In this study, some inferences are made about the value of scientific approach and studies that investigate the evidence of the acceptance of the existence of a creator for the humanity and makes its inferences in this way and the worth of the scientific knowledge and interpretations in this direction. Also, some analyses have been made about how a scientific approach that accepts the Creator’s existence will be presented to the world of science. The creation model is an upper model that deals with the one who operates the mechanisms and not with the nature of them and it does not address the approaches as evolution directly. In a world where some world-famous physicists try to explain the origins of the universe through laws and theories, the rotten atheism trap will be deciphered by clarifying the laws of nature in the clearest way and academic analyses. I will clearly and certainly be proved that the evolution cannot be an alternative to creation. This study will also contribute to the creation of a scientific model, interpretation and accepted scientific approaches that will be an alternative to the other scientific approaches about the existence of the creator.
Questioning the Factors That Determine the Value of Scientific Information
Once our spirit is sent to our body, we find ourselves unsolicitously in this amazing and beautiful universe.
Well, “Why are we here? Who has sent us here? And where are we going after here? Who are we and what is wanted from us? What are we doing here?
So many things have been said and written in the way of solving the secret of the great cosmic puzzle and the conundrum of the universe, which keeps the answers of these question within and do not open then to everybody. So many thoughts have been revealed by so many individuals under this sky. However, finding definite answers has always been so far away.
Why are the real answers to such questions asked during all history of mankind important for us? What does it mean that the human, which is an unimportant living being in terms of his physical weaknesses, ask questions that are much bigger than what he can handle? Such a weak human being could only gain value and meaning with its intelligence and comprehension and he did so. But his body is still helpless, his needs are limitless and he is sentenced to death. Since all these weaknesses stay as they are, he still continues to seem as if he will “disappear”, would not the value he earned and the meaning he represents turn into insignificance and meaninglessness?
Now at this important point we ask: what kind of truth can change this situation fundamentally? The human being has been elevated with his intellect and went down back with the death. Then what kind of reality can uplift him back and make his value a real one.
We are asking this. Is there such a great discovery that would not negate his great potential and comprehensive capabilities, that will rejoice his sad spirit?
Do you think that the value of such a meaningful reality could be estimated properly? Such a thing is possible if it is certainly understood that the World is constructed especially for us.
Because such a discovery will also reveal the fact that the purpose of our existence in the world is to see the special treatment towards us and to appreciate it (If this is the case in reality, and it this fact is revealed). In other words, if someone has brought you here and he has been nurturing you with blessings, this is not in vain. Since we have intellect and comprehension facilities, it is understood that we are asked for something. What is that? It is so easy. It is to see, recognize that special treatment and appreciate it.
If this is really the case, then, the life and the world we live in shall be brightened by a very different light and we will be able to look at the universe from a very different perspective. It means that we will be able to have this opportunity as a human being.
Each one of us will be able to say, “This world is my home and it is specially built for me”. It will come to the light that the world is not a chaotic place moving haphazardly in the space and among the meteors, for which it is worried that it will bring its doomsday by hitting one of them, leading us into a mystery; a place where continuously some are born and some others die; but rather a guesthouse for us.
The goal of obtaining this information in the highest degree of certainty is a high horizon for the science. The quality of all findings in this direction and the inferences of all studies to be made in this area will be a factor that will determine the real value of scientific information.
Moreover, we claim that the value of scientific approaches and studies which search for evidence for acceptance of the existence of a creator and which make their conclusions in this direction is much higher and meaningful for the humanity compared to atheistic approaches which leave the creator out of consideration from the very beginning.
The discovery of the fact that the world is a temporary guesthouse is a great truth giving birth to a chain of spectacular truths. Recognizing, in its real sense, the owner/master of the palace would change the colour/appearance of everything, and it will be the basis of earning the eternal life. A person, who knows why he or she is here, will look at everything or every event from this perspective. Philosophy and science always try to understand the universe. But, either they can’t find conclusive and net answers like a cat trying to reach his own tail, or if any, the answers claimed to be found are shallow and meaningless that do not befit the universe. Yes, this is a reality. The disappointment is inevitable for a man who tries to understand the universe just by using his intellect. This has been the case in the past and will be so in the future.
This is because; the mind cannot know the reality of the universe on its own without the guidance of the divine revelation. Besides this, the mind itself dictates to be the subject of the divine revelation as all the sayings of the divine message is logical.
Why can the logic not find its way on its own? For instance, somebody secretly puts you asleep by anesthetizing you and take you to a facility on an island. When you wake up you see there are several people like you brought to the island against their will.
Now we ask this: How could people on the island know the purpose of the establishment of a facility existing on the island?
