Reducing the Irreducible, denying the undeniable!

Reducing the Irreducible, denying the undeniable!

In the section subtitled by (Irreducible Complexity) Dawkins is turning his campaign against every Biologist who was ever true to his human sensibility, as he attributes irrationality to a concept that shouldn‟t need to be proven true for any man with two eyes and a healthy mind!

I quote:

―It is impossible to exaggerate the magnitude of the problem that Darwin and Wallace solved. I could mention the anatomy, cellular structure, biochemistry and behaviour of literally any living organism by example. But the most striking feats of apparent design are those picked out - for obvious reasons - by creationist authors, and it is with gentle irony that I derive mine from a creationist book.‖ (Delusion p.119)

It is interesting to see how he talks about these aspects: “the anatomy, cellular structure, biochemistry and behaviour of literally any living organism‖ in a way that makes them appear as though they are somehow “lesser” aspects or do not appear to be as well designed as other aspects in certain living organisms that he views to be “the most striking feats of apparent design”!

I have no choice but to wonder here, by what datum or standard of reasoning does he, and all other refuters of what they call “Irreducible complexity” or “Intelligent Design”, make such a distinction in organic systems, applying the two words “simple” and “complex” as they do? Clearly, if by simple they mean – for example – that such a “simple” living being could somehow be simulated or mimicked by some manmade artifact, making an exact copy of that “simple” living being, then indeed they are fooling themselves!

We do not need to challenge them to create something as small as an ATP synthase: A tiny enzyme (a couple of nanometers thick) in the living cell that was recently discovered and is known as the Mitochondrial ATP Synthase (which is a 1997 Noble prize discovery by the way)! I urge my unfamiliar reader to google it up and see what it is! In brief, it‟s a tiny biochemical

278

motor with a part that revolves at about 6,000 rpm (100 rounds per second) to produce ATP molecules (adenosine triphosphate) from ADP (adenosine diphosphate), which is only one of thousands of unbelievably complex reactions taking place in the metabolism of a „simple‘ cell! 22

So what is it then? How do they define “simple”? What is their datum of reference? The number of organs, perhaps? In fact, I would be far more amazed to see a unicellular organism performing a great deal of those organic functions that our own bodies perform, all in a single cell, than in a multitude of organs articulated in the way we observe in multi-cellular beings! And on this datum of reference, I say such organisms are certainly not at all simple! Just take a look at the kind of riddle the way an organism as tiny as the Amoeba moves around underwater and the amazing way it performs its organic functions! After two centuries of studying this “simple” organism, we still know very little about – for example - the way it produces those (pseudopods) with which it moves and the way it navigates and knows where it is in a water pond (hence decides on which way to go, given that it has no top-side or bottom-side, no left from right, and obviously no “eyesight”)!

So what is the datum for a certain living being to be described as “simple”, as opposed to another that is “complex”? You mean something that is in itself, amazingly complex, but is relatively and apparently less complex than other larger beings? So the rule here is actually no more than a subjective

-----------------------------------------

22 The more science advances, the much more indeed any sane self respecting man would realize the magnitude of such a challenge! In the Qur‟an, the Lord challenges mankind to create something as tiny as a fly or a gnat!

I quote (translation of meanings):

2|26| ((Allah disdains not to make an example of a gnat, or even tinier...))

22|73| ((O mankind! An example is coined, so pay heed to it: Those unto whom ye call beside Allah will never create a fly even if they gathered up for the purpose. And if the fly should take anything away from them, they could not recover it. So weak is the seeker and the sought!))

May those who honestly seek the truth be guided to it! Amen.
279

sense of amazement, based on the amount of knowledge you may currently possess! What datum is that?

Well, the notion of “complex” here is actually used due to the fact that instead of its being a single cell – for example – that does everything; a multi-cellular organism is a structure of a variety of types of cells with far more bodily functions, the thing that is assumed to reflect on the amount of data in the DNA! Now, I may have no problem – for now - with this relative description of complexity among living beings, in the light of my currently limited knowledge – as a human - of those less complex beings. However, does this conception justify the way an atheist biologist views certain organisms to be “less evolved” or somehow “primitive”?

You have two living beings that are equally perfect in the way they function and adapt to their locales, to the way they live, and to their place in nature, and are both extremely complex, yet one of them is obviously much more complex in terms of organic structure! Now, the question is this: By what reason or code of scientific integrity, does a scientist allow himself to call one of these beings “primitive” or “less-evolved” and the other “complex” or “evolved” and explain that difference the way Darwinians do, only because he views one of them to exhibit more organic complexity (in terms of cell structure and DNA) and more bodily functions than the other one? In other words, how does he allow himself to claim that the more complex being is – by necessity – “an advancement” or “evolution” above the level of the other less complex being?

Evolution in what? In the craft of making complex beings? Whoever said that the more “complex” an organism becomes (whatever your definition of “complex” here), the longer or better it will survive or fit in its particular place in nature? Whoever said that a certain degree of complexity that we see in certain organisms is conditional for other organisms as well, to survive and to adapt perfectly to their place in nature?

The only objectively acceptable datum to judge any artifact is that of the function and the purpose! A craft that is one bit more or less complex than it has to be in order to fulfill its purpose and do its job, is imperfect (i.e. needs
280

to be evolved)! And the “evolution” or the “development” that should come to replace it does not by necessity have to be more complex for that end; it may actually have to be less complex! If evolution is not following any particular plan, and is all based on the selection of random mutations, then whoever said it always has to go up, rather than down, on a relative scale of complexity?

The point is that as long as a less complex being is performing its job perfectly, it is not to be called “primitive” or “less evolved”, and there clearly is no sense of reason in claiming that there was once a time when it had to evolve, or in describing further complexity in the light of its function and purpose as an “upgrade” or “an evolution”! Obviously it never had to evolve or to become any more complex than it is now, because here it is, breeding and functioning in perfectness, side to side with other beings that we describe as more complex!

So the question is this: Does my currently limited understanding – as a human - of the way a certain organic system works, or the way a certain being functions in its locale, or the mere fact that it is less complex than other beings, give me the right to describe it as “simple”, “primitive” or “un-evolved”? Is this attitude by Darwinians not – in itself – some form of compound ignorance 23 and of worshipping the gaps? Yes indeed it is!

You do have gaps – huge gaps - in your knowledge and you do admit it! However, instead of placing some pagan deity there, you are actually placing

---------------------------------------------------

23 Scholars of Islam („ulema‟) identify two levels of ignorance: simple ignorance, and compound ignorance! Simple ignorance (Aljahlul Baseet الجهل الثسيط ) is the state of knowledge when a man knows that he doesn‟t know! While compound ignorance (Aljahlul Murakkab الجهل الوركة ) is when he doesn‟t know that he doesn‟t know, or in other words: he thinks he knows! I will not be exaggerating if I said that never in my life have I seen an ignorance that is more compound than this! And guess what; It‟s actually getting more complex in Darwinians with time! It‟s “evolving”! Not in his wildest dreams could Darwin himself back in his time, imagine that such a book as “The God Delusion”, would one day emerge, going this far in attempting to apply his theories in refuting the existence of the creator, where the author would commit such horrendous assaults on reason and language in Darwin‟s name! Not that I‟m saying that he was not an ardent atheist himself! It‟s just that by a simple comparison of “The Origin of Species” to titles like “The Selfish Gene” or to “The God Delusion”, you‟d actually understand what I mean when I say that compound ignorance does indeed evolve with time!

