Is the Creation vs Evolution/Darwinism up to interpretation ?

[truthseeker63]

Is the Creation vs Evolution/Darwinism DNA evidence/Fossil evidence and or how Life got here for example up to People's/Human/Human's interpretation of the evidence what I mean is both Creationists/Evolutionists/Darwinists both have the same evidence but different interpretations of the same evidence do both sides admit this thank you ?

[Scimitar]

This will answer everything, every questionn regarding creationism vs chaos / evollution vs intelligent design etc etc etc... And all from scientific as well as philosophical and religious rebuttals... it's about time you had those questions answered once and for all:



WARNING: Atheists are not gonna be happy after this documentary...

Scimitar Productions on behalf of Alimane Studios.

[Iconodule]

I think, before discussing specific theories such as Darwinian evolution, it is more important to first address the principles underlying modern science and compare them with the principles underlying faith. In the face of modern materialism, I think Islam and Christianity can say very much the same thing: God is the creator and sustainer of everything we see and it is folly to try to understand any created thing as existing independently of God. This doesn't mean that modern science is completely false- obviously it has many useful insights- but its premise is deeply flawed and can result in some very distorted conclusions about man, nature, and the universe. In fact the basic natural philosophy of modern science is largely the same as that of Epicurus, the materialist philosopher of ancient Greece, who was functionally an atheist and who taught that pleasure was the highest good in life.

[truthseeker63]

Thanks for replying.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Abz2000]

Nothing can come from nothing.

Something must come from something.

Something cannot come from nothing.

You think therefore you exist.

Existence is something.

The universe is something.

The universe, something,

must have come from something.

Time/space must have come from something.

That something must be Above time/space.

The Source must be Eternal and Infinite

If it is Above time/space.

Thus, God is Eternal, All Powerful, and Infinite.

[Scimitar]

I think, before discussing specific theories such as Darwinian evolution, it is more important to first address the principles underlying modern science and compare them with the principles underlying faith. In the face of modern materialism, I think Islam and Christianity can say very much the same thing: God is the creator and sustainer of everything we see and it is folly to try to understand any created thing as existing independently of God. This doesn't mean that modern science is completely false- obviously it has many useful insights- but its premise is deeply flawed and can result in some very distorted conclusions about man, nature, and the universe. In fact the basic natural philosophy of modern science is largely the same as that of Epicurus, the materialist philosopher of ancient Greece, who was functionally an atheist and who taught that pleasure was the highest good in life.

These points are covered in the documentary, it's really interesting.

To sum it up, the philosophy behind science in modern times is a flawed one.

Ask any atheist scientist "Is the idea of God an unscientific or scientific concept?" and just listen to their answer.

Scimi

[Abz2000]

may Allah reward you for passing oon the video scimi,
it is so detailed and confirms much of what we knew to be true - and then goes on to completely prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the random selection theory is a fraud.
one thing i didn't see it mention though is that these atheism pushers tell us that we can only use observable material evidence - therefore God doesn't fit in,
firstly - scientists don't normally come to conclusions or make new inventions without an "x" factor taken into account,
secondly - they conjured up the multi-universe theory just to somehow hold up the improbability - with no observable material evidence.

i recommend anyone interested in the subject to look at the arguments put forward in the video as it is an eye-opener.

[Scimitar]

Yes, good points bro. The reason why they do that (observable material evidence) is because the philosophy behind modern science is a compromised one. There's a thread on WUP that just got started yesterday dealing with this specific issue. It was started by a member called Zavier - a supposed ex-Muslim, lol... talks a lot of smack from a scientific POV. So, I decided to address the issue of Scientific Philosophy and cornered her. Now she's off hiding and preparing a decent (in her mind anyway) rebuttle.

Modern Scientific Enquiry is a fail for so many reasons. let's take the issue of dark/anti matter and see how the "scientists" lay claim to fact when I happen to know that CERN is scratching their heads and farting over the study of it. It's just pathetic bro. Sure, it exists - but to lay claim to its properties and nature is a whole new bag, and one that doesn't carry a label just yet (pardon the pun analogy)

Scimi

EDIT: check this duscussion out:

http://www.wup-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=22040

[R.M. Renfield]

Is the Creation vs Evolution/Darwinism DNA evidence/Fossil evidence and or how Life got here for example up to People's/Human/Human's interpretation of the evidence what I mean is both Creationists/Evolutionists/Darwinists both have the same evidence but different interpretations of the same evidence do both sides admit this thank you ?

Good question. I'll do my best to give you a straight answer to the best of my knowledge.

First of all I think we should be clear about what is meant by the terms: 'Darwinism'/ Evolution and 'Creationism' by attempting to mull over the most often-made (or ill-advised) interpretations of these phrases. Hopefully that way, you can have a good framework on which to hang your understanding. In addition, I'll be introducing another term called abiogenesis.

'Darwinism' is a term used most often by religious people as part of an attempt to undermine proponents of Darwin's work by implying that their adherance to his theories represents some kind of 'cult' following. Very often, it seems to imply that science is 'just another set of beliefs' (as with the case of religion). This is misleading because scientists do not (at least should not) rely upon supernatural beliefs, or indeed any assumptions of the sort not supported by observation, in order to generate conclusions.

Evolution represents a scientifically understood set of processes by which all life on earth undergoes a slow transformation in order to adapt to it's surroundings. It is not a means by which to explain how life got here in the first place. Evolutional theory uses natural selection to explain how change comes about in species over very long periods of time. Since we have very good estimates as to how old the Earth is, we find more than enough time to allow for these slow changes to have occurred. Because it can also be easily observed over short periods of time as well, both inside and outside of the laboratory nowadays, it's really not something we need be to be too concerned about, when it comes to it's veracity. There is very little there to contradict the presence of a divine creator. Once they understand the theory, many religious people find themselves quite at ease with the idea that God might have willed evolution to occur - as 'part of His plan'.

Abiogenesis is a natural science study which begets a theory of how biological life originated on earth. It attempts to explain how biological life can arise from organic matter, via a set of natural processes. Evidence for the Theory Of Abiogenesis is altogether a much more challenging prospect for a creationist, although strangely, I hardly ever hear them mention it. As with evolution, many religious people, (again - once they understand it's principles) do not find it hard to accept as part of God's plan. Though admittedly, it's estimated time-framework does require some modicum of flexibility with regards to the Biblical 'truism': "God Created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh". Unless one is fully able to believe the Earth is much younger than our evidence suggests - it isn't difficult by using a little reasoning to interpret the book of Genesis as possessing something of a metaphorical slant. Personally, I would say 'mythical' - but that's just me.

Possibly the most difficult hurdle for the creationist to overcome with abiogenesis and evolution when put together, is the discovery that single-celled organisms can mutate and eventually become animals. There is, indeed, a lot of strong evidence for it but as with all sciences of this nature, it would require some dedicated study for any creationist to fully appreciate.


Now to answer your question...

both have the same evidence but different interpretations of the same evidence

I think the question should be whether both sides are really in reciept of the evidence. Scientists argue from a point of view which has been informed by the evidence, while creationists argue from a point of view which has been entreated by holy scripture. In all too many cases, creationists do not consult so much as a scientific peer review. I suppose it's comparable with the person who does not read a holy book before condemning it on aetheistic principle. Though to be fair, I think most of us have, during our formative years, recieved some form of religious instruction in addition to our science lessons at school.

In all the years I've been arguing in favour of scientific principles over the theological, I have not once come across a creationist who offered me their own unique interpretation of what it could all mean. Rather, I have encountered plenty of ideas of how evolution could fit in with their religious world view. Which to me is fine, if they want to believe that.

Perhaps I should mention some Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my doorstep, merrily proclaiming that fossil evidence had been planted by Satan who, at the time was disguised as an alien in a flying saucer, who drilled deep into the rock to plant an assortment of fake dinosaur bones to confuse us....
though I'm inclined to think we are safe to reserve that one for some after-dinner amusement. ;D

You see, in order to interpret that evidence at all, one has to sit down and actually examine it - and all too many who argue for creation simply don't do that, but rely instead on quotes from their holy scriptures or numerous 'anti-Darwinian' publications made by and for religious institutions, without ever consulting a scientific peer journal or standard textbook on the subject.

On the one hand, you find people who dismiss it out of hand, usually because they've been taught not to trust scientists or perhaps they've been told that scientists are somehow 'the enemy of faith; of God, or what-have-you... On the other hand, sure, there have been those who, once they've made an attempt to understand it, have offered me their unique hypothesis of how it might fit into their own model of a God-made Universe. By reasoning that, since evolution doesn't seem to contradict God's plan, they could happily accept it as part of that plan. It doesn't necessarily make them right - but they have at least demonstrated a willingness to take the trouble to understand what evolution is and what it isn't.

Though to address the crux of the question bluntly, I would have to posit that the overwhelming evidence for evolution and for abiogenesis need not be interpreted in any other way than it already has. That's because the evidence clearly supports the theory, beyond the point of reasonable doubt. If the evidence had not supported the theory - or worse, had contradicted it - then the theory would have been thrown out by now. Along with all the many other ideas which have been discarded when proven incorrect.

You see, such is the overwhelming nature of the evidence, that in order to fully disbelieve the Theory Of Evolution, one would have to either deny the very existence of the supporting evidence... or ignore it completely.

