chainsaw inventor had! So his solution to the problem will naturally be much simpler!
It must be clear that this gradual advancement of civilization is the well expected outcome of a gradual accumulation of knowledge from “simple to complex”, not of a gradual “evolution” in human organic or mental capacity from “primitive” to “evolved”! This confusion so easily encourages those who believe in their „hominid‟ ancestry, and who are blinded by the “glories” of our time, to look down on earlier times and ages of humanity as times of lesser minds in less evolved primates!
What some of those minds (only the atheists among them) may have once thought to have no governing order; is now known to have its laws and rules! And it is likely that this is exactly the same thing that our grandchildren will say about us, and about the way our scientists look today at many phenomena of nature! “Oh! They called this „chaos‟?!”
Physicists are now working in attempt to come up with what they call: “the theory of everything” or the “final theory” 15! One has to wonder then, is this not a contradiction that you would call certain patterns in nature “chaotic”, and “random” and yet you still recognize the necessity of there being a single unified law or order that runs it all? I‟m not examining the particular
--------------------------------------------
15 The idea that man could one day come up with anything that could qualify as “final” in terms of theorization in natural sciences is by all means a childish dream!
208
types of phenomena that physicists address when they speak of a theory of “everything”, or the way they think this theory could be expressed or used, I‟m examining the underlying reason there; the common sense that no matter how random anything in this world may appear to be in the limited (relativistic) uninformed human eye; nothing in nature is at random, and nothing is free from a necessary binding law or code of control that runs the entire system!
Thus we can now see what a grave assault on nature (not to mention its creator) it really is to assign the meaning of “chance” or “Chaos” not to our limited understanding of certain elements of it, but to the way those elements are in reality! Darwinian reasoning moves it from being a statement of a relative lack of human knowledge of the governing rule and the exact function or purpose of a phenomenon (which is its actual linguistic meaning), to a statement of random purposelessness that is characteristic of the phenomenon itself!
AS Darwinian, Dawkins is claiming life to have emerged without any previously determined course “plan”, purpose, or intent! By pure accident! Initially random and chaotic! It is utterly ridiculous how he makes a distinction between “a series of chance events” and a single act of chance, as we shall elaborate; and based on nothing but “probability”! We will show him that even when we apply his probabilistic conception, this “mount improbable” story could be good for nothing but a fairy tale!
Even if we accepted this “series of chance events” that he claims, he still has to answer to how and why any form of governing order at all could possibly emerge in a chaotic unguided uncontrolled medium! He still has to explain how any act of “chance” – according to his terminology – could possibly produce any form of self-maintained order or anything that could even be called “process”, order, or rule at all, without any initial preparation or any previously determined target and purpose!
My point here is that, not only is Darwinism an abuse of mathematical and scientific terminology, it is an abuse of language itself! Just as it is the case
209
with any false system of faith! It relies upon false meanings and profound semantic errors, all the way down to the core!
It is really astonishing how they keep using the words “designed”, “planned”, “selected”, “controlled” and so forth, - like all healthy humans do - in explaining what natural selection “does” (according to Darwinism), and yet insist on the claim that this is nothing but a linguistic confusion that all humans are suffering from! A natural norm and basis of human reasoning and linguistic expression, is so boldly rendered as a mere common mistake or delusion that man is supposed to cure himself from! We all – all humans other than Darwinians of course - suffer from the “irrational inclination” to call nature “designed” (created) when in reality it is – in a term so ridiculously coined by Dawkins – only “designoid”!16 When you say “selected” then you naturally, and in all proper linguistic usages, and by all means of reason, mean to say “by someone” or “by a selector”; don‟t you?! There‟s no “selected by no selector” or “done by no doer”! Human reason (not intuition or gut feeling as they would often maintain) rejects this meaning as a fallacy, a contradiction! Now they would say: “we do not mean
----------------------------------------------
16 I must point out that even the very use of the word “design” as ascribed to the work of the Lord Almighty is – In Islam – improper! This is because the first meaning that comes to the mind of the listener when he hears the word “design” is: “to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge”!
(Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved May 01, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design)
This is the first meaning in a list of four or five meanings in the dictionary! All five of those meanings when applied, give the sense of a work of previous preparation and study that man has to do before he creates anything! This particular kind of “preparation” is actually NOT to be attributed to the Lord! It is – in man – a feature of his human limitedness. The Lord on the other hand, never needed to study, test, or try and err (natural components of what we call: human design) before He commenced with creation (omniscience)! Thus, the word design in this human sense is not to be attributed to the Lord almighty! However, if all we mean by it is the previous determination, intent, will, and knowledge of creation by a willful and capable creator prior to the act of creation, then it may be attributed to Him only in this context of discussion. This is why I must draw the reader‟s attention to the fact that only within this context may I make use of such terms (design, plan … etc.) in describing the Lord‟s work, because as a rule, Allah is only to be described by attributes revealed in authentic scripture! I must also make sure that the reader understands that whatever deeds we attribute to the Lord, they are – by default in our faith – to be taken as un-analogous, and incomparable in how they are, in any way, to human attributes and human deeds. It‟s our rule of thumb in dealing with God‟s attributes.
