science proves the existence of god

[Independent]

That the occurrence of the Fibonacci numbers in the natural world showing a pattern to worldly things and that it is also reflected in the Qur'an, I suppose implying the same 'forces' at work which is discernible (for now) only through these kinds of study.

The fact that the world is 'orderly' and has structure is obviously supportive of a scientific view of the universe. To take it to the other extreme, if every single element looked like it was individually constructed without relation to other elements that would be strong evidence of divine creation.

If the ratio found in Nature were an arbitrary one that conferred no evolutionary benefit that would have been strong evidence of divine creation. The fact that it is the single ideal ratio that works best for evolution is evidence in the opposite direction.

I repeat as I have said in other threads, belief in evolution is not incompatible with belief in a God.

 

[MustafaMc]

Creationist science remains overwhelmingly negative in that it simply finds fault with other science.

I am puzzled by your use of the term 'creationist science', perhaps it is in relation to the video. I do not see belief in creation by the Divine Creator as a science, but rather it is more metaphysical than it is science based. Ironically, I can say exactly the same thing about evolutionist theory that all species of life descended from a Common Ancestor throughly purely naturalistic means. Religion does not seek to explain the intricate details of where we came from, but rather paints the Big Picture that we were created and that our purpose in living is to worship our Creator. It also teaches that we are more than our mere physical bodies and that we do not cease to exist with our death. It seeks to provide answers to questions that can not be reduced by the scientific method to something we can understand. Science is incapable of answering questions such as, "Does God exist?" "How exactly was the universe created?" "What was the precise means by which each and every species of life arose down to the level of molecular genetics?" "How did the very first living being come into existence, again down to the molecular level?" "Does the human soul even exist?" or "What happens to our essential individual essence when we die?" Admitedly, religion can't answer many of these questions in detail, but then again it does not claim to be able to, whereas science does - in that if it can't be measured, then it must not really exist.

I repeat as I have said in other threads, belief in evolution is not incompatible with belief in a God.

... but belief in evolution is incompatible with rational, logical thought.

 

[Scimitar]

Independent,

The problem with "creationist science" (coined term?) is that those scientists who in the last century alone, reversed their world view from atheism to monotheism were shunned by the wider scientific communities and hence, their word was worth nowt and thus, no scientific group pushed the creationist science to the masses. In most cases, the scientists carried on their investigations in private, unpublished and confined themselves to mediocrity mostly in the guise of hermitdom.

So when you talk of creationist science being few and far between, I beg you to consider the above. Else, your view would be as skewed as I have noticed.

Let's not forget that the agenda is to push evolution as the only theory that is viable in the world regarding our beginnings - it is totally at odds with Islam, as is to be expected in the age we live in.

Scimi

 

[Independent]

Two similar posts:

I am puzzled by your use of the term 'creationist science', perhaps it is in relation to the video.

The problem with "creationist science" (coined term?) is that those scientists who in the last century alone, reversed their world view from atheism to monotheism were shunned by the wider scientific communities and hence, their word was worth nowt and thus, no scientific group pushed the creationist science to the masses

'Creationist Science' is their term, not mine. I assume they wish to associate creationism with science in order to promote their credibility. The term is heavily associated with Christians rather than any other religion, although Muslims frequently quote Creationist scientists (as indeed this video does extensively.)

(In Islam, the closest term I can see is 'Bucaiellism', a reference to Dr Maurice Bucaille who published a hugely influential book in 1976 called 'The Quran, the Bible and Science'. But Bucaiellism is not concerned with new research.)

Creationist scientists are concerned with science as opposed to purely metaphysical issues. As Scimitar mentions, they have argued that they have been discriminated against for their views in existing institutions so they have set up some of their own. I think it's true to say that certain scientific points of view can be received with hostility at different times (for instance evolution, when it was first mooted).

Creationist-only institutes have been around awhile now and the time has come for them to produce some genuine science. I'm not being unfair to expect this, it's what they promised themselves.

 

[Scimitar]

thing is Independent, you seem to imply that science does not gel too kindly with Islamic teachings - if I am mistaken then I am sorry.

The point I am making is that the Islamic world view of creation is applicable and more than compatible with observable science - OBSERVABLE SCIENCE - yet, when make the same comparison to ToE - we have a BIG problem, and the hypocrisy most of you have failed to recognise is that scientists who propose ToE are the same who shout out "OBSERVABLE SCIENCE" yet fail to provide any evidence! It's a massive LOL.

If anything, I honestly believe creationist science has nothing to prove, but plenty to disprove... ie: Atheist science.

Thus, when you say that Creationist science is stalled - what would it take for you to say "creationist science is trumping atheist science"? Don't you see, the idea is to have faith, many things will remain invisible to us until the appointed time.