I hope this answers your question satisfactorily but if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Either way, thank you for reading.

R.M.

[جوري]

Ugh .. another unseasoned militant atheist with the same old recycled rhetoric .. Somebody link the poor sap with the zillion threads on the matter. I don't know that I can take reading that same old mindless drivel

[R.M. Renfield]

Yes, good points bro. The reason why they do that (observable material evidence) is because the philosophy behind modern science is a compromised one. There's a thread on WUP that just got started yesterday dealing with this specific issue. It was started by a member called Zavier - a supposed ex-Muslim, lol... talks a lot of smack from a scientific POV. So, I decided to address the issue of Scientific Philosophy and cornered her. Now she's off hiding and preparing a decent (in her mind anyway) rebuttle

EDIT: check this duscussion out:

To be fair, I find your rebuttal of Xavier's post infinitely more flawed than her opening statement. I'm also not sure about the precise level of honour involved in cross posting between forums with the intention of mocking a fellow user behind their back.

[R.M. Renfield]

Ugh .. another unseasoned militant atheist with the same old recycled rhetoric .. Somebody link the poor sap with the zillion threads on the matter. I don't know that I can take reading that same old mindless drivel

Why, thank you. It's nice to know that you can reason on a mature level, without casting meaningless insults.

[جوري]

Why, thank you. It's nice to know that you can reason on a mature level, without casting meaningless insults.

how about something a little less scripted? Surely you can up with some abstract thoughts that aren't in your manifesto? You're welcome to our search feature .. I think it pays to read more and cut & paste less .. I promise nothing you've written above is in anyway new or hasn't been thoroughly challenged .. Just so you're not wasting your time and worst yet ours!

Best,

[جوري]

Try this for starters,

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...s-god-fit.html


Best

[R.M. Renfield]

Surely you can up with some abstract thoughts that aren't in your manifesto?

I don't know that I can take reading that same old mindless drivel

I trust you'll forgive me - but judging by your hasty reply and after reading the above sentence, I can't help but wonder how little time you might have spent reading the whole of my post thoroughly, before condemning it as 'mindless drivel'. ;D

[جوري]

I trust you'll forgive me - but judging by your hasty reply and after reading the above sentence, I can't help but wonder how little time you might have spent reading the whole of my post thoroughly, before condemning it as 'mindless drivel'. ;D

see link I enclosed above-- and tomorrow we'll link you to 30 more if you actually manage to go through all if it by then thoughts of haste will melt away when you realize that you are a dime a dozen and equally blasé and filled with ready made platitudes as your predecessors .. Surely you can forgive how you or one of you turns up here every other day with the same ole same ole... Now there's an original story for Rod Serling ...

Best,

[R.M. Renfield]

Oh, come now! ... surely I don't need to remind you of a wee little passage from An-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths?

"None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

Enjoy.

[R.M. Renfield]

Evidently, your little game is to detract and bury anything said by me in earnest, by seeing how many pages we can generate by way of petty argument not relating to the topic. Therefore, I trust you'll understand if I fully ignore anything you say from here on. I think I've learned enough about you for one lifetime. I don't feel there is anymore to say. Goodbye, little ßlµêßêll.

[جوري]

You are no brother of mine so I am not sure of the relevance of the Hadith? And if indeed you were a brother I still see no relevance to the topic .. It does in fact reflect the rest ofyour drivel though I'd hate to give it or you more attention than is actually merited.. go ahead though save face with more atheist bromides .. You almost all come fresh out of the same cesspool following to a t the same script!


Best

[R.M. Renfield]

Might not have anything to do with this thread... but Hadith #3:
"The best among you are those who have the best manners and character."
has everything to do with your manners and character.

That's all. Enjoy.

[Scimitar]

To be fair, I find your rebuttal of Xavier's post infinitely more flawed than her opening statement. I'm also not sure about the precise level of honour involved in cross posting between forums with the intention of mocking a fellow user behind their back.

You'd be the only one then. She ran away with her tail between her legs, and suggested coffee instead. Mocking? This is mocking... you atheists sure are a sensitive bunch aren't ya?

I ask you here then, Remfield - Is God a scientific concept?

Cant' wait to read your answer...

Scimi

[Scimitar]

Oh, come now! Dear, sweet, little Bluebell (O ye of 'devilish mood')... surely I don't need to remind you of a wee little passage from An-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths?

"None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

Enjoy.

Quote hadeeth properly, you claim you have studied the doctrines - this clearly proves you haven't.

Try this for size Remfield.

"You're either my brother in Islam or my equal in Humanity" - that's what Bluebell meant when she said you're no brother of hers... mine neither for the record ;D

Oh and mock all you want... what is it with you lot? DO you all take turns to challenge the Muslims and then run out of steam - only to draft in the next chump who'll also burn out... eventually? It's nothing short of futility on your part. I'm pretty sure you can find more "creative" things to do... Like imagine up multiverses and try to explain how nothing made everything lol

[جوري]

My manners have been impeccable. You've been provided with links and your recycled drivel acknowledged as a repeat performance. We can't help you if you're finding it difficult to save face for being on your knees in the atheist bin!
Also how is quoting Islamic fiqh working out for you? Will wonders ever cease?

[Scimitar]

Gosh, that was funny... I'd rep you again simply for the entertainment value - but uhm, I need to spread some around... Sadly, I haven't read a post in the past 15 minutes besides yours that's even remotely worthy of it.

Kudos anyway

Scimi

[جوري]

you can find more "creative" things to do... Like imagine up multiverses and try to explain how nothing made everything lol

that's just the thing I find them so blasé so more of the same .. It doesn't matter the monumental effort you put in using physics, epidemiology, statistics or genetics as br. M has extensively done in the link on the previous page which went unread btw you're to expect the same recycled rhetoric .. It's boring and tiresome like the jehova witnesses knocking on your door with scripted speeches only they stand on another pole preaching dawkings or whomever else... Ugh

Anyhooo I am off to bed

Wasalaam

[Scimitar]

Good call, I'm tired too... off to bed. Thankfully it's Jummah tomorrow and I have an appt. with Allah Subhana wa Ta'aala.

Remfield can go and grab his quotes off some net site and do a copy pasta job ... like you said sis, same old drivel - just another day.

I'm gonna start calling posts like Remfields ones "groundhog posts" bleh

Scimi

[جوري]

^^ pls make du3a for me tomorrow if you remember .. I need it..
JZK

[R.M. Renfield]

You'd be the only one then. She ran away with her tail between her legs, and suggested coffee instead. Mocking? This is mocking... you atheists sure are a sensitive bunch aren't ya?

Some are, some aren't. I can't speak for her. I'm just pointing something out, that's all.

So she ran out, with her tail between her legs. <Shrug> Does that alone prove that you are right?

I ask you here then, Remfield - Is God a scientific concept?

Cant' wait to read your answer...

I personally don't think so. Why, do you? Likewise, I look forward to your answer. I like surprises. I trust you have something in the way of clever retorts in store for me that will really knock my socks off...? :phew

By the way, it's Renfield.

Okay, if you're happy with cross-posting then may I ask you a question based on something you said there?

If human evolution was possible, where are the transitional fossils?

First, would you mind telling me what you class as a 'transitional fossil'? What qualities would you be looking for in a transitional fossil then?

Similarly, I expect your answer to be interesting... Except, I won't be holding my breath. :popcorn:

Quote hadeeth properly, you claim you have studied the doctrines - this clearly proves you haven't.

Would you mind showing me where I last claimed to have studied the doctrines? I know nothing of 'quoting hadeeth properly', as you rightly conclude. The question is - would you deny the basic sentiment?

"You're wither my brother in Islam or my equal in Humanity" - that's what Bluebell meant when she said you're no brother of hers... mine neither for the record.

Shouldn't that be "You're either my brother in Islam or my equal in Humanity"...?

If I'm right, then perhaps you also should learn to quote Hadeeth properly? If I'm wrong, then oh dear!

Allow me to copy and paste (for once) something I found interesting...

"Noble Qur'an tells us that all of mankind is descended from one couple, Adam and Eve. Thus we are all brothers and sisters, and our differences in languages and colors are but a mercy that we might know one another. Language and race should never be a reason for discriminating against people".

It comes from here...

ezsoftech(dot)com/stories/mis40(dot)asp

Whatever you think of it, it works for me. So what's your opinion on that?

I'm not offended or hurt by anything you or that little friend of yours writes. I've seen it all before (as she so gleefully points out to me). I'm just startled by your aggression. Most muslims I have met in person have been delightfully well mannered. Perhaps they might venture to say you're an immature little prick? Ah, what would I know...? I'm just an ignorant non-believer. :embarrass

Remfield can go and grab his quotes off some net site and do a copy pasta job ... like you said sis, same old drivel - just another day.

Actually, I wrote all that. When I copy and paste, I like to include my references.

Again - it's Renfield. Please at least try to make an effort...

[R.M. Renfield]

My manners have been impeccable.

LOL! Oh, you crack me up! ;D

If that's true, then I must have imagined the rest of your post...

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

Now, if anyone wants to contest 'wot I wrote' or even wants to remotely tackle the topic suggested in the title of this thread without the knee-jerk compulsion to make irrelevant ad hominem attacks in every breath - go for it...