210
that something did any “selection”, we call it natural because if a certain set of genes just happens to work well, then it will survive, while others that don‟t will fail and perish! It is “selected” only in this sense!” One can easily reply to that saying: “But this is selection and it implies – by necessity – determinism: a previous plan and a „selection algorithm‟! It necessitates a previously determined rule that defines what works (fits) and what doesn‟t! Because if only certain individuals with particular qualities and genetic traits are to survive in this world while all others would perish: this has no other meaning in language but “selection” according to a previously determined rule! Darwin could not afford to call it anything else! If atheists could escape the use of this language they certainly would, but they just couldn‟t! It‟s the way our minds are hardwired! Whether they like it or not, this meaning necessitates the action of a selector, a doer of the selection, whose informed and previously determined code is the rule by which something is to be “selected”!
When they use the parable of the key and the lock, they would suggest that different keys kept coming out (at random), incapable of opening the lock, until finally, and all by pure chance, a particular key appeared that worked: This is when we say it was naturally selected! Now I will simply say: But what about the lock itself, and the conditions and features that should characterize its only working key? What about the factory that branded those keys, not to mention the one that designed the lock? Did the lock come to be without a maker who defines its function and the only way it could be unlocked? Did all that – too – come about by natural selection? What is the source of those codes: the key-lock code, and the random generator of keys? The system of nature itself in which what fits is selected and what doesn‟t is not, where did it come from in the first place; and where did its codes and laws (without which evolution couldn‟t possibly start) come from?
This is why no matter how hard you try, my atheist reader, you cannot escape using the word “design” or the word “selected”, the very use of which necessitates to a willful agent that performs this selection according to its purpose and its rules!
211
I was amazed, actually overwhelmed by the sheer wonders of creation, richness and perfectness that Dawkins displayed to the audience in one of his Royal institute Christmas lectures (the second lecture in the series titled: Growing up in the universe!), in his outrageous attempt to argue that none of those wonders is created (designed) at all! In fact, I say if I were to search for some of the most exquisite and sublime examples of how perfect this creator really is, I couldn‟t have thought of any more dazzling examples than those he displayed to the audience in that particular lecture, calling them all nothing but “designoid objects”! Actually, I can think of no better presentation to destroy Darwinism itself! With very little commentary, it may be very well used for this purpose! It‟s amazing how a man could be so blindly stubborn in his false position that he would gather some of the most overwhelming signs of perfect creation; to actually present them in argument against creation! This is why it is true that debating an atheist is never fruitful, and there‟s always very little hope that he would listen; because his position is really not a conviction based on rational evidence; it‟s a stubborn denial of the validity of the very way healthy reason works, and a challenge to the very way we humans use language!
He admits in this lecture and in many other occasions that he finds sheer difficulty in keeping his tongue (having to bite it!) from using this word, “design”, when he speaks of such wonders! Well, he can‟t escape it no matter what! Yet, it doesn‟t even draw the slightest hint in the minds of his followers that perhaps he is the one who‟s being delusional here, trying to deny one of the most undeniable meanings a man is actually built to see and express! I really wonder; how can they even sleep at night?
In that lecture he says:
―What do they all have in common those designed objects? They are all good for some purpose, and they couldn‘t have come to be the way they are by luck!‖
(―Design and Designoid objects‖:
212
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGyh1Qsw-Ak&ap=%2526fmt%3D18&feature=PlayList&p=ED4BA3683D0273ED&index=1)
I say; then by what reason do you dare call a crystal “simple” or “un-designed”, simply because you don‟t know why it is the way it is?
If we‟re talking about a manmade artifact, then certainly we KNOW its purpose! We designed it for that purpose! So we can easily judge it! But when it comes to living things, organs, natural systems, and so forth, we are only seeking to learn about the function and the purpose for which they are made; we do not define that purpose on our own, it doesn‟t come from us; we only seek to obtain knowledge of it, to fit it in its right place in the big picture, so to speak!