We wonder if it there is any other way of finding conclusive information on how they came to the island other than the notification of this information by the one who brought them to the island? Each of the hundreds of people can produce a great number of theories about the island, the facility and about themselves and they can make numerous guesses about why they are kept there. Besides complex conspiracy theories, there could be also people arguing that a definite answer could not be given on this subject. And even, there could be adrifts –with drunken souls saying: “Never mind questioning what and why.. Let us eat and drink and enjoy ourselves here. We live as much as we are allowed”. However, these questions need to be asked absolutely.
Every wise person appreciates the importance of finding those answers and sees, as a cause, that wondering why he is brought to the island is a necessity of being a human.
It is so obvious who will answer: The One who has sent you there, who established and has been running that facility, will also give you the answer. If a person is brought to somewhere, against his will, for a purpose, then, the right to speak in that issue belongs to the One who brought him there. The one who knows the answer to this question is only that person knows why you are brought there and what you are asked for. It can’t be anyone else. Therefore, first of all, we have to find out who has brought us here and then we should learn the answers to our questions from him.
In fact, we are saying a very simple thing: Since the one who does, knows, for sure, the one who knows also speaks. This is a rule of logic. The person who constructs the universe, who operates this world as a guesthouse and who sent him into this universe against his will, certainly and only knows its reason and what man is asked for. So, without any doubt, He will notify these things as well. And presumably, he must have informed. Don’t you think so?
The truth is not complicated. The truth is simple, accurate and clear as far as possible. The nature of the truth necessitates that. The purpose of the creation of the universe as revealed by the Creator through his religion is a clear and simple expression of the truth. Now we are at a point where all the philosophies and false religions go bankrupt and fail the class. It is only the Creator Himself that could manifest/notify the real shape/essence of the human being and the purpose of his creation in a definite and clear way.
Yes, this is how it happened. The God who address to us through his books, which is his divine discourse, and with his Messengers (who are authenticated with their miracles, high morals and with their not asking any fees for their duties as prophets) informed us of the deepest truths in a simple but very eminent declaration.
Now imagine the package of a gift. The gift is put in a top-quality box. The package is surrounded by ribbons, bands. And there are fragrant rose petals placed around the gift inside the box. The one who puts aside the package of the gift after having opened it and then directs his attention to the gift itself is a wise person.
No one can claim that the person, who is not interested in the gift, throwing it away and playing with the package, is rational. The person who is not interested in the gift itself and pays all his attention to Its fancy package declares her ignorance and lack of Intelligence. This universe can be resembled to an enormous set of gifts, containing a large number of valuable and meaningful gifts.
Their eye-brightening decorations and artful appearances are just like the packages of that giant gift set. The packages are carefully decorated in this way due to the value and the meaning of the gift.
Then, if it is asked: what kind of value does it have? What is the meaning that it has?
The value of the gift comes from the fact that the One with unlimited power, knowledge, excellence, beauty, compassion and generosity, have sent it in order to introduce and endear Himself to us.
The meaning of the gift, on the other hand, is that it is an open invitation to us to introduce his excellent beauty showing that, if we know and love the sender of this gift, he will continue to give the originals of these gifts forever. The fact that the blessings contained in these gifts are tasted by everybody only for a limited time and nobody is allowed to be fully satisfied shows us that these gifts are only samples of the original gifts so that we could seek for the real blessings. It should be assessed what kind of an apathy and ignorance besides mindlessness if someone is not realizing that this is the real gift and why and by whom it has been sent.
Divine revelation is like the sun when it comes to the declaration of the essence of the matter. Just like sun enlightens the matter and shows us its existence, in the same way, Quran, which is a divine revelation, takes the wisdom, the truth and the meaning of the matter out from where they are hiding and shows us their real meaning. It is not possible to see and know the existence of objects in a dark square. Without the sun of Quran, if the mind, which is like a dim hand lamp, is used on its own, the essence of the matter can’t be seen and known in its proper sense. The parts seen by mind on their own are nothing more than the messy and blurred copies of the reality. The approaches that leave the creator out of consideration and claim to be scientific, look at everything at the universe for their own interest and do not take into account the Master who has created them. What happens in that case? The deepest meaning of nature, which is a valuable and meaningful piece of art, hides out and their highest moral and spiritual values take cover, just its material value remains. How much would it worth?
The real beauty of a piece of art is its connection with its artist. In this way, it assumes its real meaning. We wonder how deep is the meaning of such a situation: you accidentally satisfy your needs with the fruits extended to you by the hands of branches coming out of the soil like a mud which is formed by coming together of factors that do not know you; in other words, you are given these blessings by coincidence.