[جوري]

Quite possible indeed you imagined the whole thing? What is real and what isn't after all to the atheist mind? The words self assembled ex-nihilo to form perfect adhoms to perfect drivel .

As for 'tackling' your post our new clever troll you'll find all the answers in the link I provided in the previous page and a heck of surprising parallels between your mind and the rest of your brethren .. It's quite embarrassing how many faulty glassy eyed isomers of one another are produced out of the same cesspool.


Get a day job and a life you take yourself way too seriously one day perhaps soon you'll spontaneously combust or perhaps satisfy the second law of thermodynamics like diamonds and devolve back into a cockroach and you'll be left wondering if your frivolity that's to say you have a cell preferably that hasn't succumbed to a spirochete by then to have some higher reticular function with & wonder where it all went wrong...

Best indeed,

[MustafaMc]

how about something a little less scripted? Surely you can up with some abstract thoughts that aren't in your manifesto?

Yes, it is good to read different personal perspectives in their own words. Voluminous cut and paste posts aren't very useful to discussion.

[Abz2000]

So she ran out, with her tail between her legs.

she can't do that because she is human - a daughter of Adam, they don't have tails,
only descendants of monkeys do.......

renfield,
i'll pose you one question and see if you turn to denial, censorship or just muddying the facts, then we'll know if you are truthful in your claim to objective scientific reasoning or are just holding on to a well discredited agenda:

if someone were to be passed on knowledge from the Creator and was able to tell you exactly what you would do for the next three months, and even give you video glimpses into events you would go through, and statements which you yourself would make, and even an exact picture of your future child along with hairstyle and clothes,

would you still believe in random selection?
or admit that there is an All Knowing Source beyond your full comprehension.

[R.M. Renfield]

Yes, it is good to read different personal perspectives in their own words. Voluminous cut and paste posts aren't very useful to discussion.

I couldn't agree more.

Ah... NOW I get it! You all think I copied and pasted my first post?! Well, no, as a matter of fact, I didn't. You see, I've been into several other Islamic forums before and the pasting from other websites seems to make up a very large portion of the Islamic information in there. No, I don't go in for that. What's interesting is that most of you, who have read it so far, assumed that I have.

So I challenge anyone who's made this hasty assumption - right now - to copy and paste just one paragraph... nay, just ONE SENTENCE of my post - into any search engine... and see if you can find the article from which I copied my text.

Traditionally, in formal academic writing, one is always expected to cite one's references. Although I write informally, it's a habit to include references. So should I ever 'copy and paste' from one source to another, you will always see it mentioned in brackets underneath. For example:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." (The Nizkor Project www(dot)nizkor(dot)org/features/fallacies/straw-man(dot)html)

I'm sorry, I just assumed that all educated people are familiar with this.

Now that we've cleared that one up... perhaps we could move on?

[جوري]

I couldn't agree more.

Ah... NOW I get it! You all think I copied and pasted my first post?! Well, no, as a matter of fact, I didn't. You see, I've been into several other Islamic forums before and the pasting from other websites seems to make up a very large portion of the Islamic information in there. No, I don't go in for that. What's interesting is that most of you, who have read it so far, assumed that I have.

So I challenge anyone who's made this hasty assumption - right now - to copy and paste just one paragraph... nay, just ONE SENTENCE of my post - into any search engine... and see if you can find the article from which I copied my text.

Traditionally, in formal academic writing, one is always expected to cite one's references. Although I write informally, it's a habit to include references. So should I ever 'copy and paste' from one source to another, you will always see it mentioned in brackets underneath. For example:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." (The Nizkor Project www(dot)nizkor(dot)org/features/fallacies/straw-man(dot)html)

I'm sorry, I just assumed that all educated people are familiar with this.

Now that we've cleared that one up... perhaps we could move on?

Expressing the same message in different words doesn't qualify you as a free thinker. If you'd so much as click on the link provided or use the search feature you'd see that almost all if not all atheists come defining the terms you use in a similar style albeit the wording differs.. There's never been any zing to spice it up a little or to remotely elude that said writing is borne of research, abstract thought & not indoctrination!.. nor have they an adequate response to the aberrations that put a complete dent to their theories.

For instance the reconciliation of 'Natural selection' with such things as trinucleotide repeat expansions amongst loads others afore mentioned and discussed ad nauseam ..

You're so incredibly educated indeed that you should take your education and share it with like minded primates.. we've just about had our fill of your type!

You haven't personally given any reason why we should humor you anew?

best,

[R.M. Renfield]

she can't do that because she is human - a daughter of Adam, they don't have tails,
only descendants of monkeys do.......

You ought to be telling Scimitar that. Not me.

renfield,
i'll pose you one question and see if you turn to denial, censorship or just muddying the facts, then we'll know if you are truthful in your claim to objective scientific reasoning or are just holding on to a well discredited agenda:

I always find it's better to wait until someone denies, censors or muddies facts before revealing my criteria. Apart from eliciting an honest answer, it gives a good impression with regards to prejudice.

Okay, let's see then...

if someone were to be passed on knowledge from the Creator and was able to tell you exactly what you would do for the next three months, and even give you video glimpses into events you would go through, and statements which you yourself would make, and even an exact picture of your future child along with hairstyle and clothes,

would you still believe in random selection?
or admit that there is an All Knowing Source beyond your full comprehension.

Can we get something straight first? Did you really mean random selection or did you mean to say natural selection?

I mean, are we still talking about natural selection with regards to evolution or did you want to enter into a hypothetical discussion about fate?

Please appreciate, I'm not trying to obfuscate - but if you can understand this - I think we should be clear about what's meant by 'random' before we can continue, because the natural selection of evolution doesn't happen at random.

[Abz2000]

same thing, if it's not according to a set law and guidance, then it's random i.e - it chooses as it goes along. (even then - it would need intelligence to choose).
and if it is according to a set law/rule, then it has a law/rulemaker...... unless you decide to then believe it had intelligence, and either had that intelligence already or was given that intelligence,
nature doesn't mean anything unless you quantify it, and quantifying it would mean it has a description and name,
then you come back to the terminology behind the concept of Almighty God,
and you still evaded the yes or no question and went into terminology issues.
peace be to those who sincerely seek the guidance.


ran·dom
adjective

proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
the random selection of numbers.

[MustafaMc]

R.M., I acknowledge that you most likely wrote this yourself from your own understanding as it seems mostly original albeit basically a regurgitation of the same-old-same-stuff. As you have your views on evolution, so also do I. I am unapologetically a theist who believes wholeheartedly that Allah created this universe and all that it contains including all existent and extinct life forms both known and unknown. Not to boast, but so you will have a frame of reference for my background, I have a Ph.D. in plant genetics and molecular biology.

Very often, it seems to imply that science is 'just another set of beliefs' (as with the case of religion). This is misleading because scientists do not (at least should not) rely upon supernatural beliefs, or indeed any assumptions of the sort not supported by observation, in order to generate conclusions.

No, science is not 'another set of beliefs'; however, ToE goes beyond science (IMHO) with inadequate explanations for the emergence of life processes that do not convey a selective advantage until it is fully functional. For example, meiosis is required for sexual reproduction and supposedly evolved from the mitosis of the unicellular prokaryotic Common Ancestor; however, meiosis requires multiple additional steps that individually confer no apparent selective advantage.

Evolution represents a scientifically understood set of processes by which all life on earth undergoes a slow transformation in order to adapt to it's surroundings. It is not a means by which to explain how life got here in the first place. Evolutional theory uses natural selection to explain how change comes about in species over very long periods of time. Since we have very good estimates as to how old the Earth is, we find more than enough time to allow for these slow changes to have occurred. Because it can also be easily observed over short periods of time as well, both inside and outside of the laboratory nowadays, it's really not something we need be to be too concerned about, when it comes to it's veracity.

I don't have any issues with this.

There is very little there to contradict the presence of a divine creator. Once they understand the theory, many religious people find themselves quite at ease with the idea that God might have willed evolution to occur - as 'part of His plan'.

One can neither scientifically prove or disprove the involvement of Allah in the origin of the species.

Abiogenesis is a natural science study which begets a theory of how biological life originated on earth. It attempts to explain how biological life can arise from organic matter, via a set of natural processes. Evidence for the Theory Of Abiogenesis is altogether a much more challenging prospect for a creationist, although strangely, I hardly ever hear them mention it.

Abiogensis has less observational evidence to support it than ToE. It is no more and no less than speculation.

As with evolution, many religious people, (again - once they understand it's principles) do not find it hard to accept as part of God's plan. Though admittedly, it's estimated time-framework does require some modicum of flexibility with regards to the Biblical 'truism': "God Created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh". Unless one is fully able to believe the Earth is much younger than our evidence suggests - it isn't difficult by using a little reasoning to interpret the book of Genesis as possessing something of a metaphorical slant. Personally, I would say 'mythical' - but that's just me.

If one thinks about the definition of a day, it has meaning only for one on earth after its creation within the solar system. From this point of reference, I agree that the six days of creation is metaphorical. I have no knowledge for how long it took from the second that the universe began until the existing species were established.

Possibly the most difficult hurdle for the creationist to overcome with abiogenesis and evolution when put together, is the discovery that single-celled organisms can mutate and eventually become animals. There is, indeed, a lot of strong evidence for it but as with all sciences of this nature, it would require some dedicated study for any creationist to fully appreciate.