So when you state that only those things that are good for a purpose could qualify as “designed”, one has to ask, what about a natural system the purpose of which you still do not know? Does this make it qualify as un-designed? That crystal, if you could discover the role it plays (as unfamiliar or un-analogous its shape may look in its natural context) and you could see how distinct it is in nature from many other equally purposeful and functional compositions of other inanimate forms of matter in the universe, and the impact they have on the way life progresses on earth; would you still find it reasonable to deny the fact that it must be “designed”, for a purpose that it serves in perfectness?
You may think you “know” the origin of life on Earth, but what about the origin of the Earth itself? Those rocks, that huge variety of types of inanimate matter (metals, nonmetals, lanthanides, silicates, minerals, inert gases; etc.), where did all that variety come from, and what is it for? All are parts of an extremely complicated and perfectly balanced system that we call the universe, a system that progresses through time changing the immediate function of every element within it in a long series of compositions and decompositions that serve the very purpose for which the whole thing was created. And while we – healthy humans - never fail to be overwhelmed and
213
humbled by the way nature works, some people insist on attributing this mastery to billions of years of chaos!
Darwinians are indeed so shortsighted that they cannot see that if inanimate matter is the substance from which all living beings are built; then at the very least, this should be part of the purpose for which this variety in matter itself exists! Part of the purpose why a particle identified as a carbon atom has to exist in the way it does, in distinction from a hydrogen atom for example! If without water there could be no life; then this must be part of the function of water itself, of the reason why there is water in the world! So why speak of gills – for example - as a purposeful and functional organ in fish, but think no more of water – that mysterious life-blood liquid – than a purposeless or functionless liquid that is just “there because it‟s there”?
What about a piece of rock? What‟s the function of that? Well, imagine if I cut off the brains of some beast, and put it in front of you, when you have no idea what that thing was before it was chopped off! Would you dare say it has no function? Regardless of whether or not you may afterwards use it for some new purpose of your own, maybe even cook it and eat it; the fact remains that it was indeed part of another system and had its own function there, one that was not given to it by you! So that crystal rock in your hands, was – in its natural ecosystem – part of a bigger system where crystal compositions, with those amounts in particular, with that crystalline pattern in particular, even with those shapes and formations in specific, had their specific function and place in the system! Once you chop them off, the function changes! So speaking of purpose; your ignorance does not make this piece of rock purposeless as it was or even as it is! 17 I couldn‟t help
----------------------------------------------------
17 Learning from the knowledge of Islam we know that the Lord has created everything on earth for the purpose of testing man; we can understand that the function of a rock and its place in the system may change when you cut it and start adapting it for your own use, but this does not change its purpose of creation! It is only a part of the detailed purpose of its creation. It is made as such to do a certain job before it is cut, and to be subject to your intent and do another job after it is cut, and another after it breaks, and so on! Somewhere in your body, there is a molecule of carbon that may have one day been part of the body of an elephant or a fly, or even a tree trunk! It is now part of a different system, doing a different immediate function! Both functions were not assigned to it by you; but by the creator and sustainer of the system and all its parts, the very one who determines your function in the world as a human being; praised be!
214

Fundamental semantic corruption and Wordplay! 2013_110

laughing when he pointed in that lecture at a piece of rock that was shaped “by accident” in such a way that it looks like a pot; he actually measured its efficiency for the job of a pot, and made the conclusion that since it‟s not designed then it‟s natural that its efficiency as a pot should be very low! The man says it himself: Though it looks like a pot, it is not made as such for the purpose of working as a pot! So how possibly could it be called un-designed, only because it‟s not working properly as a pot? It‟s certainly not designed to be a pot, that‟s clear! But does this mean that it is not designed at all? You did not make it in this way for your own purpose; does this mean that it was not made for any purpose at all? Well, let me disappoint you professor and tell you that in fact, this particular rock was made by its creator to look this way for the particular purpose – among other purposes - that one day some atheist would take it for an example in a public lecture to show that nothing in nature has any purpose or is designed at all!
When he pointed to the microscope on his desk in that lecture he said:
―Most certainly it couldn‘t have come about by luck! If you take a lot of atoms and shake them up at random, then you may get a crystal, but you will not in a billion billion billion years get a microscope!‖
I say: no you may not! Not in a billion billion billion years could you get a crystal if you did that! Not unless you make certain settings, preparations and adjustments of conditions all for the specific end of making a crystal! In fact, even the scandalously silly image of you shaking atoms in a box – for example – is itself the previous preparation of some form of a closed medium prepared deliberately for a specific purpose: a plan, a goal!: The plan of obtaining something, whatever it is as an output from the input of those atoms! There always has to be a well conditioned force, posed beforehand, that would – at least – keep binding those atoms to continue bombarding one another (at random), long enough for anything at all to start taking place!