281

Natural Selection in those gaps; your own worshipped god, a blind god of chaos! “The selfish gene did it by natural selection”! You‟re claiming that since certain beings appear to you, in your limited knowledge, to be “simple”, then they are indeed “less evolved”, or “primitive”!

Now I‟m not asking you – my atheist reader - to place some deity down there instead, say that it did it, and quit trying to obtain valuable knowledge about such beings! Absolutely not! The Lord the true creator is praised high above such paganism and ignorance, and the more we Muslims – people of true wisdom - learn about life the more signs we see of His majesty, His mastery and His perfect attributes! I‟m only reminding you of the limited nature of human knowledge as opposed to the infinitely stunning magnitude of perfectness in every part of this universe within which we live, a perfectness that reveals more and more of its aspects to our limited senses and tools every day!

By Darwinian gaps I mean gaps in our currently limited human knowledge of the actual degree of complexity in biological systems that Darwinians seek to explain and use as evidence for their myths and tales! They would still insist on calling certain organisms “simple” no matter how much unbelievable complexity new advancements of science would reveal in them! They would continue to describe them as primates that come at the bottom of their mythical evolutionary ladder nonetheless!

They judge living beings from the position of one who thinks he knows! They think that they have the right to call a unicellular organism (for example) “simple” and hence trace its origins to something even “simpler”, only because compared to other more compound creatures, it appears to be less complex! This claimed mastery or beauty of Natural selection necessitates in order for a man to accept it, among many other irrationalities, that you attribute simplicity and actually inefficiency to such amazing tiny creatures they so arrogantly call “primitive” or “primates”!

He doesn‟t yet know, he doesn‟t yet understand; yet it‟s so easy for him to say “random” or to say “primitive” or to say “simple”, describing what may

282

indeed be one of nature‟s wonders! And they claim science teaches them humility!

I couldn‟t resist quoting this statement by the author:

―The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means.‖(Delusion p.119)

As I elaborated in a previous section, neither the proper meaning of “mathematical improbability” (hence its applicability in this particular discourse or query of research, and the conclusions it leads to) nor that of “chance” (as the current lack of human ability to identify purpose or function for some part of a given system that is not of man‘s own design) does them any good at all! Yet I know that the professor is one of thousands of theorists that would readily take such a statement for granted, and never even think twice about it, and would easily, so easily, - as open minded as they claim to be - dismiss such a fundamental philosophical objection from my part; no questions asked!

The distinction he then makes between natural selection and chance is indeed “counter-rational” if I may say, not just “counterintuitive”!

―But the candidate solutions to the riddle of improbability are not, as is falsely implied, design and chance. They are design and natural selection.‖ (Delusion p.119)

Well yes indeed! Natural selection, professor, is not chance; it‟s a masterful mechanism where only fitting codes survive, in what is actually nothing but a long recurring accidental accumulation of Millions of “Chance Events” (random yet favorable mutations) that have spanned tens of millions of years in gradual accumulation, safely working on turning life into the splendid unbelievably perfect thing that we see today! Millions of amazingly “lucky” and “constructive” mutations that all by pure “chance” happened to fall, each and every single one of them, in the right place, before it was too late!
283

Now as for where the very definition – formula or binding law – that determines fit from unfit, - according to which selection takes place - comes from and how it came to be in the first place; it doesn‟t matter!

So make no mistake now! It‟s not the straight jump by a single act of “chance” up the mountain; it‟s rather a long fascinating step by step (Chance by chance) progress sliding up slowly and determinately on a very long slope!

Just who on Earth are they really trying to fool?

Well, basically themselves! What this book and other similar books are really about, is a desperate attempt by its authors not initially to convert their readers - which is of course the end goal here - but to get out of writing it convinced – deep in their own hearts – one way or another, that they do have an excuse in dying as atheists! And they never will! They never will find satisfaction in any of their arguments no matter how many times they repeat them or how loudly they declare them, because they do realize the challenge they are posing against human reason itself, and the fact that they have no proof whatsoever to stand upon! So they write, publish, and propagate, and the more applause they get, and the more “ratings” and followers those books earn them, the more they find comfort pretending – in attempt to deal with their personal „cognitive dissonances‟ – that it proves – or at least justifies – their position! They so much want to believe those fallacies that they actually end up believing them! They would say to themselves: “If I can so easily convince so many people and change the way they see things; then I must be right!”

After all, what is the central argument of this very book in our hands here (The God delusion)? The argument upon which professor Dawkins dared to draw the conclusion that the entire idea of “God” and “creation” is nothing but delusion and nonsense? Apart from the age old red-herring of regress, he is offering us an argument from “improbability”! All that he gives you after such a huge antagonizing campaign against basic foundations of human reason, intuition and even language; all you come out with in the end, is that the “concept” of “God” is highly “unlikely”! So what has he really done?
284

Other than shaking the naïve, the uneducated and those who believe in a false deity or who follow a fundamentally irrational system of faith; what on Earth has he really managed to prove? Nothing at all! It‟s the sour fight to “convince himself” before others that as an atheist; he is holding on to something! Self-justification is the right word here! So typical of every preacher of false beliefs!

I quote:

―Design is not a real solution either, as we shall see later…‖(Delusion p. 120)

I wonder; a real solution to what exactly, professor? Design is not a solution? Can you even begin to imagine a problem to which the right answer or solution is not a “design” or a “plan” or a predetermined system of some kind? Are we really supposed to go this far with our “consciousness raising” in order to make sense of Darwinism? To accept the rational and epistemic disaster in this phrase: “Design is not a real solution”?

By solution he obviously means an explanation that he accepts for the “improbability” that he sees in the origination of those amazing and astounding creatures. What – then – is the other alternative in the eye of the beholder for something that is perfectly orderly and systematic (hence rationally necessitating meanings like creation, Design and Plan in describing it) as an “explanation” for the way it came about?

Listen to this comment that he makes on the words of a creationist writer:

―'Did all of this happen by chance? Or did it happen by intelligent design?' Once again, no of course it didn't happen by chance. Once again, intelligent design is not the proper alternative to chance.‖ (Delusion p. 120)

I ask of every reasonable self-respecting reader to tell me now; what is this comment if not a desperate attempt to make people accept the meaningless claim that Natural selection is neither “design”, nor “un-design”? It‟s like saying: “You people have to believe in Natural selection because it neither demands a supreme maker / keeper (like in perfect creation), nor is it
285

something that defies man‘s commonsense (like in mere chance)! If you do not wish to believe in any deity whatsoever, then this theory should work for you! So go ahead, embrace it and put it in the place of religion!‖

He‟s not asking you to embrace “chance” because very clearly no matter what he does he cannot pass it through to you; yet he cannot make you think of it as some process of “design” or “plan” either! If the word “Designoid” makes any sense to you, then what are you waiting for? Go ahead and become a Darwinian!