Now this is where I have to strongly disagree as you have made completely fallacious statements. There has been no such discovery, but rather a hypothesis for how it might have happened.

In all the years I've been arguing in favour of scientific principles over the theological, I have not once come across a creationist who offered me their own unique interpretation of what it could all mean.

I have no idea what you are getting at here - 'interpret what it could all mean'. Whether Allah created the species instantly or over an extended period of time is irrelevant to me. I disagree that evolution is a natural, self-sustaining process that in and of itself can explain the origin of species without a Divine Being directing and controlling the process. Even though the development inside their mother's womb of each and every individual human can be explained, I also see it as an amazing miracle that leaves me in utter awe of my Creator. As a scientist I see human embryology as a (seemingly) self-sustaining, self-perpetuating natural process that could theoretically be taken as an illustrative example for evolution. However, a human life is a cycle and not an ever-advancing progression to a higher life form. Each man begins as a fertilized egg and ends with his death.

Perhaps I should mention some Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my doorstep, merrily proclaiming that fossil evidence had been planted by Satan who, at the time was disguised as an alien in a flying saucer, who drilled deep into the rock to plant an assortment of fake dinosaur bones to confuse us....
though I'm inclined to think we are safe to reserve that one for some after-dinner amusement.

Fossils don't bother me or challenge my faith.

On the other hand, sure, there have been those who, once they've made an attempt to understand it, have offered me their unique hypothesis of how it might fit into their own model of a God-made Universe. By reasoning that, since evolution doesn't seem to contradict God's plan, they could happily accept it as part of that plan. It doesn't necessarily make them right - but they have at least demonstrated a willingness to take the trouble to understand what evolution is and what it isn't.

Purely naturalistic evolution seeks to scientifically explain the origin of species without any involvement by Allah whatsoever. In order to make evolution more palatable to theists, evolutionists posit that 'God could have started the evolutionary ball rolling'.

Though to address the crux of the question bluntly, I would have to posit that the overwhelming evidence for evolution and for abiogenesis need not be interpreted in any other way than it already has. That's because the evidence clearly supports the theory, beyond the point of reasonable doubt. If the evidence had not supported the theory - or worse, had contradicted it - then the theory would have been thrown out by now. Along with all the many other ideas which have been discarded when proven incorrect.

Again, I object to your 'beyond the point of reasonable doubt'. However, despite the many gaps that ToE does not adequately bridge, I admit that it is probably the best best scientific hypothesis for how species may have arisen. You choose to hold onto a shaky theory/hypothesis; whereas, I hold on to Allah as the Creator for all life forms although only Allah knows by what means He did so.

You see, such is the overwhelming nature of the evidence, that in order to fully disbelieve the Theory Of Evolution, one would have to either deny the very existence of the supporting evidence... or ignore it completely.

I neither deny or ignore so-called supporting evidence, but rather I am left with, 'So what?'

[R.M. Renfield]

I'm sorry but it's not the same thing. Natural selection doesn't happen at random. If it did, then it wouldn't work very well as a process for selective breeding.

Imagine a sive, used to sort out stones of a specific size, utilizes a mesh to allow smaller stones to drop through whilst retaining larger stones. Do we say the sive is intelligent? No.

Does the sive work at random? No, it doesn't.

We could say the sive selects stones because that's what it was designed to do...

Now we reach the crux of our original question about interpretations. A question that I attempted to answer (in my own words) in my first post. Looking at a man-made stone sive, we both would interpret it as having been designed for a purpose; ergo: intelligent design.

Same with natural selection, which forms an essential part of the Theory Of Evolution, it does not occur at random. Like the sive, it filters out the less fittest to survive whilst retaining those fitter to survive. Except, unlike the sive, we can't see it or touch it. So we need to use scientific methods if we want to try and learn how it works.

As you'll find mentioned in my first post (which seems to have been glossed over and the whole of it condemned) you'll see that you can still interpret evolution as part of an intelligent design, if you want to.

All this is saying is, that the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly in favour of it. You might have been taught that evolution is false because your scriptures speak of a single creation event. Remember, they were written an awful long time before evolution was discovered. So in a world of modern science, as we live in today, doesn't it seem natural for people to look for new interpretations of scripture?

One might reason that if creation has occurred at all - then it has so, through a course of a great many events - or not at all. Perhaps 'Creation' is a word that is now open to interpretation.

and you still evaded the yes or no question...

Wouldn't it be rather boring if we could answer all of the questions thrown at us by science and religion with simple 'yes' and 'no' answers? Don't you think, that with all that's been discovered - and all there is yet to discover - that 'yes' and 'no' on their own would be rather restrictive? Why else do you think our languages have words like 'but' & 'because'...?

...and went into terminology issues.

Well, I had to. Don't you see? It's not my fault if, with that terminology, the question was altogether useless to the debate. [shrug]. I'm not saying it wasn't an interesting question... because it was.

I mean - let's face it... if we were really talking about 'random' selection then the conversation would quickly have slid off at a tangent, involving destiny, probability, time machines, Quantum physics and God-knows what else! Trust me, you wouldn't have got much from it and you'd only have critisized me all the more for it.

As it happens, I think you should be thanking me for helping you to stay focussed.

Hopefully now you can undertand what I'm saying? In language, we have different words for different things, which is the whole point of having a language. If all of our words meant the same thing, we wouldn't really have a language, would we?

[MustafaMc]

I think he may have meant 'random mutation' and other genetic changes that create variability for natural selection to act upon. These genetic changes must first be existent and presumably occur randomly prior to their effects becoming beneficial.

[Abz2000]

i like your way of explaining things renfield, you should be a kindergarten teacher :)

but let us try to take a step back and look at the fact staring us in the face, that if it had been a question of sieving, we wouldn't have to be building planes and submarines right now,
because there exist in nature creatures able to fly and others able to stay under water, evolution would not get rid of beneficial traits, do you think it had foreknowledge that we would one day build planes?
and how something non-seeing and non-thinking develops the ability to see is just something inconceivable, because there are many unrelated features of hte eye, and the organism would need to be able to understand the concept of sight, not knowing what seeing is, make a plan to develop it, and then grow a bunch of totally useless parts one by one in the process of building an eye, natural selection would throw it out the window if not at the first stage, then at the second or third - unless it knew what seeing was and what components it needed. and it takes quite a stretch of the imagination. almost as bad as telling a child that iron man decided to look for it's parts and picked up it's eye in it's hand to see the rest. (and even that's a complete eye!).

also - the scriptures have told us since times immemorial that we (mankind - and specifically believers) are the caretakers of the earth, this was when men were not much more capable of doing amazing things than other creatures, in fact there were times where other creatures could make humans live in constant fear, it is no longer the case and man is able to control the largest of creatures. we find now that it is man - and man alone that has the ability to corrupt land, sea, and air - something that no monkey or orangutan, or even the most venomous snake can or will do.
and it also tells us that it was non-believers who (in practice) cared the least.

Mischief has appeared on land and sea because of (the meed) that the hands of men have earned, that ((Allah)) may give them a taste of some of their deeds:
in order that they may turn back (from Evil).
Say: "Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before (you): Most of them worshipped others besides Allah."
Quran 30:41-42

We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof:
but man undertook it;- He was indeed unjust and foolish;-
(With the result) that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Unbelievers, men and women,
and Allah turns in Mercy to the Believers, men and women: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Quran 33:72-73

i will not delve too much into the scientific issues other than what common sense and critical reasoning show, brother Mustafa is well versed on the subject (by Allah's leave), and i will leave you to ponder on those verses.
peace be to those who sincerely seek the guidance.

edit - thanks for the clarification brother Mustafa, that's what i meant, because natural selection would be the process of cutting off, not building.

[جوري]

I think he may have meant 'random mutation' and other genetic changes that create variability for natural selection to act upon. These genetic changes must first be existent and presumably occur randomly prior to their effects becoming beneficial.

what are those 'beneficial mutations' in your opinion that take us from inanimate objects all the way to ones with higher reticular function with literally billions of biochemical and physiological processes across millions of species?

It becomes deadening after a while for every other day have the same individual 'mentality' under a new SN preaching the same guff..

:w:

[جوري]

i like your way of explaining things renfield, you should be a kindergarten teacher

I don't like to gang up on atheists, I feel it loans them more credence & validation than they deserve but that is actually very apt and quite funny..;D

[R.M. Renfield]

I think he may have meant 'random mutation' and other genetic changes that create variability for natural selection to act upon. These genetic changes must first be existent and presumably occur randomly prior to their effects becoming beneficial.

Yes, but I think it's more likely he thought natural selection was a random occurance. Even if he meant 'random mutation', answering a question of whether I would suddenly stop believing in random mutation and therefore conclude that Allah was behind it all, merely as a result of seeing myself on a video that was made in my own future, my answer would have been so much more complicated that I don't think it would have helped the discussion.

Anyway, thanks for the post, which I enjoyed reading. Yes, I accept your critisism re: abiogenesis. I have no problem with that.