It is thus amazing how he finds it impossible to end up with a microscope in a billion billion billion years of shaking atoms in a closed controlled medium, but on the other hand, he claims that only in less than four billion
215
years of time, could living beings that are billions of times more complicated than a microscope (like a snake), emerge starting off from no purpose, no conditioned or prepared medium, and nothing at all, and progress by successive unplanned acts of chance! Is this not a contradiction?
If I applied simple proportion here, then I should actually expect something as compound as a microscope, to come out of some “process” similar to natural selection in its “chance steps”, in relatively no time at all! If a snake is one billion times more complicated than a microscope – according to Dawkins‟ rhetoric in the lecture – and it evolved within some hundred and twenty billion years, then something as compound as a microscope may very well “evolve” on its own in little over a century! Just do the Math! Furthermore, in the microscope example, there will be two hands governing the medium for “chaotic mechanisms” to take place (the hands shaking the atoms I mean); but in nature, no such medium was governed or deterministically maintained (according to Darwinism)! So perhaps it will take just a few decades or something! I mean, assuming the rational validity of natural selection, why not presume the possibility of emergence of some similar chance mechanism to it that may end up “selecting” that microscope in a few decades?!
―Not in a billion billion billion years‖ he says!
Why? Because you know the purpose of the microscope, but you think the snake has none at all? Is this the difference?
Well, it is obviously not just irrational; it is a billion billion billion times worse than irrational that he would still insist on calling a snake: “designoid” and bite his tongue every time he calls it design, or even whenever he calls it a “creature” for that matter!
This is indeed an assault on language itself!
Imagine somebody who tells you: when people speak of the sky, they should not say it‟s blue, it only appears as though it were blue in color when in fact it is not: It is only “blueoid”! What would you say to that? Well, I say, this is nothing but “reasonoid”! “Languageoid” also comes to mind!
216
Now what do you expect would be the consequences of proving to people that their natural understanding of language and their natural reasoning of different meanings is so fundamentally corrupt? What would it sound like if somebody argued – for example - that all English Grammar in all English books is false, or that half of the words we commonly use in our everyday language mean exactly the opposite to what we all take them to mean? It is indeed an offense, and should be treated as such!
Thus I say it is amazing indeed – and truly disappointing I should say - that this author here is examining some arguments by philosophers thinking that by destroying them, he will have disproven the rational inevitability of a perfect creator! They would so arrogantly say: “prove to me that there is a creator”! Well, I can say no more in reply than: “Prove to me that you are human or that you are intelligent, not to mention that you have a mind at all”!
The burden of proof is not on a man who applies straight axiomatic reasoning and natural linguistic expression on one of the clearest meanings ever known to man! It is on those who deny it, defy their very own tongues to fight it, and seek to render it as nothing but a “delusion”! And oh what a burden that is!
They are attempting to block the natural process of human identification of meanings to take place on what is actually the most worthy observable thing in existence of being called “designed” or “planned” or “created”! This is by all means one of the greatest assaults on language and linguistic reason man has ever known! I have seen many cults of religion playing games with words (as all preachers of false religions actually do), twisting their meanings against what every reasonable man should understand, but I have never to this day, seen a “cult” as bold in defying their very own tongues as the Darwinians!
Just look at the title of Dawkins‟ book “The blind watchmaker”: How possibly could a watchmaker be blind? This is exactly what Darwinism is all about! This is what its preachers are trying so hard to have you believe: That a watch could indeed be made by a blind watchmaker! That Nature is
217
perfectly ordered and perfectly contained and controlled, but do not be fooled: This is not done by any knowledgeable or capable willful power as a human mind is so “tempted” to deduce! It‟s made by no willful maker! It‟s made but not made! It‟s designed but not designed! It‟s controlled but not controlled! There is a maker (or a governing agent) but he (it) is blind, purposeless, plan-less, and so pathetically incapable that he – or it – does not know what it‟s doing, does not know anything at all, does not have any plan, and yet it‟s “doing” it anyway; and perfectly well to say the least!
Designing …
Selecting …
Controlling …
Governing …
But all this is just “semantic” delusion; because in reality nobody and nothing is doing anything at all!
What is this?!
By what standards of reason could we even begin to debate with such a rational and linguistic outrage? We can‟t! There‟s no point trying to convince a man to open his eyes if he wishes to see properly! No point at all!
I can find some common grounds of reason when I debate with a man who believes in God and His prophets, but thinks of Him as both one and three at the same time; I mean, after all, at least he admits the undeniable: That he himself was created! But what can I do with a man who actually thinks that his very own tongue and his very own mind; are tricking him? To him, I am – and so is the rest of mankind - delusional no matter what I say!