Forget about “evidence” gentlemen! This is what he‟s doing here! This is what it‟s all about! Indoctrination! He‟s only trying to make you a believer, like he is, not convince you that it is true by means of evidence!

―Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible and elegant solution; it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been suggested‖ (Delusion p. 120)

Might as well write a poem on Natural selection, professor, on the hope that people‟s consciousness may eventually “rise” to meet its “standard”!

"Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes." (Delusion p. 120)

Does this argument, by any standards of reason, qualify as evidence, one that justifies denying a basic rational and intuitive necessity? We are supposed to prepare ourselves now to accept the "fact" that the concept of design and purpose in nature is equal in its defects to that of pure chaos and “chance”!

So what exactly is "the riddle of statistical improbability" that he claims “design” not to solve anyway?! It is indeed the true delusion here!

Just get “probability” out of the picture and then we can start debating on the grounds of rational and considerable evidence!

What is probability and improbability in its very concept? What is it about?
286

He obviously finds no problem repeating himself, and neither do I!

So let me explain it again!

Probability is the mathematical assessment we give to the degree of likelihood of something to take place under certain observable conditions, as one of various observable possibilities (sample space), based on our observations of previous similar (analogous) processes in nature! Simply put, it‟s like saying: “Well, since I do not know on what side the coin will rest when I flip it and why, I can only say that there are two equally probable possibilities for the outcome that could be expected!” Long experimentation of tossing coins may be taken to suggest that both outcomes are – overall – equally probable.24

So by what reason can we presume the concept of probability or improbability to be characteristic of the order or power that yielded the origination of nature and life itself? What on Earth does this tool of mathematics have to do with the question of the Origin of life on Earth?! We formulated this concept to examine how likely certain observable events are to take place, according to previous experience! It is a tool of statistical presumption (best guess so to speak) that is based on our limited observation of the way certain events usually recur in nature around us, events we yet have no reliable knowledge of a standard law that governs them! It is a clear statement – in its very nature – that we do not know; we‟re only guessing!

----------------------------------------------

24 Please note that I have been avoiding the use of philosophical jargon throughout this literature as much as I could, to make sure that the book addresses all levels of education in all different disciplines of knowledge that I had to tackle with along the way. It should also be clear to professional philosophers that I’m not bound by strict formulations and wordings of different theories that I may have approached in my discourse in this book as I delve deep with my discussion and criticism to the conceptual foundations of such theories. Thus I deliberately avoid concerning my reader with the name of this or that theory, or with its common philosophical statement verbatim! It’s the concept that really matters. So as much as the conception of probability concerns me and my reader here, I’m not in the business of spilling more ink and doubling the size of two already engorged volumes, to explain the difference between – for example - a “frequentist” and a “bayesian” philosopher, in this particular context! My philosophically uneducated reader could easily find that information somewhere else if he feels that he needs to! I couldn’t care less – on the other hand - if much of what he reads here is not to be found in any textbook of philosophy that he may have read; the validity of an argument is judged only by its evidence, not by how much it agrees with the beliefs of this or that philosopher, no matter how mainstream they may currently be! And if this is not your attitude my respectable reader (whatever your scholarly background) then it’s unlikely that you’re going to accept much of what I have to offer here, and perhaps it will not be a very good idea that you carry on reading this book!

287

Probability does not propose a standard law or rule! It‟s just a guess by means of statistical observation of analogous scenarios! We just propose that since the majority of apparently similar cases went (A) then this case is more likely to go (A) than (B) for example.

You say "intelligent design" suffers from Statistical improbability? Just how many cases of creation of the universe and of natural life from dead matter have you ever witnessed, professor? How many cases of origination of natural life on similar planets have you ever seen? How much observation data have you gained from similar cases under similar conditions that enable you to presume that it is “highly improbable” under those conditions (that you cannot even imagine to begin with) that life would have emerged by means of intelligent design?!

I repeat that this is just another example of fundamentally corrupt reasoning that they apply in postulation and deduction and easily call science!

This "riddle" of improbability thus can only be suffered in a mind deeply corrupted by the teachings of Darwin! A mind that does not care to revise the very meanings of the terms it applies!

―And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes‖ (Delusion p. 120)

Oh yes indeed, the higher your “consciousness rises”, the higher the “improbability” that words would mean to you what they actually mean! We have effectively demonstrated that even by their conception of improbability, the Darwinian story is supposed to be billions of times more improbable than a single act of willful creation!

―Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself (/herself/itself) immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a Dutchman's Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman's Pipe. Far from terminating the vicious regress, God aggravates it with a vengeance.‖
288

I suppose my reader has noticed by now, how it is that every time Dawkins fails to create a new argument for his faith, he rebounds – over and over again – to the same “infinite regress” argument and the very same question “Who created the creator”! As a matter of fact, it never fails to amaze me how he and his followers fail to see the magnitude of the crime they are actually committing against human reason, even as they make the statement that “the improbability is redoubled”!

First, let me wipe off a particular pagan imagery that reveals itself in these words “the designer himself/herself/itself”! As I pointed out earlier, the creator has no gender, He‟s neither male nor female; There‟s nothing like Him! Reproduction is an organic function that He created in living mortal beings for the preservation of their kinds and for the wisdom of what they are all made to do in the world, the place where every living being that is given life should eventually die! It is only a property of His created system and is not to be attributed to Him; the omnipotent, the omniscient, the eternal! Of course this is a tenet of Islam, and a basic rational necessity for the attributes of perfectness that a human mind should accept no less, for the creator of everything!

So there is no “herself” here! This is because as I pointed out earlier, when you refer to an entity in the female pronoun, you are indicating gender; you‟re talking about a female being! The Lord almighty is praised above gender altogether; be it male or female! He‟s not an “it” either! “It” is used in English for unconscious things! So there‟s no linguistic choice but to use the “He” and the “himself” pronouns, bearing in mind that He has no gender, given the fact that all human languages use the masculine pronoun for intellectual beings free from any sexual or gender associations, as elaborated earlier.

Second, by what reason do you allow yourself to view His existence as a problem? Define „problem‟!

If by “problem” you mean we cannot understand what His attributes are like or examine or reason how they are, then the problem is actually only in your own mind! Because nobody said that we need to explain him! We only
289

need to understand the way this system to which we are restricted works, and what we are here to do with it! He is not part of that system!

There‟s nothing in His creation that is anything like Him! Attributes of the Sole almighty creator are by necessity of reason, nothing like those of His creatures! The knowledge is nothing like our knowledge, the power is nothing like our power, and whatever we learn from authentic scripture that is among His attributes, is by necessity of reason – and according to scriptural evidence - unlike anything we have ever seen in a creature! So it is fundamentally wrong to ask “What is He like”, or to chase a purpose of knowledge of understanding how He is!

This arrogant (but not surprising) attitude towards the creator destroys the rationally essential meaning of His being the uncreated creator (end of regress) – please revise in earlier sections of this book why it is rationally essential - because simply, if there was any way for man to know how the attributes of the Creator work (in the meaning that natural scientists give to the word “explain”); then it should follow by necessity that those attributes and properties are analogous to the way creatures in this world work and the way they are composed, simply because this is the only way our minds understand the way things around us work; analogy and analysis of composed systems! And this in turn will only mean that this creator is created and a composed system himself like all created things; which is again not true of the creator of all created things!