[R.M. Renfield]

i like your way of explaining things renfield, you should be a kindergarten teacher

Yes, it seems Bluebell isn't the only one who thought that was funny. Oh well, when in Rome (as they say...) ;D

[MustafaMc]

You're welcome, Brother abz2000. You are correct for it to be a random effect because to be otherwise would indicate that it was being directed and controlled by a Higher Being whom evolutionists deny exists. As you said, by Allah's leave both I and Sister BlueBell have some scientific understanding and knowledge that enables us to see gaps in ToE that others may simply gloss over. They may claim 'irrefutable evidence', but their claims do not make it so. What is amazing to me is that they don't even see the 'leaps of faith' that they take in believing the full-Monty of ToE. In contrast, I readily admit my faith in Allah as Creator without needing to know the how of it. My faith does not prevent me from being an effective scientist, as Allah has willed, nor is there any conflict between the two.

[R.M. Renfield]

Or perhaps I should say - if the boot fits... ;D

[R.M. Renfield]

You're welcome, Brother abz2000. You are correct for it to be a random effect because to be otherwise would indicate that it was being directed and controlled by a Higher Being whom evolutionists deny exists.

I haven't denied God's existence, have I? At least, not on the strength of evolution. As a scientist, I'd expect you to appreciate that God is unfalsifyable...

What is amazing to me is that they don't even see the 'leaps of faith' that they take in believing the full-Monty of ToE.

Oh, I think we do... :) Except...

In contrast, I readily admit my faith in Allah as Creator without needing to know the how of it.

Hmmm... That's interesting.

My faith does not prevent me from being an effective scientist

In the same way as I trust my lack of it would not prevent me from being an effective theologian.

[Abz2000]

Science is a part of the study of life, therefore a part of Islam,
You are talking about opposites when you are talking about studying belief while denying it,
The object would be negative.

[MustafaMc]

I haven't denied God's existence, have I?

Well, yes, you have as an atheist is "one who believes that there is no deity."

At least, not on the strength of evolution. As a scientist, I'd expect you to appreciate that God is unfalsifyable...

Yes, as I said, "One can neither scientifically prove or disprove the involvement of Allah in the origin of the species."

In the same way as I trust my lack of it would not prevent me from being an effective theologian.

I rather disagree. The lack of faith in an atheist precludes him from being a 'theologian'. How can one study God and His effect on the world when he doesn't believe that God even exists? Now an atheist could be a mythologist, but not a theologian.

[MustafaMc]

what are those 'beneficial mutations' in your opinion that take us from inanimate objects all the way to ones with higher reticular function with literally billions of biochemical and physiological processes across millions of species?

From my perspective, genetic mutation is the primary source of genetic variation that evolutionists point to for natural selection to act upon. They claim gradual improvements over time that ultimately resulted in new and improved functions, organs and species. You point out the primary defect in ToE in that it relies upon gradual change as illustrated by the picture of an ape on the left and a man on the right.

However, as you hinted at, the eye is non-functional without any part being simultaneously present and it had to be pre-existently complete for 'natural selection' to act upon. Elsewhere you have mentioned tri-nucleotide repeats throughout the DNA structure of each species that conveys no known selective advantage. These Simple Sequence Repeats (SSR) are now useful as molecular markers that can be used by scientists to identify individuals that carry useful or deleterious genes that are genetically linked to them. Perhaps SSRs 'evolved' so scientist could one day use this 'junk DNA' in their experiments.

Your mention of 'beneficial mutations' brings to mind the genetic experiments with Drosophila I used as a teacher of genetics lab while I was working on my M.S. There was the 'wild type' with red eyes, normal wings, and a tan body and there were various mutant stocks that were maintained in the lab. Most of these mutant stocks could not survive in the wild as the mutation conferred a selective disadvantage. I see that mutations act upon fully functional genes that code for the optimal product such as enzyme or structural protein. There are occassions where there is an interaction between an organism and its environment that exerts a selective advantage to an otherwise less 'fit' and rare allele. An example of this selective advantage is insects such as mosquitos who now have resistance to the insecticide DDT. They have a mutation in a specific detox gene that allows the resultant protein to bind with and inactivate the insecticide. There are relatively rare examples of 'beneficial mutations'.

[Abz2000]

the only mutations i see seem to make thtings worse every time:

[جوري]

^^ :haha: I had an even better one.. it was a dancing rock, to a dancing plant to a dancing fish to a dancing dino to a dancing ape to a dancing hip hop boy lol it is too bad I can no longer find it but I thought it was the best embodiment of Abiogensis ..
I do have a cute one of panspermia though

[MustafaMc]

One's genetic map for his life is defined at the fusion of an egg with one of 15 million sperm. The amount of information in the microscopic embryo can be compared to an encyclopedia of information. Evolutionists point to the commonality between the species as evidence for descent from a Common Ancestor. I rather see conservation of an optimal biological process across species as an illustration of design by an Intelligent Creator. It doesn't make sense to create a unique means to transport oxygen throughout the body of different animals and remove the carbon dioxide waste when hemoglobin fits the bill perfectly and can basically be applied across species. These complex life processes supposedly evolved naturally from inorganic elements at random and by chance. I rather see that it is a mathematical impossibility for even a single amino acid or nucleic acid to have ever formed naturally outside of an already living organism. Apart from the instance of creation, life comes only from a previous life.

Furthermore to create a simple protein requires a complex process that starts with a specific DNA sequence that is transcribed into a strand of mRNA (messenger RNA) which is translated into a polypeptide by the sequential assemblage of specific amino acids attached to tRNA (transfer RNA). The tRNA for each amino acid is a sequence of 3 nucleic acids that recognizes the mirror sequence on the mRNA. This sequential assemblage of amino acids is similar to a zipper. Evolutionists would have us think that a protein could self assemble when it is an impossibility for even a single amino acid to form outside of a living organism in what they call a Primordial Soup.

They also point to the similarity in genetic composition of similar species such as human/chimpanzee/monkey, horse/donkey/zebra, dog/wolf/fox, cat/lion/tiger etc as evidence for descent from a Common Ancestor. True there are similarities, but there are also key differences such as chromosomal inversions, translocations, and fusions. The point is that these chromosomal aberrations result in infertility of the resulting progeny from interspecific matings such as a horse and a donkey that have a sterile mule. These changes supposedly happened gradually over time. For a mutation such as a pericentric inversion to be passed on to progeny it would most likely occur in either the sperm or egg of normal individuals. Consequently, the resulting progeny would most likely be sterile like a mule. If the individual was actually fertile then it would need to mate with another individual with the same mutation for it to become stable over generations. If the frequency of a specific inversion is 1:1,000,000 then the probability of a mating with a similar individual is the product of their individual frequencies. Therefore a 1:1,000,000 becomes 1:1,000,000,000,000. When you multiply this astronomical number times the number of structural differences between even highly similar species then I see the probability of occurring becomes an impossibility. Strangely, evolutionists are comfortable with these absurdly low probabilities over enough time becoming a certainty.

[Scimitar]

The following are statements made by Nobel Prize winners, some are scientists, others biologists etc etc etc - but I think you'll find this interesting, as will others.

On the Origin of the Universe

William Daniel Phillips, American physicist and Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997 for his research on the cooling of atoms, reveals his belief in God in a letter to T. Dimitrov in 2002:

"I believe in God and in fact in a God who interacts with creation. I think the observations about the physical universe and the exceptional fit of the conditions of the universe that makes it possible to suggest that intelligent life exists. I believe in God because of a personal faith but a faith that does not conflict with what I know of science "(William D. Phillips. Letter to T. Dimitrov. May 19, 2002)

Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Prize for Physics in 1927:
"Behind every plan there is intelligence and the perfect order of the universe testifies to the truthfulness of the most majestic of quotes:" In the beginning God created the universe "(AHCompton, Chicago Daily News, 1936)

Dr. George Wald, who received the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1967:

"When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third possibility. Given that spontaneous generation was discredited 100 years ago now, the only possibility is a supernatural creation, but since we can not accept it for personal reasons, we choose to believe in the impossible, to say that life appeared by chance"(quoted in" the collapse of evolution "by Scott M. Huse, p 3)

Arthur L. Schawlow, who received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1981 and could also include Elias James Corey (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1990), Charles Hard Townes (Nobel Prize in Physics 1967), Ferid Moura (Nobel Prize 1998), Peter Brian Medawar (Nobel Prize 1960) and many others - A book has even been created entitled "50 Nobel laureates and other leading scientists who believe in God.

George Ellis, English astrophysicist and winner of the Templeton Prize in 2004 admitted that the adjustment so precise laws of the universe is a miracle:

"A staggering adjustment occurs in the laws of the universe, making life possible. Realizing this, it is difficult not to use the term "miracle" without taking a position on the ontological status of this world" (G. Ellis, the anthropic principle, p. 30)

Fred Hoyle, who needs no introduction (English astronomer who is responsible for the invention of the term "Big Bang") admits that intelligent design is legitimate:

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intelligence interacts with physics, chemistry and biology, and there is no blind force which it would be interesting to talk in nature. These facts are so overwhelming that this conclusion is hardly a matter to be raised "(F. Hoyle, the universe, past and present thoughts, 20:16)

"When we flew all the scientific evidence, the thought that intelligence had to be involved constantly returns.Is it possible that suddenly and unwittingly stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? And is this supreme being who created the cosmos wisely for our own interest?" (F. Heeren, Show Me God, p. 233)

John O'Keefe, an astronomer at NASA for almost 40 years has worked for the Apollo program recognizes the evidence that the universe was created to make life possible:

"If the universe had not been done with such precision so exact, you would never have happened. It is therefore my opinion that the universe was created so that humans can live "
(F. Heeren, Show Me God, p. 200)

Paul Davies, a famous British astrophysicist, winner of two awards Eureka, Faraday prices in 2002 and Templeton in 1995:

"For me there is strong evidence that something is going on behind it ... it seems that someone has adjusted the numbers of laws of nature to create the universe ... the feeling of an intelligent design is overwhelming "(P. Davies, cosmic footprint, p.203.)