Look at other titles of Dawkins‟ publications!
The book “The selfish genes” for example is written to actually convince people that genes created all life, and have been “working” as though they are “selfish” but in fact they‟re not! They have no intent or will or plan or anything at all! They work for the sake of preserving their phenotypes, have
218
been doing so for billions of years, yet there is no plan or purpose of any kind anywhere and nothing is actually “doing” anything! They are in full control of the system running all life for their own favor and survival, when in fact they are not! They control but they don‟t; we‟re only tempted to think so! They plan, but they don‟t; they only appear as though they do! They “come up with perfect solutions” by means of a process called natural selection, when in fact they‟re nothing but blind, dead matter! How do those people really believe themselves?!
In a book with such a title, it‟s no surprise to find statements as such:
―We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes…‖ (Preface of the 1976 edition)
Programmed? By what? “Selfish” molecules? Oh Bite your tongue atheist! You do not mean that!
―The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes…‖ (The Selfish Gene, p. 13)
How could X create Y when X is only a small component of Y; one that cannot be anything at all but dead matter without Y? X cannot have come into being as an X, without a Y that defines its function, so how could X be the creator of Y?
But then again, he should bite his tongue here as well… maybe “created” is not the right word?! What then? What‟s the right word?
―This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes.‖ (ibid, p. 13)
How about; “attributes”? Well, they are indeed attributes … look at this:
―I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness….‖(ibid, p. 14)
―However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals….‖(ibid, p. 14)
219
“Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to….” (ibid, p. 14)
But if we did upset their “designs”; then all natural life would perish, wouldn‟t it? I mean if those designs where good for anything at all, then upsetting them is not a very wise thing to do, is it? So I wonder how that “epic rebellious struggle” he dreams of between man and his own “evil” genes would end! Extinction and Doom, obviously, not for man alone, but for all natural life! (The atheistic version of the “End Times” and doomsday, perhaps?) It then turns out that it may have been much better if those “foolish genes” never “gave” man a mind at all, and that man – because of nothing but his very mind itself - is the most stupid species of all! I wonder, how those genes “could” survive those “billions of years” so masterfully, facing all challenges, natural hazards and risks, and end up making such a stupid mistake: giving a particular species the very tool to blast the whole thing off! How many similar mistakes and “unexpected anomalies” such “unwise, unintelligent” designers should be very likely to have faced along such an extremely long span of time that should be sufficient to blast the whole thing away! Yet it persists, and lives all the way to meet its final chapter on the hands of this “lucky” species: The species that finally grew up to become a challenge!
Please my kind reader, revise these quotations and tell me that the professor doesn‟t actually mean any of this, and that those meanings do not give a reasonable man the model of an intelligent being (genes) that has those particular attributes in doing what it does! And then tell me if this is not what he means (and he will certainly argue that he doesn‟t mean it literally): then what on Earth does he mean? And what kind of cheap wordplay is this?
I recall now what Christopher Hitchens once said about all religions having a built-in code of global destruction and a longing to eternity, and to what is there beyond this life! I ask him then, do you not long yourself to see this system challenged; those genes tamed and controlled by man; and a new era of human mastery above the entire universe where eternity is made here in this world where people have finally vanquished death and decay, and it all
220
becomes a “paradise” once and for good, free from that “evil plan” that Genes have plotted for their own favor? You know this is impossible because the system is clearly built on decay and decomposition, on mortality and death, yet you dream it nonetheless! Are you dreaming of the final demise of mankind?
The myth – in this way –is too upsetting even for Dawkins‟ own ambitions! He says the truth doesn‟t have to be “happy”! Well, I say if “the truth” to him and his followers is all but a theory of biology in the end, and this miserable fiction here is it; then why not make it a “happy” theory?
Even Greek mythology sounds far more convenient indeed; at least there‟s some meaning into it! Can‟t you think of any more “hopeful” ending? Like for examples, the coming of a “half-man, half-gene” mutation (a man who can control genes?) that leads Earth to salvation from this “selfish” plan that runs it? Or maybe a good alien society comes to take over Earth, and rid mankind from those evil genes by means of some fancy super technology, and turn our planet into a utopia? Or perhaps, the genes themselves would quarrel, and some of them would turn into “good genes” and start favoring man in his struggle against the “selfish”” ones? Wouldn‟t that be something? How about that for a happy ending? Nothing is easier than writing fiction, indeed!
