Let's make it a science: INTELLIGENT DESGIN

[Scimitar]

I watched this documentary earlier and was surprised that Intelligent Design is believed to not be a science - the only reason given? No one has conducted an in depth study into it...

here is the documentary,

And here is another one, made by some French brothers (Alimane Studios) that debunk the theory of evolution using science, logic and evolutionary philosophy against the theory of evolution. This doc also makes very good case for intelligent design.

Bro MustafaMC and others, you are needed here. Insha-Allah, you can contribute in ways that will help us to deal with issues that are propagated as truths but infact hold no real scientific weight. let's attempt to prove Intelligent Design here insha-Allah.

Scimi

EDIT: tha makers of the documentary The Signs, have some great info on their website www.thesigns.fr - google translate does a good job of the translations too.

Part Two of The Signs releases this summer and takes an even deeper turn into the deception we are in modern times. I've seen a preview of it and believe part two will go completely viral all over the net. I'm actually gonna order my DVD copy when it releases insha-Allah.

 

[Science101]

Interesting topic (for at least me) Scimitar! Our local PBS station rebroadcasts Nova favorites like the one you found. I previously watched it a few times on TV, and again yesterday in the video above.

It helps show how in 2005 there were books such as “Of Panda’s And People” that critiqued Darwinian evolution theory, but there was no “accepted” Theory of Intelligent Design being experimenting with, tested.

Now that there is a scientific theory being useful, in York/Dover’s local newspaper education forum we had this to talk about to get "the holidays" then the New Year of 2012 started off on the right foot:

http://exchange.ydr.com/index.php?/...design-lab-id-theory-accepted-and-now-online/

Over the years, occasional discussions in that forum have gone from very heated, to our all being glad that our debating led to something scientifically useful and constructive. Science makes the controversy more like a discovery for all, not something that gets settled with lawyers.

The Dover area news media now know of this Theory of Intelligent Design that the York Daily Record participated in by providing a forum to work on such a revolutionary idea, where there was the right mix of people for making progress towards something new. From having had opportunity to say hi to the newspaper staff I know they like what I add to the discussion, even though it’s ID.

The video only shows what the Dover area looked like 7 years ago. But as you can see from what is now there to read, there is now something there ones in the community have reason to be proud of, because it is not a controversy to fight over it’s scientific theory that none are going to worry about high school students finding out about. If students can figure out all the electronics and all else in it, then they would ahead of peers who graduate knowing only a fraction of that. Even where a teacher did teach it in its entirety, I doubt that many of their local news reporters would panic, they would just be reporting what they have in their forum that they already know all about anyway.

As the board members who were found guilty said at the end, the blame ended up entirely on their ID policy, them personally. But that makes the court ruling against their personal way of presenting theory to students, not a scientific “Theory of Intelligent Design” which is now able to enter the classroom just by a student showing what they found in their local education forum, or make it their Science Fair project. The community itself can get the credit for ending the conflict, in one generation of time, not many as was predicted in the video.

 

[islamugenics]

The theory of evolution was first proposed by Muslim scholars. Islam does not require intelligent design, because Islam spiritually mirrors what we see in the natural world. Allah teaches us that life is a test for us and our whole species. Evolutionist claim life is a test of survival for us and our species. Both our similar but evolutionary theory refers to our temporal nature while Islam refers to both our temporal and eternal nature.

If you do a quick Google search of Islam and evolution you will see than many historical and modern Islamic scholars have suggested the idea of evolution and claim it is compatible with Islam. I would post links, but I'm a new user and not allowed to post links.

This is from another person's post:
-"Allah is NOT a wizard, He does NOT pull new stars and new galaxies from a magic hat and certainly He doesn't do that for new species. Allah created and planned this universe on scientific laws; evolution is just one of them. Evolution means way more ingenious creator than a wizard who had to come to Earth and pull species one after another because he couldn't plan that from the beginning and you know very well that Allah is the best planner, evolution was part of the plan from the beginning of creation of this universe." :nervous:

 

[Scimitar]

The theory of evolution was first proposed by Muslim scholars. Islam does not require intelligent design, because Islam spiritually mirrors what we see in the natural world. Allah teaches us that life is a test for us and our whole species. Evolutionist claim life is a test of survival for us and our species. Both our similar but evolutionary theory refers to our temporal nature while Islam refers to both our temporal and eternal nature.

If you do a quick Google search of Islam and evolution you will see than many historical and modern Islamic scholars have suggested the idea of evolution and claim it is compatible with Islam. I would post links, but I'm a new user and not allowed to post links.

This is from another person's post:
-"Allah is NOT a wizard, He does NOT pull new stars and new galaxies from a magic hat and certainly He doesn't do that for new species. Allah created and planned this universe on scientific laws; evolution is just one of them. Evolution means way more ingenious creator than a wizard who had to come to Earth and pull species one after another because he couldn't plan that from the beginning and you know very well that Allah is the best planner, evolution was part of the plan from the beginning of creation of this universe." :nervous:

Historians recording the events relating to the advent of Islam in Arabia are in agreement that the dictated Verses of the Qur'an (Koran) were written by the scribes, during the life of the Prophet of Islam (d. 632 A.D.). The written text was collected, codified and circulated to the neighboring States in 654 A.D. These were the times when the human civilization was greatly influenced by the prevalent Western and/or Eastern Astrology. Until Sir Frances Drake (d. 1596) circumnavigated the globe, many believed the earth to be flat. Before Nicolaus Copernicus (d. 1543) published his book 'On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres', many astronomers believed in the earlier theory advocated by Claudius Ptolemaeus that our Earth occupied the center of this Universe. The Italian astronomer Giordano Bruno defied the prevalent theory and declared that the universe was infinite. Bruno was burned at the stake by the order of Pope Clement VIII in 1600. In 1609, Galileo invented the Kijkglas (telescope) and proved that Church was mistaken and Bruno was not. INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY WILL... Repeated Creations by WillThe One that Designed the Cosmos also Designed the Species...

The Day that we roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed) even as We produced the first Creation so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfill it. Qur'an 21: 104.All the translations of Verses are by translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali.​

It is He Who created the Night and the Day and the sun and the moon: all (the
celestial bodies) swim along each in its rounded course. Qur'an 21: 33. Were We then weary with the first Creation that they should be in confused doubt about a new Creation? Qur'an 50: 15.​

Punctuated Equilibria by WillSudden Extinctions of the existing Species and Reappearances of Species...

If it were His will He could destroy you O mankind and create another race: for He hath power this to do. Qur'an 4: 133.It is We Who created them and We have made their joints strong; but when We will We can substitute the like of them by a complete change. Qur'an 76: 28.
​

He is Allah the Creator the Evolver the Bestower of Forms. Qur'an 59: 24.​

Spoken Word of God - Logos; "BE"...

To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth; when He
decreeth a matter He saith to it: "Be"; and it is. Qur'an 2: 117. Note: The prologue of GENESIS from the Old Testaments which endorses the above Verse of the Qur'an, was reaffirmed by the Author of the LAST GOSPEL of New Testaments. Here the author, in its opening passage has acknowledged that it was Logos - the Spoken Word of God, the Creating Force behind all that had been Created by God. The prologue of the Fourth Gospel literarily and in reality, translates:In the beginning was the Spoken Word (Command),and the Command was with the God*,and the Command was Divine**.* The use of Greek article "ho" meaning; "the", before the Greek noun "theos" meaning God, denotes that "the God" and it is the Subject of that sentence in Greek language.** And, "theos" without the article "ho" is hence the Predicate of that sentence in Greek. And, this second "theos" denotes the nature of the God's Command, which was Divine.Those who attribute the prologue of Fourth Gospel to Jesus are telling that Logos=Jesus, was "with" God in the Beginning, as well as Jesus was "God". The opening word of the next verse which is generally translated as "He" in reality is "This", meaning; God's Command. ​

Details of Human Genetics within the Qur'an

Please click:
http://www.mostmerciful.com/microbiology-and-human-genetics-within-quran.htm​

​

THE PERPETUATING OF "MOTHERLY-LOVE" INSTINCT The scientists of our era have proved, with the sophisticated gadgetries that LIFE even exists in the "nanobes" - structures smaller than tiny Bacteria. That makes us wonder who placed within these nanobes, dozens of different proteins necessary for a working flagellum. The living molecular machines to synthesize proteins and then send to proper destinations. We know it for a fact that "motherly-love" instinct, has been found within the most primitive races of men and animals, living upon the remotest corners of this earth. The man of science, religion and non-belief know that it has played the essential part in the perpetuation of lives. Without these instincts and characters the perpetuating of life may not have been possible. The Biologists have yet to discover that the roots of these hereditary instincts and characters are also associated with the process of "DNA Replication" that makes exact copy of DNA. Unless that is discovered or established, one can confidently assert that these perpetuating features of life bearing Species are best explained as the work of a Designer. Or, by the Will and Wisdom of the Master-Designer and are NOT duplicated from Genomes. "For verily it is thy Lord Who is the Master-Creator knowing all things". Qur'an 15: 86.