Today, we know that the embryo forms in 3 stages, confirming the Quran (Bucaille) yet go back two hundred years and we find that the Muslims of that era had no quanitifiable justification from science to back up the claim in the Quran regarding embryo developing in 3 stages - did they need the evidence? NO.

So really, I would ask you to reconsider your unwarranted and unjustified demands that creationist scientists publish their findings which prove a creator.

the whole point is to use logic to arrive at faith, not have unequivocal proofs in order to arrive at conviction.

Conviction without faith, requires no belief. Conviction after faith, is a step up from faith. That is where you are lost.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Anyone know a thing or two about Sir Isaac Newton? What I will now demonstrate to you is that Science without Islam as a guide to it, will see you make some progress, but ultimately deceive yourself.

A very interesting documentary revealing a hidden and truly enlightened side to one of the greatest minds that western civilisation has known. His deep study of science led him to a firm conclusion that there is a Creator and based on his study of early Christian history, he was convinced that the concept of The Trinity was a falsification of the pure message of monotheism that Jesus preached.

Newton vehemently rejected the corruption of the Christian establishment and the innovation that is the divinity of Jesus, his belief was the revealed God is one God. During his life he was forced to keep this belief secret for fear of being labelled a heretic and after his death this information was carefully suppressed.

The documentary also highlights (takes a discernin heart to see) the point that in the absence of study of the final divine revelation (Quran) - No matter how great the mind, the knowledge of the unseen can not be deciphered as is illustrated by the fact that Newton spirals into a hopeless search for the truth by vigorously engaging in the art of alchemy!

Is that creationist science?

Also, did you know that newton once made his atheist friend feel like a complete plumb? The method he used was truly extraordinary, he used his friends own reasoning against him, here check this out:

Scimi

 

[Independent]

you seem to imply that science does not gel too kindly with Islamic teachings

I don't see that the Quran has anything to say about science (no reason why it should) so there is nothing to gel or not gel. This whole question seems to have come about as a result of Bucaille.

The point I am making is that the Islamic world view of creation is applicable and more than compatible with observable science - OBSERVABLE SCIENCE

Depends what you define as 'observable science'.

If anything, I honestly believe creationist science has nothing to prove, but plenty to disprove... ie: Atheist science.

Once again, the promise of new research was their promise. They said they were being prevented from doing new work in existing institutes. So, it's reasonable to ask where is that new work now.

Thus, when you say that Creationist science is stalled - what would it take for you to say "creationist science is trumping atheist science"?

So far, Creationists have played an entirely reactionary role. For instance they tend to 'like' Big Bang but 'dislike' multiverse theories. This reaction isn't based on the science but to what extent they deem it more compatible with a particular scriptural description. Each new discovery is 'screened' for compatibility. That's why I regard them as negative, critical and uncreative in their influence.

So really, I would ask you to reconsider your unwarranted and unjustified demands that creationist scientists publish their findings which prove a creator.

They have expressly pledged that they will hunt for evidence of intelligent design in Nature and publish their results. (Evidence, not necessarily outright proof). Clearly, it's not unreasonable to expect them to deliver on their own promise.

 

[Independent]

Anyone know a thing or two about Sir Isaac Newton?

Yes, I've read a biography of Newton. His alchemy studies were hugely important to him. He's not the only man who, bizarrely, could be so brilliant in one part of his life yet seemingly foolish in another.

Newton was a genius but he was also an extremely odd man. When young he poked needles into his own eyes to distort the lens and test his theory of vision.

 

[Scimitar]

I don't see that the Quran has anything to say about science (no reason why it should) so there is nothing to gel or not gel. This whole question seems to have come about as a result of Bucaille.

You mentioned him, so i elaborated on it - Bucaille clearly became a Muslim because he found science to be compatible with the Quran. You feeling ok?

Depends what you define as 'observable science'.

Are you trying to cop out of further explanation by asking me to define a well known term? I used the term "observable science" in the manner in which scientists use it. Is there another?

Once again, the promise of new research was their promise. They said they were being prevented from doing new work in existing institutes. So, it's reasonable to ask where is that new work now.

Christian scientists will try to prove what? Trinity? come on, think before you post. If they are trying to prove a trinity, then they'll be chasing ghosts of their own imaginings, no different to atheist science las thing they'd want to prove is "HEAR O ISRAEL, YOUR LORD GOD IS ONE". Understand?