Man cannot escape the necessity of answering the question: “Why”, “what‟s the meaning of life?” “What is it for?” “Who brought me into it and why?” Obviously man cannot avoid the recognition of his being so privileged in this world for something, for some job, some correspondingly privileged purpose that does indeed demand the wise use of this mind, and of those skills that no other species on Earth possesses! However, as a materialist atheist, he finds himself incapable of explaining this fact! So for a Darwinist, who believes not in a deity or in the afterlife, Dawkins here is trying – blindly - to assume the position of a priest and fill the gap that only religious knowledge (be it true or false) – or manmade philosophy – is naturally used to fill! He‟s writing his own “scripture” now; his own prophecy; yet he – so easily – calls it “science”! You now have some alternate “deity” (Genes), attributes to it (selfishness, ruthlessness, evil … etc.), a prophet (Darwin), a
221
holy book (“Origin of species”, along with “the selfish genes” maybe?), a purpose (upsetting the Genes‟ plans, and rebelling against their blind control), and a system of morals (self indulgence and self-fulfillment by doing instinctively good deeds)! What more of a religion do you want? So let go of whatever faith you ever had, and take this one instead, if you wish to join the league of the elites of “science”!
―Our genes may instruct us to be selfish, but we are not necessarily compelled to obey them all our lives.‖ (ibid, p. 15)
Well we certainly should not build them a temple (or use some Darwinian labs!) like some worshippers of “Genes” may yearn to do, and rank you high priest there! However, whatever you do, be warned, people… Do not upset the almighty “Genes” or they will give you mutated disfigured children! Or maybe not! It appears they created us only to rebel against them! It‟s much more self-gratifying this way, isn‟t it?! After all, what “fun” would there be in blind submission to blind genes?
They made us only to reproduce for their favor, and we enjoy the ability to choose not to! They designed us to be limited by their own selfish will for their own progress, and we are working on challenging them and manipulating the human genome at our free will! They limited us by aging and decay, but we are on our way to upset the “death” phenomenon itself once and for all!
How glorious indeed!
I can hardly keep from laughing!
And in his sheer pride, he thinks he has effectively ridiculed all religious deities and cults!
Yes of course he does not take those meanings seriously, but that‟s exactly my point here! No matter what he does, he cannot escape the ascription of deeds and attributes to a willful creator!
I challenge the professor to attempt to rewrite such phrases as the ones I quoted here without the use of such words, and to rename that book without
222
the use of the attribute “Selfish” altogether. Well, he has no possible way of doing this! He cannot convey the meaning he wishes to deliver to us in any other words! The core argument and the very purpose of the book will be destroyed if he keeps from using the word “Selfish”!
The process – in order to be called a process to begin with - must have a planner, a purposeful and willful planner that knows what he‟s doing and for what end, an agent to which attributes that are similar in meaning – and in meaning only - to human attributes, are to be ascribed by necessity of language and reason! That designer and His will, define our very purpose and the meaning of our existence in this world!
There‟s no escaping that! The very title “the Selfish Genes” proves just this! This title is obviously not science, and the subject matter of the book is definitely not a question that a Biologist could answer at any level of validity!
What he does in that book is not falsify this fact, he‟s actually making it much clearer than he could possibly imagine; and in a pathetic way I should add! It‟s like saying: If there must be a purposeful creator, from whose will we obtain the meaning and purpose of our lives, and if those meanings are indeed inescapable to the human notion; then why call this “creator” those names you call “it”, and give “it” those attributes you believe in? There‟s no need to think of it as the truth “out there”; it‟s all “in here”! Take this story instead! The story of the “Selfish Genes”! See if it works for you!
I need not quote anything more from that book (The selfish genes); for I don‟t think he would have much left of a tongue to “bite” on if I did!
Again I know he will argue that this is only a metaphor, a figure of speech, and that he does not mean to ascribe any “attributes” in the sense that religions do to God! However, how can we believe him when the core meaning and belief that the book presents is a particular ‗plan for an end‘, that genes have supposedly been running in natural life ever since the living cell originated, one that is clearly much bigger than being the mere code of copying and keeping of characteristics of different species? The book speaks of a role that is far bigger than the fact that general traits of a certain species
223
do propagate from one generation to the next via the genes! The message of the book is a clear “selfish plan”, one that has been maintained over millions of years by those genes!
What are genes anyway? Those genes in my body are in reality nothing but a complex composition of molecules that came to be part of my body through nutrition and respiration in addition to heritance! Every cell that is born in our bodies emerges with an exact copy of the gene code making up its genes; genes are not external to this process; they are parts of it! They do not copy themselves; they are copied by an external agent! Are we supposed to believe now that genes are selfish agents that have been running the entire process of natural life for a selfish end? Sure enough this is not what Dawkins believes! So why does he have to write such a book?