Source: http://exchange.ydr.com/index.php?/topic/12707-intelligence-design-lab-id-theory-accepted-and-now-online/

The following is a post I made on the wake up project forum but I am copying it here:

Hi Xavier, nice to read you again.


1) You asked "please can you explain what you mean the biased approach scientists are taking.
what do you mean by the "may or may not" argument?"


The Biased approach to science.


Let me explain. I'll give you one example to get you thinking ok? So, we have the issue regarding the origins of the universe, right?


The common atheist approcah to it is "Once upon a time when time didn't exist - there was nothing. Then from some random and chance occurance - "poof" the universe was born. Accepted? Good.


Now. Scientific enquiry relies on the law of causality, correct? Yet, scientists get stuck in an infinitesimal loop regarding the cause of the universe. Like I said in an earlier post - and please grasp this Xavier: They ask, "What was the caue that led to the effect (universe being born)... then they ask, what was the cause of the cause? and yet still, what was the cause of the cause, etc etc recurring... Does this sound like a bit of a red herring argument to you? Coz it sure does to me. It makes no sense... And I don't need to explain why - you're with me so far. I know that, you're pretty smart.


I wonder, with you beinig an ex-Muslim and all, surely you've studied the ayah of the Quran in which Allah SWT says:


"And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un)" (51:48)


At the time the Holy Quran was revealed, the human understanding of the nature of the cosmos and the movement or the stillness of the heavenly bodies was extremely primitive and obscure. This is no longer the case, as our knowledge of the universe has considerably advanced and expanded by the present age.


Some of the theories relating to the creation of the universe have been verified as facts, whereas some others are still being explored. The concept of the expanding universe belongs to the former category, and has been universally accepted by the scientific community as 'fact'. This discovery was first made by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. Yet some thirteen centuries before this, it was clearly mentioned in the Quran:


"And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un). (51:48)


Tafsir: With Hands We constructed the heaven. Verily, We are able to expand the vastness of space thereof - Ibn Kathir English translation


It should be remembered that the concept of the continuous expansion of the universe is exclusive to the Quran. No other Divine scriptures even remotely hint at it. The discovery that the universe is constantly expanding is of prime significance to scientists, because it helps create a better understanding of how the universe was initially created. It clearly explains the stage by stage process of creation, in a manner which perfectly falls into step with the theory of the Big Bang. The Quran goes further and describes the entire cycle of the beginning, the end and the return again to a similar beginning. The first step of creation as related in the Quran accurately describes the event of the Big Bang in the following words:


"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (21:31)


Tafsir: "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe" Ibn kathir English translation


It is significant that this verse is specifically addressed to non-believers, implying perhaps, that the unveiling of the secret mentioned in this verse would be made by the non-believers, a sign for them of the truth of the Quran.


In this verse the words ratqan (closed-up mass), and fataqna (We clove them asunder), carry the basic message of the whole verse. Authentic Arabic lexicons give two meanings of ratqan, that have great relevance to the topic under discussion. One meaning is 'the coming together of something and the consequent infusion into a single entity' and the second meaning is 'total darkness'. Both these meanings are significantly applicable. Taken together, they offer an apt description of the singularity of a black hole.


A Black Hole is a gravitationally collapsed mass of colossal size. It begins with the collapse of such massive stars as are 15 or more times the size of the sun. The immensity of their inward gravitational pull causes the stars to collapse into a much smaller size. The gravitational pull is further concentrated and results in the further collapse of the entire mass into a supernova. At this stage the basic bricks of matter such as molecules, atoms etc. begin to be crushed into a nondescript mass of energy. Thus that moment in space-time is created which is called event horizon. The inward gravitational pull of that something becomes so powerful that all forms of radiation are pulled back so that even light cannot escape. A resultant total darkness ensues which earns it the name black hole, reminding one of the word ratqan used by the Quran indicating total darkness. This is called singularity which lies beyond the event horizon.


A black hole once created grows rapidly because even distant stars begin to be pulled in with the progressive concentration of gravitational energy. It is estimated that the mass of a black hole could grow as large as a hundred million times the mass of the sun. As its gravitational field widens, more material from space is drawn in at a speed close to that of light. In 1997 there was observational evidence suggesting that in our galaxy a black hole of 2,000,000 solar masses existed. But other calculations show that in our universe there could be many black holes as big as 3,000,000,000 solar masses. At that concentration of gravitational pull even distant stars would stagger and lose their mooring to be devoured by a glutton of such magnitude. Thus the process of ratqan is completed resulting into that singularity which is both completely closed as well as comprising total darkness. In answer to the question as to how the universe was initially created, the two most recent theories are both Big Bang theories. They claim that it was initiated from a singularity which suddenly erupted releasing the trapped mass leading yet again into the creation of a new universe through the event horizon. This dawn of light sprouting from the event horizon is called the white hole. One of the two theories relating to the expansion predicts that the universe thus created will carry on expanding forever. The other claims that the expansion of the universe will, at some time, be reversed because the inward gravitational pull will ultimately prevail. Eventually, all matter will be pulled back again to form perhaps another gigantic black hole. This latter view appears to be supported by the Quran.


Whilst speaking of the first creation of the universe, the Quran clearly describes its ending into yet another black hole, connecting the end to the beginning, thus completing the full circle of the story of cosmos. The Quran declares:


"Remember the day when We shall roll up the heavens like the rolling up of written scrolls ..." (21/105)


The clear message of this verse is that the universe is not eternal. It speaks of a future when the heavens will be rolled up, in a manner similar to the rolling up of a scroll. Scientific descriptions illustrating the making of a black hole, very closely resemble what the Quran describes in the above verse.


A mass of accretion from space falling into a black hole, as described above, would be pressed into a sheet under the enormous pressure created by the gravitational and electromagnetic forces. As the centre of the black hole is constantly revolving around itself, this sheet—as it approaches—will begin to be wrapped around it, before disappearing into the realm of the unknown at last.


The verse continues:


"... As We began the first creation, so shall We repeat it; a promise binding on Us; that We shall certainly fulfil" (21/105)


Tafsir: And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heaven like a Sijill for books.) This is like the Ayah:


﴿وَمَا قَدَرُواْ اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالاٌّرْضُ جَمِيعـاً قَبْضَـتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَـمَةِ وَالسَّمَـوَتُ مَطْوِيَّـتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ سُبْحَـنَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ﴾


(They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified be He, and High be He above all that they associate as partners with Him!) (39/67) ﴾Al-Bukhari recorded that Nafi` reported from Ibn `Umar that the Messenger of Allah said:


«إِنَّ اللهَ يَقْبِضُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ الْأَرَضِينَ وَتَكُونُ السَّمَوَاتُ بِيَمِينِه»


(On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will seize the earth and the heavens will be in His Right Hand.) This was recorded by Al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him.


﴿كَطَىِّ السِّجِلِّ لِلْكُتُبِ﴾


(like a Sijill rolled up for books.) What is meant by Sijill is book. As-Suddi said concerning this Ayah: "As-Sijill is an angel who is entrusted with the records; when a person dies, his Book (of deeds) is taken up to As-Sijill, and he rolls it up and puts it away until the Day of Resurrection.'' But the correct view as narrated from Ibn `Abbas is that As-Sijill refers to the record (of deeds). This was also reported from him by `Ali bin Abi Talhah and Al-`Awfi. This was also stated by Mujahid, Qatadah and others. This was the view favored by Ibn Jarir, because this usage is well-known in the (Arabic) language. Based on the above, the meaning is: the Day when the heaven will be rolled up like a scroll.


Following the eventual collapse of the universe into a black hole, here we have the promise of a new beginning. God will recreate the universe, as He had done before. The collapsed universe will re-emerge from its darkness and the whole process of creation will start yet again. This wrapping up and unfolding of the universe appears to be an ongoing phenomenon, according to the Holy Quran.