So far, Creationists have played an entirely reactionary role. For instance they tend to 'like' Big Bang but 'dislike' multiverse theories. This reaction isn't based on the science but to what extent they deem it more compatible with a particular scriptural description. Each new discovery is 'screened' for compatibility. That's why I regard them as negative, critical and uncreative in their influence.

lol at your choice of words. You are pretty much confused in your mind. So now Christian scientists have to be "creative" too? don't you see the problem with your ideas? if you insert your own creativity into science, you are misleading yourself.

What Christian scientists actually do, independent, is debunk atheist science using logic... did you ever study logic? probably not - they only teach it in private schools and is not part of any public curriculum... reason? So the elitist children will be able to push and propagate their ideas of falsity to sheeple.

You should study logic. You'll be able to make better points.

They have expressly pledged that they will hunt for evidence of intelligent design in Nature and publish their results. (Evidence, not necessarily outright proof). Clearly, it's not unreasonable to expect them to deliver on their own promise.

Not being funny but you can find all sorts of things relating to the golden mean, even in your own face - yet YOU are looking for SCIENTIFIC PROOF... LOL, and you are holding scientists from another religion responsible for your own education in understanding creation, when Allah has simply put it for you in Quran. Why do you get a such a bone of contention about it? Surely it's not healthy.

For me, it is enough to look at the shape of a galaxy or the petals of a flower etc and recognise that Allah had designed it perfectly to the ratio of 1.618. And that - for me, is logical proof, I don't require further explanations. And if anyone asks me for any, claiming that my answer will decide if they will be faithful to Allah or not - matters not to me. I am not responsible for anyones guidance -that is Allah's responsibility, not mine.

Surely, Allah guides whom HE wills.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Yes, I've read a biography of Newton. His alchemy studies were hugely important to him. He's not the only man who, bizarrely, could be so brilliant in one part of his life yet seemingly foolish in another.

Newton was a genius but he was also an extremely odd man. When young he poked needles into his own eyes to distort the lens and test his theory of vision.

Aha, you failed to grasp my post.

I was showing you that the Science of Origins, without Islam, is not Science - it's science fiction.

I also showed you an example of logic, when posting the second video.

Problem with you is, you are trying to argue bad science using bad science... use logic. It trumps all evoltionist/neo-darwinists every time, and the only response they have left is "you're a stupid creationist" - how very flagrant and intelligent of them to read some atheist responses - just look at the comments on the video (same vid as OP but mines has comments abled): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASU-AjPA7M

And let's not forget the advice in Quran for when we debate with foolish people:

"to you be your way, unto me be mine" Quran: Al Kafiroon.

EDIT: I'm curious, which biography of Newtons did you read?

 

[Independent]

You mentioned him, so i elaborated on it - Bucaille clearly became a Muslim because he found science to be compatible with the Quran. You feeling ok?

Although he is a scientist, he's not significant for his actual science.

I used the term "observable science" in the manner in which scientists use it. Is there another?

In threads like these I've often see it argued that we can't go back in time, so nothing that happened in the past counts as observable evidence, even if we have some present day record (eg a fossil). The definition of 'observable' in these threads is highly changeable.

Christian scientists will try to prove what? Trinity?

As I have already said, they are looking for evidence of intelligent design. Their research isn't explicitly Christian. I don't know why you're mocking them, most of what they say finds its way into Muslim websites and videos like this one.

So now Christian scientists have to be "creative" too?

They need to prove they can do what they say, which is to have new ideas and expand the boundaries of science, just like 'regular' scientists.

What Christian scientists actually do, independent, is debunk atheist science using logic... did you ever study logic? probably no

Ok, we're down to the insult stage, so let's leave it at that.

 

[Scimitar]

Although he is a scientist, he's not significant for his actual science.

you mentioned him, then I made my point and now you are getting caught up in details that are - neither here nor there! Nice

In threads like these I've often see it argued that we can't go back in time, so nothing that happened in the past counts as observable evidence, even if we have some present day record (eg a fossil). The definition of 'observable' in these threads is highly changeable.

So why did you ask me to define observable science when we are all knowing what it means? You need to learn how to make a point, and not question terms such as "observable science" to ask me what I think it means

As I have already said, they are looking for evidence of intelligent design. Their research isn't explicitly Christian. I don't know why you're mocking them, most of what they say finds its way into Muslim websites and videos like this one.

I did not mock them. I showed you that they employ logic, something you should also do. But you want unequivocal proof. Aint happening, trust me.

They need to prove they can do what they say, which is to have new ideas and expand the boundaries of science, just like 'regular' scientists.

Whose to say they haven't? If you know anything about forming a theory in science, you'd know that these things do not happen over night - they take years, decades even, before the theory can be presented, tested, critiqued etc...

....try patience?

Ok, we're down to the insult stage, so let's leave it at that.

because I suggested that you've never studied logic?