If there‟s an ongoing will or plan that has been keeping the system all along – and there quite obviously is – then it certainly comes from an external source to those molecules and cells and the way they are made to run!
But that‟s exactly what Dawkins strives to deny, isn‟t it?! Thus there has to be “a selfish gene” story; a religious myth furnished with the constant reminder that design is not design, selection is not done by a selector, the genes are dead matter with no will and though they act selfishly, they really don‟t act at all and cannot be selfish… etc.!
Just look at the words he keeps using over and over, building his entire belief upon them! Not only is there a planner; but a selfish ruthless one as well! The genes in Dawkins‟ new religion are not programs made for a particular purpose; they are both the program and the programmer, simultaneously! A blind, selfish one for that matter, according to his own words!
The point is, no matter how hard he tries to fight it, the rationally necessary and natural human conclusion of a willful purposeful powerful “doer”, creator and sustainer beyond this process cannot be escaped! And this is exactly why no matter how hard he tries; he will never manage to escape the use of such words! He will never manage to escape the necessary ascription
224
of what he may call “human-like” attributes! It‟s against the very way our minds, our tongues and our very souls are built, to think of it in any other way!
Now, look at the title “Climbing Mount Improbable”! One can‟t help but wonder: Who‟s climbing? Is this not a purpose? Is this not a “deed”, by a willful, determinate doer, aiming at an end that could not be – by any code of proper reason – viewed as anything but part of a previous willful plan, or a long maintained program of some sort, one that in itself has to be “designed” and coded?
We cannot help but respond in such a way, not because we are delusional! Not because we see things, or do not sleep well, or suffer from some psychopathic symptoms! But because this nonsense is so profoundly false and irrational that one doesn‟t really know where to begin to refute it!
In that “Christmas lecture” cited above, Dawkins speaks of what he calls “simple” objects, to which he gives the example of a piece of rock or crystal! By that he makes it a statement of knowledge and fact that those things are in themselves and in their composition; simple! But what does he mean by “simple”?! I ask him this because as soon as scientific examination tools progress, things that were once thought to be simple, prove to be quite complex indeed! Just look at the way the first historical model of the structure of an atom was sketched, and look at what we know today about the subatomic (mind-maze)! How silly and blind is a man who would speak so blindly of the atom at the end of the nineteenth century and describe it as “simple”?! He would look at the simple two-dimensional diagram sketched at the time and say: “it is simple! There‟s a nucleus in the middle and a circular orbit for electrons rotating around it! Where‟s the complexity in that?” Well, he‟s right! There‟s no complexity in that! But is this what an atom is like in reality? Far from it!
Yes of course a piece of crystal – note: a piece; split and cut off its original system – is apparently far less “complex” than the subatomic structure, or than any living being for that matter! But isn‟t it, in itself, made of atoms and subatomic particles? If by simple they mean functionless or purposeless
225
or un-designed, as a statement of what this thing really is, not of what we currently know about its structure; they are indeed fostering an arrogant blindness as a belief in the name of science!
Thus it is clearly a far more fundamental problem with atheism and Darwinism than the mere fact that they stand upon no evidence! It‟s a problem with language itself; the problem actually is portrayed clearly in the very name of the theory itself “Natural Selection”! Let us attempt to understand the language in this term. If by natural you mean it is a selection that occurs in nature, regardless of the power that “selects”, what it is and where it is, I may find some space to discuss it with you.
However, Darwin and other atheists who preach his teachings – like the good disciple “Dawkins” here - do not mean that! They precisely mean that nature itself “did” or “performed” that selection, blindly and without any will, purpose, plan, or external power! So by “natural” they do not refer to the medium where the process takes place (which is nature), or the belief that it is a phenomenon that is observable in nature (a natural phenomenon); they rather refer to the agent that performs, runs, and maintains the process of selection! They call it nature!
Selection in its very meaning is a purposeful act, or deed, one that no healthy human mind can let go of the rational necessity of ascribing it to a “doer” of some sort, one that is willful and purposeful! One who has a rule by which to select! When you say this thing “was selected”, there is no rational escape from the linguistic necessity of having an unmentioned actor here (as is the case with every verb in the passive voice in almost all languages of the world)! Something was done; it follows naturally, that it must have a doer, an actor! That doer is responsible for doing this deed (selection) not once or twice, but for keeping it up as a “method” all along those long billions of years that Darwinians assign as a span for natural history! Now, by what reason do they expect us to believe that beyond this amazingly consistent and unbelievably resourceful plan there is no determination of external plan and purpose; one that puts meaning into the very language they cannot avoid using to describe it?