This Quranic concept of the beginning and the end of the creation is undoubtedly extraordinary. It would not have been less amazing if it had been revealed to a highly educated person of our contemporary age, but one is wonder-struck by the fact that this most advanced knowledge, regarding the perpetually repeating phenomenon of creation, was revealed more than fourteen hundred years ago to an unlettered dweller of the Arabian desert.


My question to you is this. Now that you can see that no part of these ayahs conflict with scientific and astronomical findings - when does one actually sit to think that all these findings that scientists and astronomers are discovering today actually correlate with the Quran?... BUT, (and this is the BIG BUT Xavier)


But - still they you are unwilling to accept that the law of causality is a fundamental factor and principle in determining an origin to the effect? Scientists go round in a metaphorical circle regarding the issue as I mentioned above, when quite clearly God has told you that HE created the universe and that HE is not seen by man. This is where the element of faith really kicks in. And it requires little or no real mathematical deduction to understand that after all the evidence provided - God exists. Correct? Just look at the Quran - not one contradiction, not one inaccuracy, and totally coherent.


You may wish to embark on the avenue whereby you rebuttle me with the logic that the Quran does not go into overt details - I rebuttle that back with "does it need to?" Come on, it already has said (in above ayahs) that which scholars of the early Islamic period where scratching their heads over. Yet, we witness the magnificent accuracy of the ayah today - through scientific and astronomical findings, right? Al Quran - for all time? I definitely think so... there's no loose logic here, but factual explanation of the ayahs whcih correlate with your own findings.


So, back to causality. Why is it that scientists today negate the concept that God exists? I kn ow you haven't ruled it out - even though you say you are an atheist, I think agnostic suits you better. So please, do explain why this bias exists? And don't give the "advocative" response, please - last thing I need is for you to insult my intelligence, when I have taken the time to write this for you, ok?

_____________________________________________________________________________​

Ok, moving on - 2) You asked "what is the correct philospohy? where did it come from and why is this better than the approch scientists use today?"


The philosophy of science:


The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. It is also concerned with the use and merit of science and sometimes overlaps metaphysics and epistemology by exploring whether scientific results are actually a study of truth. In addition to these central problems of science as a whole, many philosophers of science also consider problems that apply to particular sciences (e.g. philosophy of biology or philosophy of physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy.


Philosophy of science has historically been met with mixed response from the scientific community. Though scientists often contribute to the field, many prominent scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited.


I mentioned the Islamic scientist, Al Ahythm (also referred to as Alhazen) in an earlier post.


Neuroscientist Rosanna Gorini notes that "according to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method." From this point of view, Alhazen developed rigorous experimental methods of controlled scientific testing to verify theoretical hypotheses and substantiate inductive conjectures. Other historians of science place his experiments in the tradition of Ptolemy and see in such interpretations a "tendency to 'modernize' Alhazen ... which unfortunately serves to wrench him slightly out of proper historical focus. But he is important here, let me explain -


Alhazen (Al Haythm) made significant improvements in optics, physical science, and the scientific method. Alhazen's work on optics is credited with contributing a new emphasis on experiment. His influence on physical sciences in general, and on optics in particular, has been held in high esteem and, in fact, ushered in a new era in optical research, both in theory and practice.


In astrophysics and the celestial mechanics field of physics, Alhazen, in his Epitome of Astronomy, discovered that the heavenly bodies "were accountable to the laws of physics". Alhazen's Mizan al-Hikmah (Balance of Wisdom) covered statics, astrophysics, and celestial mechanics. He discussed the theory of attraction between masses, and it seems that he was also aware of the magnitude of acceleration due to gravity at a distance. His Maqala fi'l-qarastun is a treatise on centres of gravity. Little is known about the work, except for what is known through the later works of al-Khazini in the 12th century. In this treatise, Alhazen formulated the theory that the heaviness of bodies varies with their distance from the centre of the Earth.


Another treatise, Maqala fi daw al-qamar (On the Light of the Moon), which he wrote some time before his famous Book of Optics, was the first successful attempt at combining mathematical astronomy with physics, and the earliest attempt at applying the experimental method to astronomy and astrophysics. He disproved the universally held opinion that the Moon reflects sunlight like a mirror and correctly concluded that it "emits light from those portions of its surface which the sun's light strikes." To prove that "light is emitted from every point of the Moon's illuminated surface", he built an "ingenious experimental device." According to Matthias Schramm, Al Haythm had:


"formulated a clear conception of the relationship between an ideal mathematical model and the complex of observable phenomena; in particular, he was the first to make a systematic use of the method of varying the experimental conditions in a constant and uniform manner, in an experiment showing that the intensity of the light-spot formed by the projection of the moonlight through two small apertures onto a screen diminishes constantly as one of the apertures is gradually blocked up."


In his Al-Shukūk ‛alā Batlamyūs, variously translated as Doubts Concerning Ptolemy or Aporias against Ptolemy, published at some time between 1025 and 1028, Al Haythm criticized many of Ptolemy's works, including the Almagest, Planetary Hypotheses, and Optics, pointing out various contradictions he found in these works. He considered that some of the mathematical devices Ptolemy introduced into astronomy, especially the equant, failed to satisfy the physical requirement of uniform circular motion, and wrote a scathing critique of the physical reality of Ptolemy's astronomical system, noting the absurdity of relating actual physical motions to imaginary mathematical points, lines and circles. Al Haythm says:


"Ptolemy assumed an arrangement (hay'a) that cannot exist, and the fact that this arrangement produces in his imagination the motions that belong to the planets does not free him from the error he committed in his assumed arrangement, for the existing motions of the planets cannot be the result of an arrangement that is impossible to exist... or a man to imagine a circle in the heavens, and to imagine the planet moving in it does not bring about the planet's motion."


Al Haythm further criticized Ptolemy's model on other empirical, observational and experimental grounds, such as Ptolemy's use of conjectural undemonstrated theories in order to "save appearances" of certain phenomena, which Al Haythm did not approve of due to his insistence on scientific demonstration. Unlike some later astronomers who criticized the Ptolemaic model on the grounds of being incompatible with Aristotelian natural philosophy, Al Haythm was mainly concerned with empirical observation and the internal contradictions in Ptolemy's works.


In his Aporias against Ptolemy, Al Haythm commented on the difficulty of attaining scientific knowledge:
Truth is sought for itself [but] the truths, he warns, are immersed in uncertainties, and the scientific authorities (such as Ptolemy, whom he greatly respected) are not immune from error...


He held that the criticism of existing theories—which dominated this book—holds a special place in the growth of scientific knowledge. To qutoe Al Haythm once more:


"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."


And here he hits the nail on the head - by this very example, he set the motion in place for the philosophy of scientific enquiry. Modern Scientific enquiry propagates the need to prove and justify the propagated belief of today which the majority of the world refute - the theory of evolution. Scientists today hold onto a rather primitive ideology which is steeped in madness and is wholly unscientific in the approach to the philosophy which Al Haythm himself set as the standard. Surely you know where I'm going with this Xavier - the idea that man cam from monkey and they in turn from some other animal and so forth is ridiculous. Unprovable. And illogical - it a belief steeped in favouring an agenda to desensitize and disconnect the human from God, through negating the belief of HIS existence - despite overwhelming evidences that the designed must have a designer. Cause and effect. The law of causality. Nothing happens by chance - believing in chance leads to unbelief - and that is not very scientific is it?


Now, let's take a look at some of Al Haythms motivations regarding the reasoning for his study and the need to establish an accurate philosophy that can be followed in science - note that his primary source of inspired knowledge came from the Quran, ok?:


We look at another aspect of the description of the cosmos which relates to the motion of the heavenly bodies. The most striking feature of this description relates to the way the motion of the earth is described without glaringly contradicting the popular view prevailing in that age. All the scholars and sages of that time were unanimous in their belief that the earth is stationary while other heavenly bodies like the sun and the moon are constantly revolving around it. In view of this, the motion of the earth as described by the Quran may not be apparent to the casual reader, but to a careful student the message is loud and clear. If the Quran had described the earth as stationary and the heavenly bodies as revolving around it, then although the people of that time might have been satisfied with this description, the people of the later ages would have treated that statement as a proof of the ignorance of the Quran's author. Such a statement, they would emphasize, could not have been made by an All-Knowing, Supreme Being.