Well, I may as well insult myself too then, since I was never taught it - I bought a book on it and started to read, think, contemplate, and try it.

If you find my advice to be offensive - then I am sorry. It was simply just good advice

Assalaam alaikum

Scimi

 

[Independent]

Whose to say they haven't? If you know anything about forming a theory in science, you'd know that these things do not happen over night - they take years, decades even, before the theory can be presented, tested, critiqued etc...

The Biologic Institute (some of whose members are referenced in the video) was founded in 2005, which is long enough to show some results. The more famous Discovery Institute was founded way back in 1990. Any regular scientist would lose their funding if they don't show results sooner than that.

Make no mistake, i think it's a good idea to set up such institutes and I did expect them to show interesting results. Not necessarily because they were right, but because when you approach a subject from a new angle you can see things that others miss.

 

[جوري]

Any regular scientist would lose their funding if they don't show results sooner than that

that's true which often leads to fudging, especially so on studies where the data isn't reproducible. Of course if you can get private funding from a lobbying group it would be better and better..
for instance who is going to challenge GlaxoSmithKline? Japan might but it hasn't proven fruitful so far.
You are out of your league here unfortunately!

best,

 

[Scimitar]

The Biologic Institute (some of whose members are referenced in the video) was founded in 2005, which is long enough to show some results. The more famous Discovery Institute was founded way back in 1990. Any regular scientist would lose their funding if they don't show results sooner than that.

Make no mistake, i think it's a good idea to set up such institutes and I did expect them to show interesting results. Not necessarily because they were right, but because when you approach a subject from a new angle you can see things that others miss.

for instance who is going to challenge GlaxoSmithKline? Japan might but it hasn't proven fruitful so far.
You are out of your league here unfortunately!

that's actually an excellent example to contrast by.

Like she said independent, it aint happening, just not in the common interest of those wanting to profiteer from research. The godless agenda is a material one and far more fruitful in monetary terms than one which promotes alms giving.

Like I said, we have to recognise the times we are living in and see the world in context. Idealisim is all good, when it's practical, unfortunately most people these days equate practicality with pragmatism... interesting times we are witness to.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that Darwins theory wasn't initially accepted. He couldn't even convince the scientists of his time, and it wasn't until 50 years later that Darwins theory was published and was only done so in order to help drive research into how inheritance and variation work.

50 years.

 

[جوري]

that's actually an excellent example to contrast by.

This actually happened it is not an arbitrary example I am drawing from - I despise hypotheticals and that is all that atheists seem to draw from.
Recently Japan released studies that showed infertility in women who were vaccinated by Guardasil which is produced by said company. This study is all but unheard of in the west. From the inception of that vaccine politicians have been trying to push it on as necessary with all that it entails of back and forth healthcare politics, ethical dilemmas, parents rights etc. frankly (I am not anti vaccines by any means) but this only guards against three strains anyways and not very well studied and there's no room for politics in medicine, just like there's no room for philosophy in science.
People need to file things under the correct branches. Science is simple a bough in a large tree created by God. It doesn't trump nor does it define the nature of the divine and the sooner these undereducated pseudo-intellectuals realize that and don't advertise for their ailing ideology here, the better off we will all be!

 

[Scimitar]

Amen to that

either way, I think this thread has run its course... eventually, don't they all? We must have one of the richest archives of theism vs atheism debates on the net, right here on IBForum

Scimi

 

[جوري]

It's a catharsis for most of them nothing more nothing less and an unfortunate waste if time - they do it almost like their form of worship!

 

[Scimitar]

Pwahahaa, form of worship hahahahaaa,

I've stayed out of these debates for a while now. Too repetitive, I only got involved in this one because of independents posts, which had to be reconciled. Good lad, that one, keen. Masha-Allah.

Scimi

 

[Independent]

EDIT: Just wanted to add that Darwins theory wasn't initially accepted. He couldn't even convince the scientists of his time, and it wasn't until 50 years later that Darwins theory was published and was only done so in order to help drive research into how inheritance and variation work.

Why you think this favours your argument I don't know. The resistance to Darwin was of course both enormous and highly personal, right from the start. You might say it was a 'conspiracy' against him -.except that you want the conspiracy to be the other way, of course.

The truth is, it can be difficult to change the orthodox view in any time.

As for the Creationist scientists, you have suggested that their work has been prevented by censorship and lack of jobs. Yet in their own institutes, where unlike regular scientists they benefit from interest group funding and are immune to the normal commercial pressures, they have yet to come up with any significant contribution to science.

So when we look at results, it's not true that they have been handicapped. They simply have nothing to say, except to react and to criticise the work of others. It's not exactly heroic and pioneering.