Edward Arthur Milne, British mathematician and cosmologist, who received the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1935 recognized that the cause of the universe may well be God:

"Regarding the cause of the universe, in the context of the expansion, it remains to be determined but the overall view of the matter remains incomplete without God" (F. Heeren, Show Me God, p. 166)

Alexander Polyakov, a famous Russian mathematician and physicist, winner of Harvey in 2010 and Lars Onsager in 2011, elected to National Academy of Sciences of Russia in 1984 and the National Academy of Sciences of the United States in 2005 tells us something Interestingly enough in the U.S. magazine Fortune:

"We know that nature is explained by the best math there may be because it is God who created it" (S. Gannes, October 13, 1986. Fortune. P. 57)

Henry Fritz Schaefer, American chemist, chemist named best in North America in 1983 (winner of the Leo Hendrik Baekeland), Medal of the Royal Society of Chemistry in London in 1992, winner of the Joseph O. Hirschfelder in 2005 and a member of the Discovery Institute explains why he attaches so great an interest in science:

"The joy and importance in my science comes from the occasional moments when I discover something and said," Ah, that's how God did it! "My goal is to understand a tiny part of God's creation "(JL Shell and JM Schrof," Creation, "56-64)

Wernher von Braun, German engineer considered a pioneer of astronautics who was director of the Space Flight Center of NASA:

"I find it difficult to understand that science does not recognize the presence of a higher being behind the existence of the universe as a theologian who would deny the progress of science" (T. McIver, the investigator skeptical, 10:258-276)

The DNA Subject

The complexity of the DNA molecule:

We know that the probability that it is impossible that complex molecules such as proteins or nucleic acids such as DNA or RNA can emerge by chance. To add to what the teacher said Stephen C. Meyer about the probability was 1 in 10 ^ 164, this is what Dr. Leslie Orgel, Francis Crick and colleague Stanley Miller at the University of San Diego, California say:

"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, which are structurally complex, have sprung up of themselves in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to get one without the other. And so, at first glance, one must conclude that life can in no case was initiated by chemical means. "
(The Origin of Life on Earth ", Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78)

What makes this even more unlikely is the fact that DNA and proteins should emerge at the same time because the DNA can not function without the protein just as we confirm the scientist John Horgan in the magazine "Scientific American":

"DNA can not function and can not form other DNA molecules without the help of catalytic proteins or enzymes. In summary, the DNA can not be formed without protein and vice versa " ("In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119)

Whithin two years after the discovery of DNA, Homer Jacobson, a chemistry professor, commented:

"The instructions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and mining parts of the current environment for the growth sequence and the mechanism that translates instructions director growing, everything had to be simultaneously present at that time [when life began]. This combination of events seems to be incredibly unlikely coincidence. " ("Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life", American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121)

Despite all this, athiests would have us believe in what they call the thesis of RNA, meaning that RNA (ribonucleic acid, which is a copy of a region of one of the strands of DNA) was found by chance and then began to make proteins and then came DNA etc ... The irony in all this is that RNA can not produce proteins without these existing.

While you are desperate to give an answer, some scientists, meanwhile, are reasonable and do not prefer to give the example of biochemist Douglas R. Hofstadter, who said:

"How did the Genetic Code, and the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules) emerge? At the moment, we must content ourselves with wonder and admiration, rather than an answer. " (Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage Books, New York, 1980, p. 548

Finally, Francis Crick (one of the biologists who discovered the structure of DNA) has admitted, following the discovery of the DNA molecule, that it could not be by chance. Well, here's exactly what he said:


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge that is available to us now, could assert that in a sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle" (Life Itself: It's Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88)

We thus understand better why the famous painter Salvador Dali said:

"The announcement of the discovery of the DNA molecule by Watson & Francis Crick represents for me the real proof of the existence of God" -Salvador Dali (University of Washington Press, Seattle 1966)

And Allah knows best ...

Evolution: a theory more racist than scientific


It is not uncommon to hear today from the evolutionist that the theory of evolution is sound science. However, there are a few things that evolutionists will say never. For example, the mere fact that Charles Darwin himself did not consider his theory as science. Indeed, in a letter to the biologist Asa Gray, Darwin admits the following:

"I'm quite conscious that my speculations are well outside the bounds of true science" (quoted in NC Gillespie "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation", 1979, p.2)

In addition, what many evolutionists will say is certainly not the fact that many influential intellectuals (scientists, philosophers ... and even some evolutionists!) have themselves admitted that 'the theory of evolution was ultimately a theory not very scientific'.

Let's start with that quote says Dr. Philip S. Skell, a great American chemist (Member of the "National Academy Of Sciences" that being elected is one of the highest honors for an American scientist) in a famous article in the scientific magazine "The Scientist" in August 2005 :

"The modern form of the theory of evolution has been elevated to a status so high because they say it is the foundation of modern biology. But is it correct? The reality is that the theory of evolution, although it has some virtues, does not provide a heuristic (the science of analyzing the discovery of facts or something that is useful in the discovery of facts and theories) for compelling modern biology "(Skell Phill, The Scientist Vol. 19 (16): 10 (August 29, 2005).

Let us now think what Karl Popper, who is considered one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century science. He states in his autobiography:

"I have come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program"(Autobiography of K.Popper.Fontana Books, 1976)

Now here is the opinion of the biologist Morris Goldman, of the Scientific Bionetics Corporation. After reviewing the best evidence for the theory of evolution presented in biology book, "Biological Sciences Curriculum Study," Goldman Morris concludes his article: "a critical analysis of evolution":

"The theory of evolution is not based on sufficient scientific evidence, as we often assume. Rather it is a doctrine based on faith that satisfies the desires of atheists of our time "(M. Goldman," a critical analysis of evolution, p.50)

It could also include anthropologists, zoologists, specialists in genetics and many other scientists in various branches of science which hold about similar opinions ... But finally, include the declaration of Michael Denton, a famous molecular biologist who writes in his famous book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":

"Considering the impact on the history and the moral and social transformations in Western thought has led to the theory of evolution, one would rather expect that this theory, that literally change the world, much more than a metaphysical study, more than just a myth."(Mr. Denton," Evolution: A Theory in Crisis ", p.358)

It is interesting to note that the molecular biologist Michael Denton reached the same conclusion as the great philosopher of science Karl Popper (see above). Indeed, both believe that the theory of evolution is simply something metaphysical, nothing more. As a reminder, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that studies the causes. Generally referred to as "metaphysical thing" or "metaphysical study" in the case of an abstract theory.

You just have to look at the cover of the book "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin to notice. it is clearly stated in the subtitle below "the origin of species by means of natural selection" the following sentence: "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for existence "

This should be enough for anyone to realize that the theory of evolution is a racist theory. By promoting the idea that some races have evolved earlier than others and that some races are closer to their ancestors than others, the theory of evolution provides a clearly racist philosophy. Stephen Jay Gould, one of the greatest defenders of the theory of evolution does not hide it. In his first book published in 1977 entitled "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Stephen Jay Gould said:

"Biological arguments for racism had to be popular before 1859 (before the theory of evolution) but increased in mass after the acceptance of the theory" (Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, p 27 - 28)

Many historians acknowledge and wrote about the obvious link between the theory of evolution and racism. Let's mention a few such as Robert N. Proctor, author and professor of History of Science at Stanford University who writes in his book "race hygiene: medicine under the Nazis"

"Before Darwin, it was hard to contradict the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) that all men are equal, all being descendants of Adam & Eve. But now it is possible as Darwin suggested that some breeds have adapted differently than others (thus better than others) according to local conditions "

The same applies to the great historian James Joll, former professor of International History at the famous Oxford University in England, explains the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book "Europe since 1870." After explaining how Darwin's ideas regarding the notion of survival of the fittest could lead to social and moral consequences is very significant and important, James Poll says on page 102 of his book:

"Natural selection could very well be associated with a new wave of thought developed by the French writer Joseph-Arthur Gobineau who wrote an essay on the inequality of human races in the late 19th century. Gobineau insisted that the most important factor in the development of the human race and was thought that the Aryan race was one that had best survived. Houston Stewart Chamberlain then took this theory a little further which fascinated Hitler who even visited on his deathbed in 1927 "

It is not difficult to create a link between the theories of the Nazis and the fascist theory of evolution. Most historians confirm this as Hickman explains that the influence of evolutionary theory on Hitler:

"Hitler believed strongly in evolution. Despite the complexities of his psychology, it is certain that the concept of struggle for existence was important for him because his book "Mein Kampf" clearly a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those that focus on the fight the existence, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society" (Hickman, R., Biocreation, Worthington, OH, pp. 51-52, 1983)

Some historians such as Richard Weikart even wrote a book proving as the theory of evolution is responsible for the Holocaust. In his book "From Darwin to Hitler", historian Richard Weikart, who teaches in one of the best universities in the United States (Cal State Stanislaus, California) said:

"First, Darwinism undermines the moral values and human life. Then the process of evolution is the moral imperative ... Some supporters of the leading theory of evolution think that the competition of the human races and wars are part of what Darwin called "the struggle for existence". Hitler was soaked in social Darwinist ideas, all with a virulent anti-Semitism which has resulted in: The Holocaust"

Finish by recalling that the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 (Two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and a teacher inside the Columbine High School in Colorado in the United States), considered the worst high school shooting in the history of the United States was influenced by the theory of evolution. According to some sources ("New TV Special connects Darwin to Hitler," Impact, August 2006), one of the two murderers (Eric Harris) wrote on his Internet blog:

"You know what I like? Natural selection! This is the best thing that happened on earth, get rid of the weak and stupid"

Also look at what was written on the T-Shirt Eric Harris on the day of the shooting (confirmed by autopsy). Nothing but "Natural Selection". Makes you think how dangerous these ideas are now eh?