The Holy Quran also pronounces that all heavenly bodies are in a constant state of motion; none of them is stationary:


"... everything is gliding along smoothly in its orbit." (21/34)


This all-embracing statement covers the entire universe, our solar system being no exception. In addition to this, there are many other verses which mention the elliptical movement of all the heavenly bodies. But they also speak of their movement towards their destined time of death. Following are some of the verses which cover both subjects:


"Allah is He Who raised up the heavens without any pillars that you can see. Then He settled Himself on the Throne. And He pressed the sun and the moon into service. All pursue their course until an appointed time. He regulates it all. He clearly explains the Signs, that you may have a firm belief in the meeting with your Lord." (13/3)


"Hast thou not seen that Allah makes the night pass into the day, and makes the day pass into the night, and He has pressed the sun and the moon into service; all pursuing their course till an appointed term, and Allah is well aware of what you do?" (31/30)


"He merges the night into the day, and He merges the day into the night. And He has pressed into service the sun and the moon; each one runs its course to an appointed term. Such is Allah, your Lord; His is the kingdom, and those whom you call upon beside Allah own not even a whit." (35/14)


"He created the heavens and earth in accordance with the requirements of wisdom. He makes the night to cover the day, and He makes the day to cover the night; and He has pressed the sun and the moon into service; each pursues its course until an appointed time. Hearken, it is He alone Who is the Mighty, the Great Forgiver." (39/6)


Xavier, there are other verses which relate aswell, but for the sake of not making this too long a read for you - and to stick to the basis of the point I am making here - I think the above suffice.

_____________________________________________________________________________​

Now, finally... 3) In a previous post, I asked you "Question to you Xavier - is God an unscientific concept?"


You answered my question with "no. just like any other concepts, if shown reliable and verifiable proof, we can acept it."


The concept of God


In light of all the above, does it not strike you as odd that people in todays age are pursuing a Godless existence when clearly HIS book, the Quran has made it all too clear for keen and enquiring minds to reflect and contemplate their own existence? And don't you find it disrespectful that those who choose to pursue this Godless existence, furthermore refute and refuse to acknowledge HIS existence?


Of the 99 names of Allah we are known to have in Islam, one is Al Baatin - which translates to "The Hidden, The Unmanifest, The Inner" HE exists in place where time does not exist, so HE exists outside of our universe, but HE is aware of all. And herein, is where the age old element of faith kicks in. HE has told us of HIS many wonderful creations, and their purposes - yet HE is a mystery to us. And we believe in HIM because HIS is a perfect explanation of everything. After all I have written, I apologise to all for any mistakes I may have made - this is all according to my own limited understanding - and Allah knows best.


I ask you one final question Xavier: Why did you leave Islam?


Scimi

The debate on intelligent design is a good one, and I pick it up here:

Xavier, I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and to give me your two cents on what I had written too. Ok, so it is clear that we agree on some matters and differ on others.


I was particularly surprised that you wrote this (in a good way of course):

well i disagree with anyone who says that god does not exist, because you cannot make that statement as there is no proof. I dont know why richard dawking and the ilk make such comments. but most scientsts do not negate the concept of god. they are simply impartial to it, we say that god may exists, but we dont know.

I wanted to lend weight to another side of the scientific coin, which many have missed - or may not have even known about. 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, Xavier - you 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 Xavier - 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.


Finally, I wanted to apologise for not getting back to you sooner - I was unable as I had been banned for a week. But I'm back now, and we can move forward.


Peace to you.


Scimi


EDIT: can I ask you, Xavier, to PM me your reasons for leaving Islam? I won't judge - just try to understand you is all.

and there's more, but I'll wait till more responses come forth insha-Allah.

Scimi

 

[MustafaMc]

Bro MustafaMC and others, you are needed here. Insha-Allah, you can contribute in ways that will help us to deal with issues that are propagated as truths but infact hold no real scientific weight. let's attempt to prove Intelligent Design here insha-Allah.

Scimi

Brother Scimi, may Allah (swt) reward you for your kind consideration. Subhan'Allah, there is evidence of the Creator in His creation. I believe that the creation was much more than "intelligently designed" as it required the active involvement of Allah. The theory of Intelligent Design is most definitely an improvement over the Theory of Evolution, but I believe it does not go far enough. To me Intelligent Design implies drawing up a blueprint or process for the development of the species that was executed naturally or automatically; however, I believe that the development of the species required the active participation of a Higher Power (Allah). I believe in Divine Creation albeit I am not necessarily restricted to a literal interpretation of Allah fashioning Adam from clay even though He very well could have done so like magically pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Just as a simple example a horse and a donkey are very similar in appearance and they are sexually compatible albeit the offspring are sterile and unable to reproduce. On appearance they seem to have 'evolved' from a common ancestor, but my opinion is that the genetic change in that seminal individual would likewise have been sterile and that specific genetic mutation perpetually lost unless an individual of the opposite sex had exactly the same mutation and the two individuals miraculously produced viable gametes that produced an offspring. But wait, that individual would also be reproductively isolated unless another mating of those mutated parents occured to produce an individual of the opposite sex. My point is that the exponential improbability of those actually occuring are evidence to me of a Higher Power actively intervening in the process to make it actually happen. Now after you have that seminal Adam and Eve so-to-speak of each species, then the natural process implemented through Intelligent Design can become self perpetuating and there can be 'evolutional' changes within species.

Evolution - no involvement of Allah
Intelligent Design - Allah designed the process which was naturally executed
Divine Creation - Allah designed and actively executed the development of all living species which became self perpetuating

Insha'Allah, I will watch the videos and perhaps refine my thinking.

 

[MustafaMc]

Creationism > Evolution > Intelligent Design

"Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.

The Theory of Evolution (neo-Darwinism) contends that the species of life evolved from a Common Ancestor (presumably unicellular) by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that 'has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.'

The Theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. However, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text."

(Copied and modified slightly from the link http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php.)

 

[MustafaMc]

With this email (sent earlier this year) you may consider me as signing the petition 'Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'.

As a Muslim I believe that this universe, life itself and the species of life were created and that abiogenesis and purely naturalistic evolution are woefully inadequate. I agree with the statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php

 

[Muhaba]

I wrote an article recently. it still needs some work as I'm not finished with it but here is the draft version:

Chapter 56 Al-Waqiah: Do you see the sperm drop that you emit? Is it you who create it or are we the Creator? … Do you see the seed that you sow in the ground? Is it you that cause it to grow, or are We the cause? Were it Our Will, We could crumble it to dry power, and you would be left in wonderment... Do you see the water that you drink? Do you bring it down (in rain) from the cloud or do We? Were it Our Will, we could make it salt (and unpalatable); Then why do you not give thanks? Do you see the fire which you kindle? Is it you who grow the tree which feeds the fire, or do We grow it? We have made it a memorial (of Our handiwork), and an article of comfort and convenience for the wayfarers of deserts. Then celebrate with praises the name of your Lord, the Supreme. (verses 58 - 74)

In these verses attention is driven to some very common but extraordinary phenomena: the reproduction process, agriculture, water, and fire. These are such that life without them would be impossible. First God has pointed out the reproduction process which is necessary for the continuity of the population. Mankind is created from the human seed in a very complex and miraculous manner, one that could never have been possible without the doing of a Wise and All-Powerful Creator. God asks: Is it you who create it or are we the Creator? That’s something worth considering. No one could have placed the reproductive quality into the human seed. Nor could it have come into being by itself? This is something only God is capable of doing and is a proof of the existence of God.

After that, attention is brought to vegetation which is once again necessary for life on earth. Although easy to overlook, the process of agricultural production is not a simple one. No man could have produced plants from seeds or seeds from plants without the help of God. God placed the quality that enables seeds to sprout and grow into plants and produce food in their leaves through contact with sunlight, known as photosynthesis. Furthermore, seeds form in the fruit of plants to make it possible for the process to continue. Another proof of God’s existence. God says: Is it you that cause it to grow, or are We the cause?

The third thing outlined is water. The process of condensation - precipitation is made possible by God. Water evaporates and goes into clouds and then rain falls from the clouds in parts of earth that God wills. Had God wanted, this process would not have existed. Water might have left the earth’s atmosphere upon evaporation and been lost forever. But God made the process such that the water remains locked in the atmosphere and falls to the ground as rain, so that the whole process is repeated over and over again.

The fourth thing that is pointed out here is the fire. Necessary for human civilization for more reasons than one, fire is very important. Think of how backward and restrictive, if not impossible, life would be if there were no fire. We wouldn’t be able to cook food or create heat in winter. We wouldn’t be able to melt metal, etc. Civilization would be impossible without fire. Thus, fire is necessary for human civilization and even for life itself. So could fire have come into being by itself? And could it have gotten the quality of burning by itself?