This is why pure and simple reason necessitates that we, the humans, cannot chase such a query or obtain knowledge thereof: What exactly He is like or How He is (The How question)! We only know about His attributes what He teaches us in His truly inspired words and the words of His true messengers… but to ask for more, or to ask for knowledge of how those attributes are, is to claim a forbidden claim that our minds cannot even begin to process or absorb!

Thus we say that the claim that such knowledge is achievable to man is a claim that contrasts every meaning that pure human reason is compelled to attribute to the creator! It is a claim that turns Him into yet another element
290

of this universe; analogous to creatures of His own making; which is a meaning that is by every sense in any healthy mind: false!

So there really is no “problem” at all for believers in the creator to solve! We cannot afford it, and we are not supposed to suffer it! This is not what our minds are made to do! It‟s sad that a man would waste his entire lifetime enjoying the ability to search and theorize, without even knowing what he was given those faculties for! No matter how brilliant this man proves to be in whatever he does with his mind; he is at the absolute antonym of wisdom!

Imagine a man who is given a fancy car, top tech, with GPRS equipment and computerized navigation and so forth, but from where he sits behind the steering wheel; he really has no clue where he has to go or why he was given it at all! He does not know his destination or the path to take to it! What will he do? He may be blinded for some time by the marvel of the technology under his hands, thus he will indulge himself for as long as he can, and for as long as there is fuel in the tank, he‟ll just drive away! He‟ll just have fun! But what is he really doing? In reality, this is nothing but child‟s play! He‟s wasting fuel! He‟s wasting time! He‟s actually losing!

Now to be given something – that you obviously did not obtain on your own - and claim that it‟s up to you to decide what you should be doing with it, is a clear assault on whoever it was that gave it to you! Now imagine the magnitude of the insult when you actually claim that nobody gave you anything at all to begin with! Can you claim that you chose to come to this world out of your own free will, and that you chose to be born? Did you have any choice at all on whether or not to come to this world, enjoy those senses and powers, make the choices you are enabled to make, and gain whatever you have gained? You didn‟t! And when it‟s time for you to leave, do you have any choice about it? Can you not die? And when you‟re gone to wherever you will go to, can you come back?

Now I will not ask you in this context, what Darwin has to say in answer to this fundamental “WHY” question, because clearly he has nothing to say about it! Despite the feverish efforts by Dawkins and others to make the Darwinian faith appear as though it gives satisfactory answers to those
291

questions; it clearly does not! To make man appreciate his life and feel that he‟s “lucky” to be here – which is what they say it does to you! - is not something that needs Natural selection to make people feel it; it kills the value of those marvelous givens that we have, and mutes the deep natural urge in a man‟s soul to be thankful to their giver; the giver of those valueless and countless gifts! It mutilates a man‟s spirituality and intuition! So how can it possibly offer any reasonable answers to “Why” we are here?

I can easily argue that this is absolutely not what Darwin himself attempted to answer or even had on mind when he wrote his book on the origin of species and natural selection! This is because the theory clearly leaves the question itself pointless and meaningless! It leaves it hollow; and turns it actually – against every bit of reason and commonsense in man - into a mere product of organic evolution! It destroys the meaning of “purpose” along with many other basic meanings to human reason and intuition! To a Darwinian, we are merely a species that has evolved to a point where it started to make up “pointless” questions, perhaps as some sort of mental luxury or so! So what Darwinism teaches in this respect is in fact total abolish!

Anyway, I shall rebound to those meanings later… the point here is that a wise creator is one who creates everything for a reason and a purpose! Nothing in his creation is more than it should be, or less than it should be! Nothing is made for no purpose! Nothing is in its wrong place! Every fruit and every poison, every disease and evil that we see around us is made for a purpose, the knowledge of which is only to be obtained from Him, the maker!

Thus, reasonably enough, the All-wise creator must have limited our abilities to no more than what we need for the particular purpose of our creation in this world! And to accept the existence of a wise creator is to accept – naturally – the fact that He did not create anything without limits that accord with a particular purpose that only He defines!

The wise creator naturally did not create us to share power with Him! He did not create us to become His equals, His rivals, to become “gods” or to obtain
292

the power to challenge Him on the dominion of the universe! This is simple common sense here! It is a rational necessity of wisdom that is attributed to every king, every Lord, creator and owner of a created system! He will not let it be spoilt by the rebellion of one of its autonomous elements! It is a rationally necessary feature of the system even for the sake of the system itself! Power, dominion and control over it cannot be up to any element within it, neither can it be shared with such an element! You cannot imagine a ship with two captains, and two control panels; can you?! So what do you say of control over the entire Universe? Those are rational basics here; they are the foundations of Islamic faith in the Lord the creator, as argued effectively in the Qur‟an! He will not enable us to destroy the entire universe; He will not allow us to challenge Him on His dominion above the heavens and Earth! Yes He did enable us to have choice and a manipulative form of control over a huge variety of resources in it, for the purpose for which we were created, but only under natural physical restriction to those laws, limits and restrains that restrict all creatures and systems in the universe are we given this dominion of choice; not above them!

To sum it up, think of this question: If reason cannot allow for the attributes of the creator of all creation to submit to any form of analogy that the human mind can afford, or to be testable in the labs of natural sciences the way created things (elements of the created system) are; then by what logic could we view this very rational necessity as a “problem” that keeps a scientist from admitting and accepting the necessary existence of the creator? This is sheer contradiction! It is no more than an empty pathetic attempt to create a problem out of something that is actually a natural given of human reason; just to support the position of atheism!

So easily would an atheist say in sheer arrogance: “I don‟t like the idea of the creator because it leaves me incapable of testing and examining the “nature” of that creator himself”! It‟s like saying: ―My condition for accepting the existence of anything that I cannot currently see; is that you prove to me that one day I will be capable of putting it under my microscope, or that the way it works is not out of reach of my human tool of perception, analogy and comprehension!‖
293

Well, as a matter of fact; You are the one who has to prove that everything in existence (not just in the universe) has to be fully comprehensible to man and analogous to things that he can perceive, qualify and quantify! Can you do that?

Is this – in its very nature – not a blind tenet of faith (one that is fundamental to Darwinism)? To believe that there is no limit whatsoever – in principle - to the human mind and the human perception, and that there cannot exist anything inside the universe or outside that is immeasurable, unperceivable, or incomprehensible? Yes indeed! It is by all means a tenet of blind faith; one that comes in conflict even with basic reason and with mathematics itself!

Now I ask of every reasonable man to tell me; what kind of “anti-science” and “anti-knowledge” is such a “faith”?! You‟d rather deny the undeniable, twist and manipulate reason and commonsense, and make a man falsify his very own senses, just because you don‟t like the idea of not being capable of “explaining” the way the creator is, or the way He does what He does?

Indeed, blind arrogance only begets more blindness and more arrogance!

As you proceed with reading “The Delusion” you cannot help wondering, what does this man really think? He thinks that repeating the appraisal of natural selection over and over again will perhaps hypnotize the reader and eventually change his mind?