To think so superior to others, both students had a goal to eliminate the weak (especially those who believed in God as reported by witnesses to the shooting and by surveillance cameras).

Here above is a brief overview of some evidence showing the side of the non-scientific theory of evolution (at least less scientific than some have claimed) and the racist side of this theory. There are many more examples I could give you, more profound ones - but if you make the comparison - as to how the two students justified killing those Theist students, can you draw a simile to what is happening in the world today? Just take a look at what's happening in the middle east in this so called "war against terrorism" - and you'll start to make some conclusions of your own. If anything, I applaud the fact that the two students were so honest about their motives - whereas the leaders of the USA and UK, are not so honest, not by a curve ball long shot...

Finally, remember that wonderful word of the last of the messengers sent by Allah to mankind, namely the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who said in his farewell sermon:

"All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve. An Arab is not superior to a non-Arab and non-Arab is not superior to an Arab, and whites are not superior to blacks, as blacks are not superior to whites. No one is superior to another except in piety and good deeds "(reported in Musnad Ahmad, #22978)

And Allah knows best.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

Now this is interesting:

ean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a French philosopher and writer who received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1964. He is known for having written important philosophical works such as "Being and Nothingness" (1943), "Existentialism is a Humanism" (1945) or "Critique of Dialectical Reason" (1960).
It is considered the founder of atheistic existentialism, a school of thought and a form of atheism that addresses the question of the existence of man without reference to a divine being who lend God and human nature concepts are absent. This philosophical doctrine has its starting point the formula of Dostoyevsky: " If God did not exist, everything would be permitted. "From there, Sartre would put forward ideas as what is the human being who invents his Propes values and it is he who determines them.
In "Existentialism and Human Emotions" Sartre said:

"Man exists first, occurs, arises in the world, and is defined below. Man, as conceived by existentialism, it is not definable, is that it is first thing. It will then, and it will be as it will be done. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it "(Jean Paul Sartre" Existentialism and Human Emotions "(1957, p 15-16)

His conversion to belief in God

Towards the end of his life, Jean Paul Sartre began to recognize the existence of a creator.
Here below reports the magazine "National Review" (National Review) June 11, 1982. The article was written by Thomas Molnar, a professor of French literature at the University of Brooklyn:

"THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER, THE PHILOSOPHER JEAN-PAUL SARTRE WAS A MILITANT ATHEIST. POLITICALLY, THOUGH HE QUARRELED WITH MARXIST MATERIALISM, HIS RHETORIC WAS OFTEN INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT OF STALIN. HOWEVER, DURING THE LAST MONTHS OF THE PHILOSOPHER THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SURPRISING DEVELOPMENTS. IN 1980, AT THE APPROACH OF HIS DEATH, AT THE TIME BLIND, DECREPIT, BUT STILL IN FULL POSSESSION OF HIS FACULTIES, SARTRE CAME VERY CLOSE TO THE BELIEF IN GOD, PERHAPS EVEN THAT CLOSE.IN SPRING 1980 (ONE MONTH BEFORE HIS DEATH), LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR PUBLISHED A SERIES OF INTERVIEWS (WHICH WILL BE THE LAST OF SARTRE) THAT SARTRE HAD WITH ONE OF HIS FRIENDS PIERRE VICTOR, HIS PERSONAL SECRETARY. SIMPLY QUOTE A PHRASE FROM SARTRE IN THIS DIALOGUE TO REALIZE THAT SARTRE HAS CHANGED HIS MIND:

"I DO NOT THINK THE RESULT OF PURE CHANCE, MERE DUST IN THE UNIVERSE BUT RATHER SOMEONE WHO WAS EXPECTED, PREPARED. IN SHORT, A BEING WHOM ONLY A CREATOR COULD HAVE CREATED, AND THIS IDEA OF ​​A CREATING HAND REFERS TO GOD "

STUDENTS OF EXISTENTIALISM AND ATHEISTS IN GENERAL SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS SENTENCE ALONE IS ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THAT SARTRE HAS DISAVOWED HIS WHOLE PHILOSOPHY OF THE PAST.

THE EPILOGUE IS NO LESS INSTRUCTIVE. HIS MISTRESS, SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR PUBLISHED AFTER HIS DEATH "THE FAREWELL CEREMONY" IN WHICH SHE ATTACKS SARTRE SAID, "HOW CAN YOUR EXPLAIN THIS SENILE ACT OF A TRAITOR? "THEN ADDED:" ALL MY FRIENDS, ALL SARTRE AND ALL THE EDITORS OF "MODERN TIMES" (MAGAZINE FOUNDED BY SARTRE) SUPPORTS ME IN MY CONSTERNATION "

The latest interviews that Sartre had before his death were published by Le Nouvel Observateur in March 1980 and were reintroduced in the book of Pierre Victor "Hope Now, the interviews of 1980: A Dialogue with Jean Paul Sartre."Unfortunately and for atheists in general who love to quote Jean Paul Sartre, we learn in this book that Jean Paul Sartre himself has confirmed that these interviews were authentic.
Some biographies of Jean Paul Sartre reported similar comments on his belief in God that he would have said to Simone de Beauvoir in 1974. At the time, it would have added (perhaps to reassure Simone de Beauvoir): "But this thought is not clear, it is not an accurate picture. "
Another thing that is worth mentioning is the fact that the editors of the magazine "Wired" reported in 1996 that in fact Jean Paul Sartre would have converted to Judaism:

"Everything you know about Jean-Paul Sartre is wrong. "Hope Now: Interviews with 1980," a book full of conversations between Sartre and his assistant Pierre Victor, made shortly before his death, reveals a philosopher who had abandoned the leftist and friends to Judaism. "(Wired Magazine, May 1996)

(Note that Pierre Victor was also known as Benny Levy because he was an Orthodox Jew, which may explain the choice of Sartre to Judaism.)

Conclusion

Anyway, it seems that Jean Paul Sartre had already begun to recognize the existence of a creator in the mid-1970s to finally admit it publicly shortly before his death.

These interviews with Pierre Victor, the dismay of Simone de Beauvoir and the publication in many newspapers and magazines articles on his conversion are enough to understand that Jean Paul Sartre, founder of a branch of atheism, has abandoned these ideas to recognize the obvious, that the existence of a unique creator. Well, another blow to atheistic heedless society and their ilk.

And Allah knows best.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

The scientists are presented in this article are clearly regarded by the scientific community alandso by the general population as part of the greatest scientists of all time. Everyone has made ​​fundamental discoveries that have revolutionized science and each is the founding father of one of the major branches of science that we know today.

All these scientists believed in God because they felt they had enough evidence to recognize the existence of a creator, (not because they did not understand certain things), and thus they therefore attributed to God. Indeed, it is by analyzing the mechanisms of natural events that most of these scientists have come to the conclusion that it is clear that intelligence is behind this.

List of scientists present in this article:

• 1 / Nicolas Copernicus ( founder of the heliocentric cosmology )
• 2 / Johannes Kepler ( founder of physical astronomy )
• 3 / Galilee ( founder of experimental physics )
• 4 / William Harvey ( founder of modern medicine )
• 5 / Robert Boyle ( founder of modern chemistry )
• 6 / John Ray ( founder of modern biology )
• 7 / Isaac Newton ( founder of classical physics )
• 8 / Louis Pasteur ( founder of microbiology )
• 9 / William Thomson Kelvin ( founder of thermodynamics )
• 10 / Albert Einstein ( founder of modern theoretical physics )

There are of course others may also be considered part of the greatest scientists of all time but in general, scientists found in this article are the most cited, most popular and those that are most brought to modern science today.
1 / Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543)

Nicolas Copernicus was a famous Polish astronomer considered one of the pioneers of cosmology and known for his discovery that the Earth and the planets revolved around the sun. He mentioned once in a while God in the works and did not consider his scientific discoveries were in conflict with religion.
It is reported that Nicolas Copernicus said:

"Being aware of the magnificent works of God, to try to understand His wisdom, His majesty and His power and enjoy a certain way the operation of His laws, is certainly one way to worship God, for whom ignorance can not be more grateful than knowledge "
(quoted in "knights among the Nations" (1907) by Louis E. Van Norman, p. 290)

2 / Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Johannes Kepler was a famous German mathematician and astronomer, considered the pioneer of astronomical physics and modern optics. He is best known for discovering the laws that govern the motion of planets around the sun that can explain the complexity of the movement and trajectory of the planets around the sun. They are called in astronomy today Kepler's laws.