God both created fire and gave it the quality of burning and gave mankind the ability to use fire. Look at animals: they cannot use fire in any way. But mankind has been able to use fire from earliest times and the uses have become more and more advanced with time.

After all these have been pointed out, God says: Then celebrate with praises the name of your Lord, the Supreme.

When you see how great each of these things is and how necessary it is for life, not oly do you realize that God exists but also how Great and Intelligent and Benevolent God is!

And God deserves all Praises.

 

[Science101]

Brother Scimi, may Allah (swt) reward you for your kind consideration. Subhan'Allah, there is evidence of the Creator in His creation. I believe that the creation was much more than "intelligently designed" as it required the active involvement of Allah.

I am glad you said that MustafaMc because (for scientific reasons too) I have to agree. That is where the scientific evidence led me.

The theory of Intelligent Design is most definitely an improvement over the Theory of Evolution, but I believe it does not go far enough.

It did not go far enough because there were hunches but a scientific theory requires “drawing up a blueprint or process for the development of the species” which you explain here:

To me Intelligent Design implies drawing up a blueprint or process for the development of the species that was executed naturally or automatically;

That is why the Dover trial found that there was nothing drawn up that can explain development of the species. There was just a “controversy” that created conflict in the schools over a theory that did not exist, yet.

however, I believe that the development of the species required the active participation of a Higher Power (Allah). I believe in Divine Creation albeit I am not necessarily restricted to a literal interpretation of Allah fashioning Adam from clay even though He very well could have done so like magically pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

The chemistry is finding that the Origin of Life likely required lots of clay to make the molecules that cells self-assemble from. What chemical importance clay was found to have had to be mentioned in both the “Molecular Self-Assembly - Origin of Life Model” and the “Molecular Intelligence” section of the theory.

Just as a simple example a horse and a donkey are very similar in appearance and they are sexually compatible albeit the offspring are sterile and unable to reproduce. On appearance they seem to have 'evolved' from a common ancestor, but my opinion is that the genetic change in that seminal individual would likewise have been sterile and that specific genetic mutation perpetually lost unless an individual of the opposite sex had exactly the same mutation and the two individuals miraculously produced viable gametes that produced an offspring. But wait, that individual would also be reproductively isolated unless another mating of those mutated parents occured to produce an individual of the opposite sex. My point is that the exponential improbability of those actually occuring are evidence to me of a Higher Power actively intervening in the process to make it actually happen. Now after you have that seminal Adam and Eve so-to-speak of each species, then the natural process implemented through Intelligent Design can become self perpetuating and there can be 'evolutional' changes within species.

I have been working on that scientific problem some more, and you just gave me an idea of how to use chromosome illustrations at NCBI to illustrate Chromosome Rearrangement Speciation that makes humans and Hybridization Speciation that makes mules.

Evolution - no involvement of Allah
Intelligent Design - Allah designed the process which was naturally executed
Divine Creation - Allah designed and actively executed the development of all living species which became self perpetuating

The theory that is now coming together is the third, Divine Creation. Our creator who goes by many names Allah is always actively involved in the process.

Insha'Allah, I will watch the videos and perhaps refine my thinking.

After getting ideas from the second video (I also saw before and liked enough I was watching again) especially where it mentions how part of the problem is not having the scientific argumentative skills of opponents I began work on what started with our discussions in the Evolution thread.

All who try to argue against academia scientists first need to as simply as possible know how a Genetic Algorithm works, and what its “limitations” really are, by my first explaining to you way it is antiquated by a multiple level Intelligence Algorithm. Once they understand, it becomes harder for them to believe that the GA model and theory it is based upon have no limitations at all.

To help make sure what I explain works against the best arguments from real scientists, I showed illustrations I had in mind in a forum where a good number of scientists like to meet and find something to argue over. Then one thing led to another then days later I had a whole other way of explaining, that was much better than what I had started with. And look at the illustration I now have to show what the theory looks like, for its Introduction!

From:
https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.doc
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...pZ2VuY2Vwcm9ncmFtc3xneDo1NWEyNjA2NzZmN2NiNTEx
Introduction
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization to produce self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness.

https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/Causation.PNG

Let me know where there is a common Muslim symbol or other way of representing creation of life and humans. I used God/Allah from a painting showing creation of Adam that western culture regularly uses, which helps it work where it most needs to right now, but I can easily enough put online an illustration with that instead.

Since this is a follow up to discussion in this forum I’ll link to the start of discussion where you can see the illustrations I started with to show how a GA works, how the above illustration came to be, and tactics to make the Theory of Intelligent Design unstoppable. It’s now 7 pages but you can just scan through my replies for the good ones that respond to what is useful in all the rest. So I might have been away for awhile but as you can see I was still making good progress on topics we earlier discussed in this forum.

http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=49322

With all said, the Discovery Institute proposed a viable theory but without something like this drawn up and being used in science there is no theory just the title and premise for one. But now there is an Intelligence Design Lab online that experimenters who need new theory found to be awesome, that scientists are becoming impressed with, that is the only thing under the big-tent that is presentable to even scientists. And its origin is in part from this forum, which helps me make sure not to miss evidence that makes it ishna Allah too. Without that Intelligent Design does not work for you, or for Christian creationists who did not like it either. The theory has to somehow defend Genesis and not leave Adam and Eve out of the process for the development of our species, but where there is really no useful theory yet. It’s only expected that you’ll find that missing from what was explained in the Dover trial.

I want this to be a theory that if Prophet Muhammad were here today and on this forum would be as thrilled with as myself and be much further along than it is right now because of his helping it along too. But at least you are here to help represent his teachings. His word is that way not entirely left out. So now that you know where the modern Theory of Intelligent Design is at in the year 2012 and why the Discovery Institute cannot control a scientific theory and who actually does the question now becomes: Where do we go from here with it oh modern day prophets of Islam?

 

[MustafaMc]

I believe that the Theory of Evolution (TOE) came about as an attempt to scientifically explain how we came into existence in response to a literal interpretation of the 6-day Biblical creation story which is not supported by geologically and fossil evidences. TOE is basically atheistic and completely denies the involvement of a Divine Creator for the supernatural is not subject to the scientific method. The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is a feeble attempt to counter TOE by showing that matters such as examples of irreducible complexity could not have came about by random chance, but instead are evidence of being intelligently designed. Yet IDM remains agnostic (God may or may not exist) and does not attempt to explain the 'intelligent' source for the 'design' that is apparent in nature.

In the end I don't think we will ever be able to prove how we came about without the intimate involvement of a Higher Power (or Powers) that actively created us out of nothing. This Higher Power exists outside of our realm of existence which is space and time and we as humans are extremely limited in our ability to think outside of those confines. If there is a Creator and He chooses to supernaturally reveal something of His existence and how He created the universe, then that is the ultimate source of our knowledge of the ghaib or unseen world. We humans are less than intelligent to deny revelation as a source for knowledge and that there exists supernatural beings outside of our ability to observe and measure them.

We can use our human intelligence to study nature and to learn the most intimate details of the life process as Writer implicated regarding reproduction and photosynthesis, etc. In the end we are best in admitting our reliance upon Allah (swt) and recognizing the glory and majesty of His Divine Being as evidenced by His creation. Does it do us any good to debate whether we were literally fashioned instantly out of clay by Allah or whether we were created over an extended period of time through a process that required the intimate involvement of Allah? My belief is that those who are most scientifically knowledgeable and who are honest with themselves can see evidences of the Creator in His creation, subhan'Allah, and their faith is strengthened by this knowledge!

 

[Science101]

Yet IDM remains agnostic (God may or may not exist)

If that's how Agnosticism is sometimes defined then I need to change the religion I selected for my profile because of none else being specific! I'll go with my cultural religious identity I was prepared to be a religious leader for which is Christianity. I just didn't want to make it seem that I'm here to represent Christianity, but at least that's closer than something that makes it seem I do not have 100% faith in an Allah/God our Creator.

 

[Scimitar]

In the end I don't think we will ever be able to prove how we came about without the intimate involvement of a Higher Power (or Powers) that actively created us out of nothing. This Higher Power exists outside of our realm of existence which is space and time and we as humans are extremely limited in our ability to think outside of those confines. If there is a Creator and He chooses to supernaturally reveal something of His existence and how He created the universe, then that is the ultimate source of our knowledge of the ghaib or unseen world. We humans are less than intelligent to deny revelation as a source for knowledge and that there exists supernatural beings outside of our ability to observe and measure them.