226
It may be more meaningful to replace (natural) with (blind) or (non-selected). Indeed, in my view, “non-selected” is a term that draws the picture perfectly! I mean by this term to say: Selection did take place, but things were actually “not selected” by anything at all! There was selection, but there was no “selector”! Isn‟t this what Darwin believes? Yes it is! (select-oid species or traits) may also do the job! After all, if there is no willful purposeful power that made the selection according to an inclusive plan that gives the process its very linguistic meaning, then living things were not actually “selected” but only appear as though they were! Just as it is the case in Dawkins‟ coinage (Designoid) here! And if we allowed for things to appear as though they were created, then why shouldn‟t we allow for them to appear as though they were “selected”, when in fact there is no “selection” at all?
Well, it is not “natural” selection then; it is more like: “non-selected selection”! An undone deed! Something that is, and is not, both at the same time! To put it in mathematical terms, this is just like saying: 0 = 1
So, in a nutshell we may argue that just like Christians believe that God is both three, and one at the same time (3 =1)… Darwinians believe that Living beings are both designed, and not designed at the same time (1 = 0)! Nature both did and did not perform or maintain “selection”, at the same time! One can also put it this way; they believe the creator (genes) to have both (designed) and (not designed) natural life, simultaneously! And while all false and corrupted religions build upon such fallacies of reason and language in some of their basic tenets, the Darwinian “religion” commits the worst of them all! Their radical abuse of language and reason should easily place them at the top of the list!
I can easily coin a term (trin-oid) or (three-oid God) to express what Christians believe about the deity; that though it may appear to be three gods, it is actually all but one! Now, why should we view this fallacy to be any more irrational than the Dawkins‟ (Designoid objects)? In terms of language and reason - not in terms of the particular meaning in both faiths - it‟s virtually the same trick! Actually, I don‟t need to coin any (-oid) term! There is indeed a term that does this exact job in Christian theology! It is:
227
triune! “Triune” means both (three and one; “tri” and “une”) at the same time! (i.e. 3=1)! What kind of a meaning is this: Something that is both three things and one thing at the same time? A fundamentally false meaning!
It is said that the term Triune was first injected in Christian theology by Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 160-225) the early church theologian. He did that in an attempt to make room for this corrupt meaning in language! It is an attempt to forge a new word for a meaning that is utterly false and irrational! And here, we have the exact same attempt in the twentieth century; however it is only played by a scientist this time rather than a priest!
So is Dawkins the “Tertullian” of Darwinism? Obviously so!
―Sometimes the language of information theory is used: the Darwinian is challenged to explain the source of all the information in living matter, in the technical sense of information content as a measure of improbability or 'surprise value'.‖ (The God Delusion, p.114)
I say: yes, they are challenged by that indeed! Matter is controlled and governed by laws that have to be forced upon it, continually, by an external source, and with a lot of information that cannot originate from matter itself, because obviously, X cannot have created X, and set the rules that define the very nature and behavior of X!
Two pebbles on a table should remain just that: Two pebbles on a table, with nothing at all to relate them, other than being “placed” on a table; they are liable to any external effect of any kind! But if you held them in your hand, and placed them in a box; a relation would then be defined; new information is added as a system, one that did not come from them, but from the agent working from outside. A system is now defined for them; the system of being two pebbles in a closed box (instead of two pebbles on a table)! The definition (the information) did not originate from the pebbles but from an intelligent purposeful agent who created the medium and the governing laws of the system: (the box, and the enclosure within it)!
228
Had there been no external agent to „do‘ anything, or to place any medium or system or laws, could we‟ve ever come to say that there is anything at all that relates those two pebbles to each other? That‟s the point! “Accident” – according to the atheist definition of chance - does not generate information; not the information that would define a system along with all its governing rules!
Two atoms in space will never react ‗by chance‘; much less create a system of order that would continue to be self- maintained by a set of laws and rules for “millions” of years, unless there is a previously prepared medium and “plan” for this particular purpose!
We will further iterate on this meaning later on!
Quote:
―However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable‖
Again, the same redundant “regress” objection, but in a rather „scientific‘ terminology! First of all, when we speak of a creator we‟re not “seeking to explain” anything! We‟re only stating a rational necessity; one that everything in existence proves and demonstrates! As for studying physical causes of certain natural phenomena in a way that helps making use of those phenomena for man‟s welfare; this is by no means hindered or stalled by the belief in the creator beyond; and the queries posed, and the hypotheses tested by scientists in this regard and for this end, have nothing to do with this belief! So the statement “seek to explain by invoking a designer” is fundamentally irrelevant to the subject matter! This confusion in fact comes from the use of the word “explain” itself, and the nature of the query of research that it expresses. It‟s another problem with the use of scientific terminology that has to be addressed inclusively.