According to the book by Peter Barker and Bernard R. Goldstein entitled "The theoretical foundations of astronomy of Kepler," Johannes Kepler believed in God. He thought for his research and discovery of the laws of planetary motion to have worked reveal how one of the geometric planes of the universe created by God. In a book written by JH Tiner of Johannes Kepler, it is reported that these glorified God often in his work by saying:

"Glory to God our Lord, His power and wisdom have no limits" (quoted in "Johannes Kepler, a giant of faith and science" (1977) by JH Tiner, p. 178)

In the same book, the author reports another word of Kepler:

"We now see how God, as an architect, created the world with such precision and attention to detail"
(quoted in "Johannes Kepler, a giant of faith and science" (1977) by JH Tiner, p. 193 )

3 / Galileo (1565-1642)

Great physicist, mathematician and Italian astronomer, Galileo is considered the founder of modern experimental physics. It is particularly known for having formulated the mathematical law describing the falling bodies, for giving a first formulation of the principle of inertia, for perfecting the telescope, and for discovering the salletite Jupiter. It is also important to remember that Galileo was not condemned because he thought the earth was round but because he defended the Copernican system (heliocentrism) stipulating that the earth revolved around the Sun while the Inquisition was defending the system called geocentrism which states the opposite, namely that the sun revolved around the earth ...)

In 1981, Paul Poupart was appointed to head a commission to review the trial of Galileo. He wrote this in response to several books on Galileo, including one entitled "Galileo Galilei" which contains a very interesting speech from Galilee

"When I meditate on all the wonderful things that humans have seized, searched, and I actually tend to recognize more clearly that human intelligence can only be the result of a Creator" (quoted in "Galileo Galilei" of Paul Poupard, p 101)

4 / Sir William Harvey (1578-1657)

Sir William Harvey is a physician and physiologist English, considered one of the pioneers of modern medicine. He was the first to describe completely and in detail the system of blood circulation. He also discovered the role of the heart in propelling the blood and made many remarkable works in the field of embryology by examining the body of certain animals.
In his book written in 1651 entitled "Anatomical Exercises on the Generation of Animals," Harvey said:

"We acknowledge God, the Creator and Supreme Almighty, to be responsible for creating all the animals and His creation and His works point to His existence.Every living thing and is crafted with a ordonée divine wisdom with a unique and incomprehensible power of the most remarkable. These attributes of perfection can only refer to the Almighty "(William Harvey," Anatomical Exercises on the Generation of Animals "1989 edition, 443)

5 / Robert Boyle (1627-1691)

Robert Boyle was an Irish chemist and physicist, considered one of the founders of modern chemistry. He was the first chemist to isolate and collect a gas and to distinguish between acids, bases and salts. He also discovered a physical law that, under conditions of constant temperature, pressure and volume of a gas are inversely proportional. This law is now called the law Boyle.
Boyle believed that the study of nature and attributes of God was the most noble purpose in life. In one of his writings titled "Excellence of Theology compared with Natural Philosophy," Boyle said:

"The grandeur, beauty and order of the celestial bodies, and the excellent structure of animals and plants and other natural phenomena can not be that bringing an intelligent observer and without prejudice to the conclusion that there is a supreme author, powerful , just and good "(Robert Boyle," The excellence of Theology compared with Natural Philosophy "quoted in an article by Raymond J. Seeger in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation ,1985,183-184)

His scientific research made him realize even more the greatness of God, as he says himself:

"When I look at the book of nature in the light of chemistry, I am often forced to exclaim:" What a beautiful work, Oh Lord! With what wisdom you have created all this "(Robert Boyle, quoted in" the relationship between science and religion based on Robert Boyle "David Woodall, p.32)

6 / John Ray (1627-1705)

John Ray is an English naturalist, considered the founder of biology and natural history of the modern. He was the first to a biological definition of the term "species". He also published important work in botany and zoology, and establishes a classification of plants that will lead later to the birth of modern taxonomy. In 1651, he wrote a book called "Wisdom of God manifested in His creation" in which he states:

"There is no more argument, at least more palpable and convincing about the existence of a deity, that wonderful art and wisdom manifested in the production and the constitution, the order and layout as well as the purposes and uses of all parties and the members of this majestic structure together heaven and earth "(John Ray," Wisdom of God manifested in His creation ")

Another interesting word as John Ray:

"There for a free man no occupation more enjoyable and important to contemplate the sublime works of nature and honor the infinite wisdom and goodness of God" (John Ray, quoted in "Scientists who have faith "by Dan Graves p.66)

7 / Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Considered the second most influential man of all time by Michael H. Hart in his book "The 100, a ranking of most influential people in history," Isaac Newton was an English mathematician and physicist who discovered the laws of universal gravitation. In addition, it also clarifies the mysteries of light and optics and was the inventor of the branch of mathematics called calculus.
Principal in a work entitled "Principles", Newton said

"This system is so wonderfulis the universe with the sun, planets and comets could only come from the will and power of an intelligent ... This being governs all things, not just the world. Recognizing its power over all things, we must call him "Lord God," or "universal ruler" ... The Supreme God is eternal, and absolutely perfect inifinite loop "(Isaac Newton, Principia, Book No. 3, City in "A selection from the writings of Newton" by HS Thayer, p.42)8 / Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

Louis Pasteur was a French chemist and physicist considered the founder of microbiology and immunology. He found a cure against rabies, carried out important work on fermentation, developed a theory of germs, was the first to develop a vaccine, discovered how to eliminate the disease of silkworms and invented the pasteurization process.
After six years of research, Louis Pasteur disproved the theory of "spontaneous generation" (idea underlying the theory of evolution) according to how life could arise from nothing, and microbes be generated spontaneously. Pasteur proves the law of biogenesis (a living being can only come from another living being) in overthrowing the materialistic idea of ​​the time based on spontaneous generation.

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed by the work of our Creator. Science brings me closer to God "(Louis Pasteur, quoted in a book by John Hudson Tiner" Louis Pasteur, founder of modern medicine ", 1990)

"A little science takes you away from God. Many you back "(Louis Pasteur, quoted in" God and Science "by Jean Guitton, 1991)

9/William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

William Thomson Kelvin is a physicist, mathematician and engineer Irish recognized as one of the pioneers of thermodynamics (branch of physics that studies the thermal phenomena). It also helps to improve the magnetic compass and lay the first telegraph line across the Atlantic Ocean in 1866 from the United Kingdom.
These findings on the conversion of heat led him to define a new temperature scale, called the absolute temperature scale. The unit of the temperature scale named after him: the Kelvin.
In 1871, William Thomson Kelvin became president of the British association for the advancement of science and that same year, during a presidential address, he declared:

"There is evidence of intelligent design flowing all around us and if some perplexity, metaphysical or scientific, may at some point we turn from this evidence, they inevitably come back with an irresistible force, showing us our nature and the influence of our free will, and teach us that all living things depend on a sovereign creator "(William Thomson, quoted in an article by Raymond J. Seeger in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, June 1985, 99-101)

10 / Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Albert Einstein was a German physicist considered the most known and the greatest scientist of the 20th century. He received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 and is the origin of the famous equation E = mc2, which establishes an equivalence between matter and energy of a system. Although he never believed in a personal God (ie in a God who interacts with the affairs of man) he still recognized the impossibility of a universe born by chance.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By denying fermemant atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists" This has motivated his interest in science, as said one day to a young physicist:

"I want to know how God created this world, I'm not interested in a particular phenomenon in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details "(Albert Einstein, quoted in" A Conversation with Einstein "of E. Salaman (1955) 370-371)

It is reported more than in 1943, during a conversation with William Hermanns, Einstein said:

"Like I said many times, God does not play dice with the world" (Albert Einstein, quoted in the book of Hermanns' Einstein and the Poet ")

And Allah knows best.

Scimi

[MustafaMc]

It is interesting to note that the molecular biologist Michael Denton reached the same conclusion as the great philosopher of science Karl Popper (see above). Indeed, both believe that the theory of evolution is simply something metaphysical, nothing more.

According to wiki: Metaphysics is "the branch of philosophy dealing with theories of existence and knowledge" and "a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world." also "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."

I would not have a problem with ToE if its proponents would admit that it is more a philosophy than it is a science. My opinion is that ToE is the belief system (religion) of atheists that they adhere to in order to explain where we came from without the involvement of a Creator.

[Scimitar]

Oh, I couldn't agree more bro. Very well put. And thanks too, for the short but very to the point explanation.

Scimi

[MustafaMc]

Assalamu alaikum Brother Scimi, I liked your posts, particularly the part about DNA. The complexity of both DNA and protein molecules preclude their being spontaneously synthesized from inorganic elements C, H, O, N and P independent of a previously existing living system. To me this is the metaphysical equivalent of 'which came first, the chicken or the egg." Everything I know about genetics and molecular biology leaves me in awe and incontrovertibly points to a Creator.