―Natural selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested. And it is not only a workable solution, it is a solution of stunning elegance and power.‖ (Delusion p. 121)

No comment!

―What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable
294

events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance‖ (Delusion p. 121)

Well, as we have demonstrated, the “accumulation” concept that he reveres so much about “Natural selection” is – in itself – a proof for its fallacy! We have argued effectively against this (slight improbability) that he attributes to those “steps of chance” that constitute his (mount improbable)! We have demonstrated linguistic inconsistencies like the one we find in this very statement! To accumulate, as a meaning, is to imply – by necessity – the existence of two things:

- An accumulator

- A container for accumulation

- A law that defines this process and guarantees its continuity!

Natural selection seeks to call itself a process – and it has no choice but to do – despite its emphatic denial of every rational aspect that the very word “process” itself must imply! An accumulation, that is, but without the basic dimensions of reason that do give the word “accumulate” its very meaning! Just like “designiod”; this indeed might be “accumuloid” so to speak! Just make sure to insert an “oid” suffix in every word of this sort as you speak, and you will be okay! Natural selection will – then – be your salvation!

Again, a set of billions of “lucky” chances that were all good enough to “add up” and to “accumulate” giving out this amazingly perfect end result, is to him far more “probable” than a single event of chance, not to mention a masterful act of creation! And of course, while a single event of chance is to him unthinkable; an accumulation of billions of happy events of “chance” that all come to fall in place before it‟s too late and “save the day”, is on the contrary; not – in its totality - chance or random or improbable at all!

I remind the reader here that I‟m applying his own use of chance, random and probability (the one that rips it off from its relative meaning; relative to man, and ascribes it to nature itself) and that I shall be doing so for the rest of this literature for the sake of the argument.
295

So; Chance + chance + chance + chance + …… = NOT CHANCE!

That is, atheists believe that given enough time: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + … = 1

Well indeed yes; it is not “chance”! This must indeed prove that none of it could be “chance” at all! Yet, they insist on emptying the only right words to describe the way nature really works from their very meanings, applying the “-oid” word play! Say “Design” “designed” and so forth, - as you obviously have no choice but to do so - but make sure you keep in mind that they are not actually designs; but only appear as though they are! Do not be troubled by the fact that there are no words in any human language for the alternative meanings that Darwinians seek to express here (like a middle meaning between created and uncreated), and rest assured that with time and sufficient practice you will get used to them!

Moreover I have to wonder here: By what datum of reference or statistical inference could you decide that those “small pieces” are all just “slightly improbable”, not to mention the way they accumulated?! Not a single one of the millions of steps of the Darwinian story is to be called “slightly improbable”! Not only because improbability – in concept - does not apply to changes the likes of which we never even saw before, but because the conditions and parameters by which those “random” mutations are supposed to emerge in every time they work, cannot possibly take place without an external organizer, a perfect creator (It‟s rationally impossible), and if I‟m going to abide with their rationale of probability for the sake of the argument; I‟ll say it has to be unbelievably improbable that this would happen at all! So how do you describe billions of extremely improbable acts taking place gradually over an unbelievably long span of time despite the extremely high probability of all forms of destructive hazards and devastative events along the way; by any word other than Plan or Design? There can be no room for any other meaning at any level in this scenario, even as preposterous as it really is!

I could actually present dozens of other arguments the least of which is enough to destroy this nonsense at foundation level; however, I think I‟ve already done that! I actually have much more valuable things to do with my
296

time than go on unraveling more defects in the rationale of “Natural selection”! So let‟s get done with this book, or we never will!

―The creationist completely misses the point, because he (women should for once not mind being excluded by the pronoun) insists on treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event.‖ (Delusion p.121)

I chose to quote this insignificant statement here just to show the reader how disturbed and extremely uneasy a writer will find himself, when he puts in his mind that the masculine pronoun he uses naturally when speaking of an unspecified gender is insufficient, or that he always has to make it (he/she) and (Him/her) and so forth instead of just (he) and (him) in any general statement that he makes!25 Well, I‟m sorry to disappoint you professor, but wise, healthy women who have not been brainwashed by the nonsense of feminism and similar philosophies, will not feel even remotely offended by the common ways of human language in addressing people, if that‟s what you think they will feel! The problem, professor, is in your own convictions, your personal beliefs; not in the way mankind has always been putting meanings into words!

This is what Darwinism does to a man! (Or should I say: To a ‗human‘, lest I be accused of sexism?!)

Now listen to this:

―Evolution, by contrast, goes around the back of the mountain and creeps up the gentle slope to the summit: easy!‖ (Delusion p.121)

Oh no! Not easy at all! It “Goes” and “creeps”, means it commits to a path (which is the slope itself)! I ask: Where did that slope itself come from in the

--------------------------------------------------------

25 It is really disappointing that many academic circles of the world today have come to mandate the use of so-called (gender-neutral) tactics in research writing and documentation instead of the masculine pronoun, as though a word like (mankind) has always been gender biased and exclusive to women, yet people never realized this (inequity) until lately! In fact many feminist authors in human sciences no longer use masculine pronouns at all, when referring to a human being in general! Some of them may discuss a certain issue concerning the human psyche with no particular emphasis on males or females, and while a reader may start reading about a (he), suddenly he finds himself reading about a (she), just for the sake of gender equity!!! Now as confusing as this trend may be to a reader, it has – unfortunately - become quite common indeed!

297

first place? First there has to be a slope to begin with and a driving power – constantly existent – to force the process up that slope, right? “Chance” and “easy” you say? Marvel as you wish with this “slope” of Darwinism professor, and praise Darwin for as much as you wish; every sane man with an ounce of truthfulness to himself and to his mind can easily see through it, and will indeed understand the real reason why it took “so long” for an idea “that simple” to be turned into “science” by a man like Darwin! No wonder here for them!

As I proceed, I find the author making a metaphor that is really not worthy of a comment, but I will quote it anyway!

―Another favourite metaphor for extreme improbability is the combination lock on a bank vault. Theoretically, a bank robber could get lucky and hit upon the right combination of numbers by chance. In practice, the bank's combination lock is designed with enough improbability to make this tantamount to impossible - almost as unlikely as Fred Hoyle's Boeing 747.‖ (Delusion p.122)

First of all; we can easily see that no matter what he does, he cannot escape selecting a well designed object for his metaphor (the Bank combination lock). Now, please note that this is how he will always start it off.

Of course he forgets the basic question of “who designed the lock itself, and defined its combination code”! And while probabilistic reasoning works perfectly well describing how the bank lock works; it has nothing to do with the subject matter. Anyway, he then works his way – against all commonsense - in attempt to paint a pathetic image of a key that could work partially in the job of opening this lock, step by step! Thus he finds he has no choice but to get around by making an assumption that really has nothing to do with what any actual lock does, not to mention the Bank lock by which he began his metaphor! He says:

―But imagine a badly designed combination lock that gave out little hints progressively the equivalent of the 'getting warmer' of children playing Hunt the Slipper. Suppose that when each one of the dials approaches its correct setting, the vault door opens another chink,
298

and a dribble of money trickles out. The burglar would home in on the jackpot in no time.‖ (Delusion p.122)

So where did the “extreme improbability” of opening a Bank lock by chance go; now that we have turned to talk about a “badly designed combination lock that gives out hints … etc.”? How do we add up the last part to the first part of the metaphor?