I agree, and therefore i don't think we can prove beyond a doubt that Allah exists, but we can provide all the supporting evidences in order to make a stronger hypothesis for the existence of God, than they have for the existence of no God.

This is what my intention was in starting this thread. So far, it's going almost too well I can hardly comment, as the experts come out and educate me through their posts, thank you my brothers - I am honoured to learn knowledge from you

Scimi

 

[MustafaMc]

I sense a strong faith in God in your heart. You could be an Irreligious Theist meaning that you believe in God, but don't practice a particular religion. We humans like to put labels on others perhaps due to our desire to understand.

You asked regarding a symbol for creation in Islam, but that is impossible for there is no symbol possible to represent Allah. If you can imagine our entire universe being represented by a fish aquarium with a 1-way mirror glass then everything outside of the aquarium is beyond the fish's ability to perceive. If they could reason, they would know a 'higher being' exists outside the aquarium because the water is replenished after the level falls due to evaporation and because food is sprinkled in daily. Similarly, I know that Allah exists because I see that life and life processes must have had a beginning and they could not just randomly appear due to infintesimally small chances and enough time.

 

[MustafaMc]

Assalamu alaikum, Brother Scimi, mash'Allah (it is as Allah has willed) and subhan'Allah (to Allah belongs the glory). We have only what has been given to us. Insh'Allah (Allah willing), words written here will be useful to counter any efforts to disprove the active creation of our world by our Creator. From Him we came and to Him we will return.

 

[Science101]

I agree, and therefore i don't think we can prove beyond a doubt that Allah exists, but we can provide all the supporting evidences in order to make a stronger hypothesis for the existence of God, than they have for the existence of no God.

This is what my intention was in starting this thread. So far, it's going almost too well I can hardly comment, as the experts come out and educate me through their posts, thank you my brothers - I am honoured to learn knowledge from you

Scimi

I’m thrilled that you posted this thread and there was the one for evolution before it that helped get an excellent discussion started, again.

You are right, you need to show that even though our knowledge of how things work (science) has greatly advanced there is something in what religion teaches that is worth preserving for the next, or Atheism wins. Their view also greatly benefits from religions being counter to each other instead of on the same page in what is most important for all to understand, especially as it pertains to modern science. The most effective strategy I have found and have been using is taking full control of the Theory of Intelligent Design away from the Discovery Institute that may genuinely welcome Islam but a there was no scientific theory scientists could take seriously, was useless to you too.

I believe Prophet Jesus was a prophet of peace who inspired the downfall of the old Roman and Greek idol worship which later fed Christians to lions, who Prophet Muhammad emulated to become a prophet of peace who made sure it stayed gone by explaining as a prophet of science. There was then the Golden Age of Islamic Science and Math. Therefore Christianity focuses on Prophet Jesus while Islam focuses on Prophet Muhammad who is without a doubt the right Prophet to take a Theory of Intelligent Design to, for review.

For some reason I never had any luck in Christian forums from the Christians who are there. Might be partially because of their forums often ruled by Atheists who just complain about the theory but it’s like Christians are OK with whatever would be inspired by this one even though some might at first be startled to find why “clay” and such must absolutely be there. I am relatively sure Prophet Muhammad would want do something like slap us all on the forehead for the theory missing something like that, which right there shows Atheism that he is not at all hurting our scientific theory by having been that way. Do not need complicated science equations to lead by example in science, just need to make more “common sense” than the rest.

Must also mention that I discovered it is not possible to change the religion I selected by using any of the edit profile and settings pages! Maybe it is a sign that I am stuck with it for right now, will try again later. But at least it is true that I am not committed to one particular religious view as would be where my Christianity would keep me away from here or where on a mission to this forum just being annoying to you by trying to convert everyone to Methodist. Even at church we were taught to be more accepting of others than that, but I know that not all are, which brings me back to listing Christian in a forum such as this one possibly suggesting the wrong thing too, which led me to selecting the less specific option. With some humor maybe I should just say that sometimes, for me, uncomplicating most complex of things has a funny way of in-turn making the simplest of things incredibly overcomplicated!

 

[MustafaMc]

Science101, I wouldn't worry about it much as gnosis is about knowledge. How can any of us really and truly KNOW that God exists and even if we could, can we ever KNOW what His nature is? To me it is just semantics or a play on words. To me what matters is belief and whether we are theists or atheists. If we are theists, do we worship God and, if we do, how do we worship Him?

From Wikipedia, "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God(s) they believe in."


http://freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/final3.jpg

 

[Science101]

Science101, I wouldn't worry about it much as gnosis is about knowledge. How can any of us really and truly KNOW that God exists and even if we could, can we ever KNOW what His nature is? To me it is just semantics or a play on words. To me what matters is belief and whether we are theists or atheists. If we are theists, do we worship God and, if we do, how do we worship Him?

From Wikipedia, "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God(s) they believe in."

http://freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/final3.jpg

The FreeThinker definition for Agnostic is not what I recall it being, looks way too oversimplified. Also, where science and religion have to be separated, it is then possible to believe that religions like Christianity and Islam change over time because the Creator is better knowable through science and has been keeping up with progress towards a better understanding. It is then not our religions that make our Creator better knowable through time (while peering out our little aquarium) that knowledge is from science using telescopes and other gadgets that make more of our Creator visible. We are just not yet sure what we are looking at, but at least we are working on it. And how we worship Him/Her/EmbodiesBoth (not scientifically sure there either) is what religion is for, clergy works on that all the time, and I am thankful for that because keeping up with just the science alone is overwhelming!

And from and earlier reply:

I sense a strong faith in God in your heart. You could be an Irreligious Theist meaning that you believe in God, but don't practice a particular religion. We humans like to put labels on others perhaps due to our desire to understand.

It sounds like an oxymoron but I looked it up online and yes “Irreligious Theist” would work! It is not a religion in itself like there is an Irreligious Church & Mosque where you get two prophets in one. Irreligious Theist did include me. I have more than one source of religious inspiration. And it also sounds like something bored Atheists would be attracted to, just because of its name.

You asked regarding a symbol for creation in Islam, but that is impossible for there is no symbol possible to represent Allah. If you can imagine our entire universe being represented by a fish aquarium with a 1-way mirror glass then everything outside of the aquarium is beyond the fish's ability to perceive. If they could reason, they would know a 'higher being' exists outside the aquarium because the water is replenished after the level falls due to evaporation and because food is sprinkled in daily. Similarly, I know that Allah exists because I see that life and life processes must have had a beginning and they could not just randomly appear due to infintesimally small chances and enough time.

I had a feeling someone might say that. It seemed as though where one existed I would have seen it by now. And where we do try to peer out of our aquarium for a clear image of that, the best even the greatest of painter can do is a powerful human pointing down from the sky. It’s a wonderful metaphor and everything but the science of the process is expected to have chemical equations and such.

It seems that here Christianity had what was needed for the theory but Islam is OK with that because even though it might make for a great science illustration pointer, all by itself it is not a clear image of our Creator, because that much detail is not yet knowable.

 

[Science101]

I wrote an article recently. it still needs some work as I'm not finished with it but here is the draft version:

Chapter 56 Al-Waqiah: Do you see the sperm drop that you emit? Is it you who create it or are we the Creator? … Do you see the seed that you sow in the ground? Is it you that cause it to grow, or are We the cause? Were it Our Will, We could crumble it to dry power, and you would be left in wonderment... Do you see the water that you drink? Do you bring it down (in rain) from the cloud or do We? Were it Our Will, we could make it salt (and unpalatable); Then why do you not give thanks? Do you see the fire which you kindle? Is it you who grow the tree which feeds the fire, or do We grow it? We have made it a memorial (of Our handiwork), and an article of comfort and convenience for the wayfarers of deserts. Then celebrate with praises the name of your Lord, the Supreme. (verses 58 - 74)

In these verses attention is driven to some very common but extraordinary phenomena: the reproduction process, agriculture, water, and fire. These are such that life without them would be impossible. First God has pointed out the reproduction process which is necessary for the continuity of the population. Mankind is created from the human seed in a very complex and miraculous manner, one that could never have been possible without the doing of a Wise and All-Powerful Creator. God asks: Is it you who create it or are we the Creator? That’s something worth considering. No one could have placed the reproductive quality into the human seed. Nor could it have come into being by itself? This is something only God is capable of doing and is a proof of the existence of God.

