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
Except...