There is no such lock (one that opens partially letting dribbles of money dribble out in such a way)! No money is coming out at all unless the lock is open or broken! And then again, whoever keeps attempting to open it gradually and to go through it; cannot by any means be doing this without a previous intent and a long lasting – very long indeed - will and determination! We do not have that in natural selection! Or do we?

Even as pathetic as this imaginary lock would be, it would demand a specific design that opens up gradually in this manner! So no matter what he does, he can‟t pull it off!

Now look at this statement of religious praise:

―Darwin devoted an entire chapter of the Origin of Species to 'Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification', and it is fair to say that this brief chapter anticipated and disposed of every single one of the alleged difficulties that have since been proposed, right up to the present day.‖ (Delusion p.123)

Well, I suppose atheists are bound now to praise the name of Darwin, the “prophet” of modern day atheism! Not a single “alleged” difficulty to natural selection that ever came to arise ever since the time he wrote down his “revelations”, did he leave unanswered in his perfect book “the origin of species”; and only in a brief chapter! Isn‟t this a miracle?

I know that many readers will say that my comment here is not “scientific”; but then, by what standards of any practice of natural sciences whatsoever is this statement by Dawkins here to be called “scientific”? We‟re obviously not talking science now! It is clearly the way a stout believer (a preacher no
299

less) speaks of his book of faith and of the “teachings” of his prophet in certainty and devotion!

Do you, professor, claim Darwin to be an infallible prophet who delivers teachings to mankind from an omniscient being (as it is the case with followers of every religion)?

You‟d say you don‟t!

Is this work by Darwin in reality anything more than a manmade theory that may be subject to revision, objection, modification, and maybe even total replacement?

You‟d force yourself to admit that it isn‟t!

So how – on earth - can any natural scientist allow himself to make such a bold claim about a theory of natural sciences unless he really holds it for an unquestionable doctrine of faith, and truly believes it to be infallible? “Every single one of the alleged difficulties” he says! Is this even possible for any man to write a theory that suffers not even a single difficulty whatsoever, no matter how minor? What is it – then – that evolutionists have been doing – revising and manipulating – with Darwin‟s theory ever since it came out to this day? I suppose they are committing some form of a heresy or blasphemy against Darwin! How do they even dare drift or sway from the original teachings of the Apostle of natural selection?

As for me, a Muslim, I can so easily prove that my prophet is a messenger from the Lord creator of heaven and earth, and thus that there is not a single objection or difficulty that has ever been raised against his message that does not have a profoundly complete, rational and consistent answer!

Such a powerful and bold claim indeed, isn‟t it?! Yes it is! And I‟m willing to go with it to the end of the Earth, and discuss my evidence with any man alive, no matter what background of faith he comes from! This is my faith! And I know it to be true both from general and tons of detailed evidence! My position of knowledge here is a position of faith! The only perfectly justifiable faith in the only perfect and infallible source of knowledge! It is
300

not a position of scientific skepticism that is reasonably assumed by a natural scientist who is still questioning the theories of his colleagues and who will never be certain about the completeness of human theorization (which will never be complete; hence he will never quit being skeptic about it and unsatisfied with it, no matter how far it goes)! I know out of certainty – not skepticism – that Darwin was wrong! I believe him to be wrong, and it‟s not a blind faith! Faith is by definition a position of certainty! It is the exact antonym of skepticism! So if this faith is founded on an evidently true knowledge, justified by irrefutable evidence, then any theory of science that comes to contradict it is simply (and verifiably): False!

So when I make such a confident statement about the teachings of the prophet I follow, I‟m not ascribing perfectness and infallibility to the hypothesis of an ordinary man like myself where healthy skepticism is the proper and reasonable position to take! I‟m ascribing it to a body of knowledge that is verifiably the Lord‟s revelation.

But is this the position of the professor here?

Far from it!

While he is supposed to assume the position of a skeptic natural scientist (a biologist), not of a minister of religion; hints of his true position as a strong believer and even “a preacher of faith” – like the previously quoted statement of his - keep popping up every now and then, and he cannot help it! It does not surprise me though, not a single bit!

He is indeed a preacher of a religion that propagates itself in a cloak of natural sciences! His temple is in his lab and his congregation is in his lecture hall; and he‟s out to convert you all!

He then proceeds to discuss the so called “theory of irreducible complexity”.

I quote:

―A functioning unit is said to be irreducibly complex if the removal of one of its parts causes the whole to cease functioning.‖ (Delusion p.123)
301

Now there is much to say here in discussion of nothing more than this mere definition alone! The notion of “irreducibility” is indeed a philosophical statement of a rationally sound meaning that flows quite naturally from the very meaning of the word (closed system) which is the best word to describe a living organism with every biological process that runs in its body! And even though it makes perfect sense as we will discuss, atheists hate it and fight it with all their power because it seeks to replace Darwinism as a philosophy of Biology!

Now it sounds so easy to judge a complex system, doesn‟t it? A part that does not seem to have a known purpose to me - and thus appears to be removable – is proof that this system was not properly designed, or that it did not have a good designer! So what is it that may allow me to make this judgment on a given system X?

There is a set of conditions of knowledge that should be fulfilled in me (the observer or the critic) before I can make such a judgment on a “part” of any given –perfectly or imperfectly functioning - system! Conditions of qualification! I can easily do that – as a man - with a car, or a hand watch or any manmade artifact, if and only if:

- I can easily obtain its blueprints,

- I fully understand its function and the detailed purpose of its making, by knowledge that comes only from its maker,

- And I have all the knowledge it takes to design a similar artifact on my own.

Now, without the fulfillment of a single one of these conditions; by what right could I allow myself to criticize this artifact, pick out one of its parts and claim that it has no function, or that the system could do without it?

What would you say of a man who knows little about the way a computer is built, and yet he opens it up, pulls out some expansion card or a RAM chipset and throws it away, and when he turns it on and finds that it still boots properly, he concludes that this part that he removed arbitrarily must have had no function, and from there deduce that it was badly designed (not
302

to mention that it was not designed at all)? In his ignorance, this fool made a judgment that is by all means false and presumptuous, and thought that he has proven that the computer is badly designed! He thinks this is proof that as a designed system, this device is reducible!

Fact of the matter is that he did not know what that thing he removed really was! He did not know what it was there for! He thus had no idea what kind of damage he really caused! So whatever can he possibly prove when he sees – in his limited knowledge – that his removal of that part seemingly did not affect the way the machine functions? He is not qualified to make such a judgment in the first place!

As a matter of fact, had the professor been actually talking in the previous quotation about a manmade artifact I would‟ve said to him: the fact that it does not cease to work even after the removal of this part does not prove the part to be functionless, just like in the example I just made on a computer device! But in fact, he is talking about organic systems; biological systems, systems that are far too complex to identify at any level of certainty what exactly every subsystem within them is there for! Systems about which we lack the conditions of knowledge that I mentioned a few paragraphs earlier; all three of them!

- We do not have the systems blueprints!