After that, attention is brought to vegetation which is once again necessary for life on earth. Although easy to overlook, the process of agricultural production is not a simple one. No man could have produced plants from seeds or seeds from plants without the help of God. God placed the quality that enables seeds to sprout and grow into plants and produce food in their leaves through contact with sunlight, known as photosynthesis. Furthermore, seeds form in the fruit of plants to make it possible for the process to continue. Another proof of God’s existence. God says: Is it you that cause it to grow, or are We the cause?

The third thing outlined is water. The process of condensation - precipitation is made possible by God. Water evaporates and goes into clouds and then rain falls from the clouds in parts of earth that God wills. Had God wanted, this process would not have existed. Water might have left the earth’s atmosphere upon evaporation and been lost forever. But God made the process such that the water remains locked in the atmosphere and falls to the ground as rain, so that the whole process is repeated over and over again.

The fourth thing that is pointed out here is the fire. Necessary for human civilization for more reasons than one, fire is very important. Think of how backward and restrictive, if not impossible, life would be if there were no fire. We wouldn’t be able to cook food or create heat in winter. We wouldn’t be able to melt metal, etc. Civilization would be impossible without fire. Thus, fire is necessary for human civilization and even for life itself. So could fire have come into being by itself? And could it have gotten the quality of burning by itself?

God both created fire and gave it the quality of burning and gave mankind the ability to use fire. Look at animals: they cannot use fire in any way. But mankind has been able to use fire from earliest times and the uses have become more and more advanced with time.

After all these have been pointed out, God says: Then celebrate with praises the name of your Lord, the Supreme.

When you see how great each of these things is and how necessary it is for life, not oly do you realize that God exists but also how Great and Intelligent and Benevolent God is!

And God deserves all Praises.

Hi writer! You left me wondering how a “Wise and All-Powerful Creator” can be wise/intelligent.

I know that is not easy to answer, but thought it would be worth mentioning the question that you have stuck on my mind again, in case you or anyone has any thoughts.

 

[Scimitar]

Check this out:

A new science proves the existence of a Designer

February 19, 2012 - Articles

The problem for atheists is that the nature of this design too. Some animals, insects and plants have characteristics so sophisticated that scientists and engineers are now beginning to lean toward the natural world to develop new technologies and solve scientific problems.
This process gave birth to a new scientific discipline called biomimetics (sometimes called bionics). This is based on the model found in nature to develop new technologies.


Some examples

1 / The Japanese engineers were inspired by the Kingfisher bird.

Japanese trains are among the world's fastest and most secure. However, a major concern to the Japanese engineers for years.
When a train returning from a tunnel at high speed, the air was compressed at the front of the engine and when the train emerged from the tunnel, the air rushed out, creating a sound very loud noise which wake up people on board. And given that the railway system in Japan has many tunnels and in addition the country has laws very latest standards on noise pollution, it was imperative to address this problem. After much searching, they finally found a surprising solution in nature. Indeed, this is by analyzing the Kingfisher bird that engineers have found the solution.

The Kingfisher is a bird with a large head and an extra long spout. This is an excellent fisherman as it plunges into the water at a very high speed with very little splash (which is ideal for Olympic divers). In experiments on the wind in the tunnel, the engineers discovered that the beak of the kingfisher had an ideal shape for a smooth transition from air to water. And the change of air pressure to water is similar to that when it leaves a train tunnel experiments.

engineers have decided to rebuild the front of the train by reproducing the design of the beak Kingfisher, which has reduced the noise but also energy consumption by 15%.


2 / The Chrysler engineers were inspired by the boxfish.

Chrysler engineers have developed a concept car called for Mercedes 'Mercedes Bionic' drawing of the boxfish, tropical fish well known to divers in deep water of warm seas. The idea was to build the car the more aéromydamique possible, ie that offers less resistance to air.

Studies on the boxfish have found that its shape, at first glance not very aerodynamic, was really a remarkable aerodynamic efficiency.
Thus imitating the shape of this fish, the Mercedes Bionic reached a drag coefficient (which calculates the aerodynamic coefficient) of 0.06 which is the result most aerodynamic car ever obtained for a 4 m long. In addition to have imitated the shape of the boxfish the engineers have also imitated his skin, consisting of innumerable hexagonal scales and a bony plate ensure rigidity of the body. The skeleton and the skin to give it strength while protecting it from injury.

The entire chassis, which is still kept secret, was inspired by allowing a weight reduction of one third while increasing strength and impact resistance.


3 / Qualcomm engineers were inspired by the butterfly.

Engineers at the Qualcomm brand (American company in the field of mobile technology, world No. 1 chips for mobile phones) have developed a new electronic display technology by imitating the butterfly's wings.Highly developed structures of the wings of some butterflies can reflect light so that specific wavelengths interfere with each other to create vivid colors.

This same principle was applied to the advanced display technology called "Mirasol" developed by Qualcomm to make the e-reader screens (Ebooks, mobile phones, smartphones, tablets androids) more readable and lightfull. With this technology, a screen can now be readable in direct sunlight. But the result is surprising or is that power consumption is divided by a factor of up to 200 because the screen does not need to produce light from its current as is the case of LCD or OLED. It uses electricity to control the display.

This new display technology, holds great promise for the future and with enormous potential, has already been selected by LG Electronics, world number four mobile phones and should be generalized on the market in coming years.


4 / engineers are inspired by the whale.

The humpback whale, unlike other marine animals such as dolphins, does not have a fin with smooth edges. Indeed, the fins of humpback whales have bumps like ripples. few years ago, an American biologist and expert on the dynamics of locomotion, Frank Fish, découvra that humpback whales are used only to catch the fish in a "net" of bubbles, they create by diving deeply and working up in tight circles. He proposed that these bumps on nagoires (called tubercles) were in one way or another to give them an advantage allowing them to perform hydrodynamic its corners so remarkable for their size and should explain why whales so gracefully flowing in the fluid ocean.

Subsequently, Frank Fish and his colleagues Loren Howle and Mark Murray, after doing a test on a replica of fin in a wind tunnel, found that the tubers engendered a 32% reduction in drag, and a 6% increase the upward thrust, compared to a smooth edge of fin.
the results of this research has been the subject of several publications in Physical Review Letter, in Nature magazine in the magazine from MIT and has been validated
by the U.S. Naval Academy. WhalePower The Canadian company, founded in 2004, decided following his research to develop a prototype wind turbine modeled on the shape of the fins of humpback whales. The company's engineers have meticulously reproduced and tuber fin of the humpback whale, to allow a promising application to not only wind, but also to the fan blades and the turbine.

This new technology of wind does not give anything less than 20% efficiency, which is a progesterone considerable if one considers only increase the yield of 1 to 2% without increasing the noise is no mean feat. The wind created is indeed less noisy but also more resistant to storms. Furthermore, this characteristic of the fin of the humpback whale has also helped to improve the technology of helicopters.Indeed, a group of researchers from the German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt), found that the propellers which own tubers as the humpback whale possible to increase the speed and maneuverability of helicopters.

They also found it possible to improve passenger comfort because it reduced the vibration caused by the propellers.


5 / engineers were inspired by the fish-knife.

Fish knife, also called "black ghost knife fish" is a tropical fish that inhabit fast-flowing rivers in the Amazon basin. He not only has a body that allows him to send a low voltage all around her body to capture its prey but it is surtourt known for its maneuverability and extraordinary agility worthy of a true acrobat. Indeed, this fish, thanks to its fin long and narrow, manages to depacer in all directions, both forwards and backwards as well as vertically almost instantly. The maneuverability of this fish is an ideal for submarine technology, why engineers Northwestern University, in collaboration with the company Kinea Design (company specializing in mechanical and electronic), have made ​​a robot Waterproof with 32 small artificial fins that mimic the long fin fish-knife.

In addition to having copied the fin of this fish, the engineers have also imitated the sensory organ that allows it to detect prey by sending out weak electrical fields.

They therefore placed on the robot sensory system based on the fish-knife but hopes to improve in the future so that the robot can autonomously use this system to detect objects close to him. In other words, they have not yet succeeded in putting a system as effective as the one on this fish.
This robot could be used for underwater operations, such as monitoring the ocean environment or the establishment of oil pipeline or rescue operations.