- We do not – and cannot - fully understand the functions of all of its parts and the purpose of their making

- And we certainly do not have the knowledge to create a similar one!

The idea of reducibility – by which they oppose “IC” - stems from the same arrogant atheistic approach to every system or order in nature! Even the term “organ” can only have a relative meaning that is only defined by means of human observation and conclusion of what we currently think is the particular role that this part plays in this overwhelmingly complex system! Does this mean that what we know now about the function of every part that we identify as an organ; is by necessity all there is to it, and there‟s no other set of functions of which this set of cells is subsystem? No! It doesn‟t! A
303

wise man of science should know that it doesn‟t! Scientists are discovering more and more and learning more every day, about the way organs function! So what today you claim to be “replaceable” or “reducible” due to your current lack of knowledge may easily prove to be otherwise tomorrow! This has been the trend of human knowledge ever since the dawn of mankind: we grow – by accumulation of knowledge with time - to learn more about this amazingly seamless system that we call nature! So it should be taken for a law of philosophy to be hung on the office-wall of every biologist, that there is no such a thing as a reducible system in biology! We simply cannot afford to make such a judgment, no matter how much knowledge we may possess of any given biological system!

―A cataract patient with the lens of her eye surgically removed can't see clear images without glasses, but can see enough not to bump into a tree or fall over a cliff.‖ (Delusion p.123)

Now that‟s a clear example of the meaning I‟m talking about here! This example is supposed to lead you to the conclusion that the human eye is a reducible system!

The problem is; the author here is not kidding! In a different context I would really take this for a joke! But he‟s really not kidding!

A cataract patient is somebody who suffers a sickness that spoils the way her eye works! It does not blacken the eyesight or cause blindness; but it seriously damages eyesight! So yes she can still see enough not to bump into a tree or fall off a cliff; but who – on earth – could dare claim that humans can do in this life with an eye that only sees that much? I mean not as an individual, but as a species, as a kind, the kind of man as a whole; by what right or reason can a sane man claim that an eye without a lens could suffice or could make us into a species to begin with? The use of the eye in man is not just to dodge a tree or to not fall off a cliff! The professor knows that much, I hope!

So when we say “what good is half an eye” we mean what good is it for the job – every possible function - the eye is supposed to do in this particular species! Everything that it does is part of its job! Everything we – the
304

humans – can see is part of what our eyes are made this way to do! So what they don‟t realize is that by reducing the structure of the organ in such a way, they are – by necessity - reducing its functionality as well! The system would then serve only a part of its purpose; and the bigger the damage (or the reduction), the bigger the failure! Because its purpose is not defined by one or two functions that it does, but by everything that a human eye works for, and should reasonably justify its distinction in structure and composition from the eyes of other species! So I will agree – in principle - that an eye without a lens could do for humans, only if you could convince me, professor, that all that you need your own eyes for is to avoid falling off a cliff or bumping into a tree! Isn‟t it sad that we may have to respond to such a statement?

“Seeing” is something that works for a variety of purposes in the life of an animal, not to mention man! Not to bump into a tree is indeed the simplest imaginable purpose of them all and in fact the least that should come to our concern! What about identifying a prey and hunting it? What about identifying a predator and escaping it? What about identifying the female for mating? What about guarding the territory and protecting it? What about feeding the young and protecting them? What about man and his extremely sophisticated use of his eyes – as well as the rest of his senses - which makes him what he is on this Earth? Are those not all basic necessary “functions” and “purposes” of the eye?

Those people are after nothing but the attempt to insert hideous imperfection in the system, the very system they cannot resist – in other occasions - admitting its magnificence and perfectness! The very system the perfection of which gives them their jobs and the definition of their missions as scientists!

Look at the way he goes on with this:

―Half a wing is indeed not as good as a whole wing, but it is certainly better than no wing at all.‖ (Delusion p.123)

Absolutely not! You first have to answer to this: better for what exactly? If the purpose we are talking about is flying and navigating through the air like
305

birds do (which is very obviously necessary for them as a species), then certainly half a wing is not doing this! It is not the key for that lock! If all that an organism needs here is like he says, an organ to: ―save your life by easing your fall from a tree of a certain height.‖, then clearly this is not the job of what we would call a wing, is it?! It is the job of something else! There are indeed certain species today (like the squirrel glider) that do have such a “web” of loose skin that would help them glide in the air with ease when they jump from one tree to another at great heights or to the ground! But this is by no means to be called a wing! It is another organ doing another function in another species!

―And 51 per cent of a wing could save you if you fall from a slightly taller tree. Whatever fraction of a wing you have, there is a fall from which it will save your life where a slightly smaller winglet would not.‖ (Delusion p.123)

What a miserable image indeed! This is dead wrong, because the wing is clearly a tool that works entirely differently from this so called “winglet”! If the purpose of a wing was originally to keep an animal from getting damaged when it falls off a tree (of course one has to wonder how it got up the tree in the first place!), then it never should‟ve had the ability to fly off at all, and develop into what we now know as wings! It didn‟t need it! In fact one would expect the final step of evolution of such a device, the function of which is only to save a falling animal, to end up more like a parachute with more skin (a wider area) to achieve higher air resistance during the fall! But to turn into a pair of wings with the power to navigate and move up in the air; what on earth could justify this eccentric shift? Nothing at all! Only the blindness of a Darwinian who insists on placing those two distinct and equally perfect devices as they are –each in keeping up with its distinct job – on a single track in his mythical story of natural history!

He proceeds:

―By analogy with the trees of different height, it is easy to imagine situations in which half an eye would save the life of an animal where 49 percent of an eye would not.‖ (Delusion p.124)
306

As a matter of fact, it is wrong to say that “saving the life of an animal” is the only function even of those pieces of skin in glider squirrels that he views to be “less evolved” than wings! (How that skin could “evolve” into feathers to become „wings‟ is another thing that is beyond me!)! Their job is actually to help them jump from one tree trunk to another by means of smooth air gliding! They use it for the purpose of moving from one place to another for short distances, not as a safety device just in case they were to drop off the tree! The author, just like all other Darwinians, forgets that first he has to prove that there once was a species that was endangered due to its inability to maintain balance above high trees, which to his notion justifies the “evolution” of wings! I say, no animal that finds itself incapable of climbing a tree; would even dare climb one in the first place! To shift its metabolic system into feeding from down on the ground where it is safe is clearly a much easier and more „probable‟ option for evolution of such a species, isn‟t it?! And again, clearly enough, this “safety” function is not what those gliders use their equipment for!

Now far more corrupt in terms of reasoning is to claim that the eye‟s job is to “save an animal‟s life” according to his proposed analogy here! Try to bring a few animals of any species that has eyes, damage their eyes down to half of their eyesight, and see for yourself what would be of them in the wilderness!

You see my reader, the problem is clearly with the way they so arrogantly take their irrational faith to the level of an unquestionable fact; and from there, they just go on taking every morphologically proximal species that seem to have an apparently “less complex” structure than species X, to be an example of what the ancestor of X was like before it “evolved” into X, and by that they go on to acquire what they call “piles of overwhelming evidence”! Had it not been for their blind unrelenting denial of there being a creator who made it all in whatever way He chose, and gave every species exactly what it needed, they would‟ve admitted the deep corruption of their ways!