Conclusion

We saw here a few examples among thousands of biomimetics.
In 2010 for example, it was discovered that the wings of butterflies could put an end to bank fraud, was a new material made of polystyrene drawing shells and created the most impervious surface there by taking hair of spiders.
In 2011, it was discovered that a plant was capable of detecting explosives, it has established structures for ultra-lightweight architecture drawing of the skeleton of sea urchins and we made a hand extremely clever electronics that could be used for amputees based on the remarkable elasticity of the leg movement of the cockroach.
In short, so many examples that prove one thing: there is indeed a unique design in nature, a design that points to the existence of a designer. For how is it that the natural world is endowed with an infinite number of perfect systems and technologies that surpass remarkable amply systems and technologies created by Man?

END.

Scimi

EDIT:

[h=1]A fascinating biological discovery proves the existence of a creator[/h]February 4, 2012 - Articles

In 1802, the English theologian William Paley published his famous book "Natural Theology" in which he presents the analogy of the watch. It explains that if a person fell on a well-designed shows in the woods, the complexity of the watch would be proof that intelligent designer made the machine.
His analogy is an extension of the theological argument, which simply says that if there is design in nature, then this design requires the existence of a designer.
The Nobel Prize in biology in 1965 François Jacob commented on Paley's argument by saying:

"In fact, the main evidence for the existence of God has long been" the argument of intent. "Developed in particular by Paley in his Natural Theology ...

this argument is: If you find a watch, you do not doubt that it was made ​​by a watchmaker.Similarly, if you consider an organization a bit complex, with the obvious aim of all its organs, how to avoid the conclusion that it was produced by the will of a Creator? For it would be simply absurd, says Paley, to suppose that the eye of a mammal, for example, with the precision of its optics and its geometry, may have formed by chance. "(Francois Jacob, the play of possibilities, p 32)

​

In January 2011, reporter Malcolm Ritter, who deals with scientific articles for the Associated Press (U.S. news agency) reported a recent discovery made by two scientists, Akhilesh Reddy of the University of Cambridge and Joseph Bass Northwestern University in the United States.
Their discovery was published in the magazine "Nature" and demonstrated that the clocks that existed in celulles of our body are actually much more sophisticated than scientists thought. Here is an excerpt from the article by Malcom Ritter entitled "A study of cellular clocks shows what makes us tick":

"What makes us tick? All persons who suffer from jet lag know a lot about the internal clock of our body is fueled by a group of cells in the brain. But even the cells of our body have their own clocks to coordinate activities at the cellular level. But today, new research suggests that these internal clocks are actually much more complex than scientists thought.
Indeed, they assumed that it was simply the result of the activity of certain genes but in a new research, they focused on human cells which do not possess genes and found an enzyme that between the NIMBY two different forms on a regular cycle of 24 hours. "

​

This is really interesting because it would mean that our body is filled with billions of cells that contain sophisticated clocks. The clocks are complex human. If someone finds a watch in the middle of the forest, he will be forced to conclude that intelligence is coming from. Well the same truth also applies to the recently discovered cellular clocks in our bodies.

END.

 

[Scimitar]

Why Anthony Flew, the atheist's most influential 20th century advocate - changed his mind!!!


Anthony Flew (1923-2010) was an English philosopher and thinker who engage in combat and fought for atheism for more than 54 years, making him the most prominent atheist and most influential of the 20th century.
He has written numerous books on atheism as "God and Philosophy" in 1961 or the "presumption of atheism" in 1971 and the famous "Theology and Falsification" which was a fundamental reference for all atheists around the world to present their arguments. Flew was a teacher in various British universities such as Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading and was a member of the Socratic Club, a forum for debate between Christians and atheists and therefore discussed with many theologians on the existence of God.
The change in thinking by Anthony Flew

Anthony Flew changed his mind in 2004 at the age of 81 years and believes désormait in the existence of God. He subsequently wrote a book called "There Is a God" (There is a God) explaining his change of mind. In his book, we learn on page 74 that it is dun during debate at the University of New York he officilement and publicly announce his change of mind. He declared during the debate that he thought the origin of life pointed to a creator because of recent research on DNA. He says on page 93 of his book:

"I must stress that my discovery of the Divine took place on a purely natural, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It was an exercise that is traditionally called natural theology. It has no connection with any of the revealed religions. I do not claim to have had personal experience of God or an experience that can be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not faith "(Anthony Flew," There is a God "p. 93)

​

The main arguments put forward by Anthony Flew

1 / The extreme complexity of the operation of the DNA molecule

For Anthony Flew, the best argument for the existence of God is the amazing complexity of the DNA molecule, particularly in the transcription process from DNA to the RNA molecule. He says in his book:

"What I think the DNA material has done is he has shown, for the incredible complexity of the steps necessary to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved to allow these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. Is the enormous complexity of many items and enormous subtlety in how they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply miraculous. Everything is a matter of enormous complexity by which the results were obtained, which seemed the work of an intelligence "(Anthony Flew," There is a God "p. 75)

​

2 / Laws of Nature

There is no reason that should lead Nature to follow laws. The existence of laws of nature requires an explanation. Flew claims, as many ancient and contemporary scientists that theism is the only serious response. He says in his book:

"Where do the laws of physics? Why do we have these laws and not another set of laws? Why do we have laws which lead to gas without any distinct feature to life and consciousness and intelligence? "(Anthony Flew," There is a God "p. 108)

​

It is reminiscent of the famous phrase of Barry Talking cosmologist who said:

"Who made these laws? There is no doubt that God will always be necessary to answer this question "(quoted in" Show me God "F.heeren, p.223)

​

3 / The information contained in DNA

The question of the origin of life has become much more complicated with the discovery of DNA, a molecule comprising the "letters" that encode instructions for building the mechanisms leading to life. In addition, instructions for constructing these decoding mechanisms are themselves coded in DNA.
The fact that life is governed by a code so complex to get Flew to ask the question:

"The origins of a system of coded chemistry can they be explained in a way that does not appeal to the facts, we invoke to explain the codes and languages, communication systems, the footprint ordinary words in the world of matter? "(Anthony Flew," There is a God "p. 127)

​

In other words, given that the information behind the origin of life, Flew recognizes a source of information leading necessarily to an intelligence at least it is the most logical explanation .

4 / The adjustment so perfect laws of the universe

Our universe has physical laws that are set with extreme precision to allow life to exist. The most common response of atheists is to say that our universe is one among many others. the famous speculation of "multiverse".
It is interesting to note that atheists who refuse to believe in a God, a refusal based on an alleged lack of evidence of its existence, yet believe in an unknown number of other universes in which there is no evidence or even no effect on their testimony. Anyway, Flew argues that even if there were multiple universes, it would not solve the dilemma. Flew said at page 121:

"Multiverse or not, we still have to reconcile ourselves with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only reliable explanation here is a divine spirit "(Anthony Flew," There is a God "p. 121)

​

Flew was also particularly impressed by the refutation of a physicist at the idea that monkeys would type random eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. Indeed, the probability of a Shakespearean sonnet by chance is 10 ^ 690. (To put this in perspective, remember that there are only 10 ^ 80 particles in the universe. Flew has thus concludes:

"If the theorem does not work for a single sonnet, then of course it is simply absurd to suggest that the feat the most elaborate of the origin of life could have been produced by chance" (Anthony Flew, "There one God "p.78)

​

Flew also criticized the idea that Richard Dawkins puts forward in his book "The Selfish Gene" by saying:

"The natural selection does not produce anything positive. It only Elimite or tend to eliminate anything that is not competitive. Dawkins made the critical mistake to overlook the fact that most of the characteristics of organisms are the result of many genes encoding "(Anthony Flew," There is a God "p.78-79).

​

Although it was previously believed in the theory of evolution, he now thinks that it is unable to explain the origin of life. He says:

"I am now convinced that it is impossible that the first living celulle could emerge from nonliving matter can form extraordinarily complex creatures" (Anthony Flew, article in "The Telegraph" of April 13, 2010).

​

Conclusion

The rejection of atheism from Anthony Flew is a nightmare for atheists and other skeptics as it is difficult to discredit the most influential atheist philosopher of the 20th century. His conversion to theism shows that one can believe in God simply on evidence.
On page 92 of his book "There is a God," Flew describes his conception of God. For him, God is one (indivisible), omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect Intangibles goodness.
Anthony Flew died April 8, 2010 at the age of 87. And although he has not converted to a particular religion, he says in his book:

"The question of whether God has revealed himself in history (through revelation) is a legitimate subject of discussion because you can not limit the possibilities of omnipotence" (Anthony Flew, " There is a God "p.157)

Scimi

​