According to this reasoning, they would give themselves the right to describe certain forms of life as “evolved” and others as “less evolved” or
307

even “primitive”, on the grounds that there are parts in certain organisms that they claim do more of a certain function than similar parts in other organisms! However, looking close enough you would easily see that neither are the parts equal, nor are the functions they do! Gliding between two trees like a kite or a parachute, is clearly not the same as, and not even close to flying overseas like an airbus! One needs only to have a good pair of eyes and a proper sense of things to see this! There is no privilege in a bird‟s wing over a glider‟s skin coat! The glider does not need to fly the way a bird does, neither does a bird only need to glide between tall trees! Both kinds have survived perfectly just the way they are! Those are two clearly distinct forms of life with clearly distinct feeding habits and life styles! So by what right do they allow themselves to put a glider at a lower level of evolution – biologically – below birds?

Here‟s an expression of the logical incoherence of this reasoning! They judge the function of an organ (X) in species (A), by the standards of the function of an organ (Y) in species (B), on the false assumption that (Y) should better be doing in (B) the same function that (X) is doing in (A)! This is absolutely false, because (B) is observed to survive perfectly well with (Y) not with (X), and (A) survives perfectly well with (X) not with (Y)! So there‟s nothing to even suggest an evolutionary history here!

What we have is two distinct systems of navigation in the air: short distance gliding or parachuting, and long distance flying and navigating! Each of the two systems has its own standards of functionality, and is seen to work perfectly for the species that uses them, with organs that are perfectly functional just the way they are!

Thus we say that when the author here attempts to use this example to prove that the system of “flying” in birds is reducible, he is really building falsity upon a deeper falsity! And unless he could prove to us that once upon a time a certain species of gliders needed to have wings instead of skin flaps (a totally different organ) and fly away, we have no reason whatsoever to accept such a claim! And clearly enough now, no wing could do its job in flying the way it should – or any other relevant function - if it had one or some of its parts reduced or removed! Go ahead and try it yourself! Grab a
308

pigeon – for example – and cut off half of its wings, then place it over a tree branch, kick it from there to see it fall, and see what it will do! It most certainly will not glide! So what part of a wing – any given wing of any given species – do they think could be reduced without that species failing – as a result - to fly or to glide? And whoever could claim that as a species it could survive without that part?

Do not mix a glider with a bird! Reduce any part you choose of the device of gliding or of the device of flying, as they are, and see what happens to them!

Failure, on one level or another, if not total failure! That‟s what will happen!

To reduce an organ is to – quite simply – leave it insufficient in performing its particular function! And we never saw any species suffering from such insufficiency in our long experience with observing elements of natural life! All we see is perfect organs – in the normal case that defines the species– in all species everywhere doing exactly what they are supposed to do!

Darwinians – however - are trying to convince us that since a corrupted organ (reduced) may not be too corrupt to fail entirely, and may still have some use left in it at a certain level, that those parts you took away from it are “reducible” or are not necessary for the organ to work the way it should work! Just what are they talking about? Who defines “the way it should work” in the first place and by whose standards?

Whenever a wise man speaks of a function or a purpose for a particular device, he starts by acquiring all knowledge there is to acquire about the device, and by defining its desired function clearly (by authority of its designer who made it this way), before he judges the way that this device fulfills it! However it is obvious why atheists never take this approach! It is purely a question of belief! They give themselves – because of that belief – the authority to reduce complex systems they are barely starting to understand! But this surprises me not! I mean, they did admit the inversion of human intuition to be an essential condition for people‟s consciousness to be raised “high” enough for them to accept Darwinism, didn‟t they?
309

―Smooth gradients are provided by variations in lighting conditions, variations in the distance at which you catch sight of your prey - or your predators.‖ (Delusion p.124)

Great! However, those variations that you may see exist today varying among different species, are all perfectly fit each in its particular species just as it is! We have never seen any one of those species suffering from insufficient eyesight, and thus having to survive long enough – despite this failure - until a lucky mutation comes along to give it a more efficient eye, if it ever does! Each one of those species is equipped with nothing more or less than it needs! Now try to alter or shift any of these variables in any given species one slight level up or down and see what damage you will do! If I could not see a predator early enough for me to manage my escape or my camouflage, then I‟m doomed! I will never live long enough to breed and become a species in the first place, with such a predator always stalking me! There is no possibility for a lesser organ for this particular species living under those particular conditions! This fact is really too clear to demand proof!

So when the professor says:

―And, as with wings and flight surfaces, plausible intermediates are not only easy to imagine: they are abundant all around the animal kingdom.‖ (Delusion p.124)

This clearly demonstrates the sheer emptiness of their reasoning! It‟s only amazing how some of them insist that they cannot see the magnitude of the leap of faith that is required to accept this pathetic story of „evolution‟ they chose to believe in!

The mere proximity in physical features and general biological functions between different species does not make them hereditarily related professor, and it certainly does not prove them to have all descended from one common ancestor! It is you who need to believe that they are! Driven by faith and faith alone, Darwinians forged all kinds of theoretical explanations for spatial relations and proximal similitude between carefully selected observations and findings (and I use the word selected deliberately here) to
310

build this huge (tree of evolution) the way they did, and turn it into indisputable fact, not troubled for a minute by the sheer logical and linguistic incoherence and fallacy at the very foundations of Darwin‟s theory!

It is quite obvious that a number of species that live under the same conditions, submit to the same laws of the physical world, and are all parts of the same continuous cycles of nature (both animate and inanimate cycles: food chains, water cycles, etc.); will certainly have to share a great deal of similar features, and sometimes even strikingly similar organic compositions (in DNA as well as in morphology)! Their variety – as unbelievably wealthy as it is – is limited by the unity of the natural conditions to which they are all restricted! (That‟s why I call them morphologically proximal)! An amphibian animal – for example - is by necessity expected to be an intermediate – in the way it was created (its physiological structure and its body functions) – between a marine animal and a reptile, and the closer it would be to a particular species in the locale and the general conditions of living, the more likely it is to look closer to it in those features that accord it to those conditions and adapt it to them! This is not a theory of biology; it is a simple observation! This biological similarity or proximity which places an amphibian in this place in biological terms, is not the way it is because there was some sort of “evolutionary” slope upon which they all moved gradually from one step to another, all starting by pure chance in a soup of proteins, or because there was some point in the history of natural life where some fishes had to crawl out of the sea and evolve into amphibians, but simply because any living being that lives both in the water and on the land is expected to already have the best qualities that allow it to live in such a way, and thus it will have to share certain biological features and organic qualities with both sea creatures and land creatures!

When Dawkins compares the eye of a flatworm to that of a man, trying to prove his point on “plausible intermediates”, he almost makes me laugh, because quite clearly, the job and the purpose of a flatworm eye is much “less” than the purpose of a human eye! We certainly cannot do - as humans - with a flatworm eye… can we?! And on the other hand, had the flatworm needed any more complex eye structure for the sake of performance of its

311

different organic functions, and fitting in its place in nature; it would never have speciated as such, with an eye as such!

Now, let‟s try to move on with this part for it has taken much more than it should!