Well, what about the meaning of such a situation: You know that a person, who can only be known with its works where he shows his endless beauty and excellence, limitless power, knowledge, will and compassion, who knows, sees and loves you, offers you these fruits in order to make himself known to you as he has already made this soil and tree a cover for himself. How high and beautiful could be the meaning and the value of knowing that these fruits are sent you as gifts by such a person compared to other situation?
And, what if, such information leads you to the source of all gifts, being a harbinger for the gifts to be received, meaning that you are invited to meet and know the owner of the treatments. How much importance should be placed on that?
Could it be possible to assess the scientific value of such Information?
Wouldn’t the real beauty of this universe be revealed if we look at it in the name of the powerful and compassionate master, who is the owner and the ruler of this universe, whom we have known to be aware of our all needs and desires by understanding that He is the One who creates an orange just in accordance with the needs of our body, our visual pleasure and taste?
Wouldn’t the saying “How beautifully it is created” give an utterly different meaning and value to the matter and objects? Unfortunately, mistaken and ill-judged presentations made by the materialists of our time, whose eyes are in their minds, shaping the scientific data as they like in their materialistic worldview, are accepted as correct and palatable and hence, in this way, the masses are deprived of the moral treasure of the real understanding of science which is nourishing the soul and opening the doors of personal development to the end.
Whereas, Quran and scientific approaches and interpretations, which are developed through a window opened by the existence of a creator, open an infinite treasure of science/knowledge for the minds, by showing the exemplary miracles of divine power everywhere and over every living being. Thus, a door of spiritual elevation is opened up with every living being from which lessons are drawn and with artful creature, whose beauty is amazing.
To the attention of all human being who are the lovers of the truth and to the community of scientist, who are our friends and companions on the way to achieve the reality, we would like to state and declare that: a scientific approach leaving the existence of the creator out of discussion as irrelevant is a meaningless mass of information, a false nonsense and an insult to the high value the universe possesses.
The Scientific Compliance of the Thought of The Existence of A Creator
Modern Positive Science represents an accumulation of knowledge which is interested in determining and explaining the relationship among the events introduced to us by our senses and experiences and the laws by which these events come into being. Unfortunately, it confines itself just to this area.
On the other hand, we see that an interpretation of the scientific data made by a scientist in order to express his philosophical views are mixed up with the science itself and these interpretations are accepted as science. And the scientists, who do not abstain from presenting their own subjective views to the people as science, are the cause of this anomaly.
If an approach whose absolute accuracy is not proven and which does not have experimental data, has correct logical inferences which are supported by researches based on serious rational evidence, it can be accepted as an alternative scientific model and based on this model, research can be carried out.
Such scientific approaches cannot be considered as a subjective intellectual approach or cannot be categorized as philosophy as they have the characteristics of the scientific working model. A model of the universe, which is accepted to be created, constructed and controlled by a single creator cannot be considered as non-scientific because it is possible to verify it by logical evidence and to prove the necessity of the model with logical analysis which are conclusive at the level of necessity.
On the other hand, we are of the opinion that it is not appropriate to evaluate the theory of evolution and similar approaches within the category of science as they have the fictional characteristic.
What can be expected from a product, which is presented in the name of science? How should its value be measured? What should it provide human-beings with and with what content should it be presented so that, in real terms, it could be considered valuable as a scientific product? We wonder, what characteristics should the science, our companion in better understanding the universe, have so that it could take us to higher levels in our personal development during our exchange of information with it?
In our opinion, the modern age’s philosophy and science, which are working in order to discover the formation of the matter and the laws of its working, and very skilful in finding out the specifics and the principles in this regard, are far from making any contribution to the elevation of human spirit and his personal development. Because the information provided by them is soulless, dull, gloomy and meaningless. The scientific data and the mass of information which are not meaningfully interpreted could give a person nothing but the feeling of fear, dread and quandary. Although at times it is claimed that science has a target of correctly interpreting the universe and making meaningful deductions; the shallowness of the methods used in this respect and narrowness of the perspective shows that the modern philosophy of science has a suspicious character far away from being sincere and credible. Let’s have a look at how does our “smart aleck” science explain the incessantly burning of stars in the space without oxygen for billions of years?
But first of all, in order to create awareness for you, we will draw your attention to the following: The answer given by the science is not more meaningful than those expressions “The sun burns because it burns; a star shines as it is a star”. Please have a look at these words: “When we go up into the space we see that there is no oxygen. Then, how does this happen? The answer is so easy (?!). The sun produces its own energy. Heat and pressure levels are very high in the sun. We can call it a giant store of hydrogen. It contains hydrogen and helium atoms. The essence of the matter is the reaction of hydrogen and helium atoms. The reaction of these two atoms produces an enormous amount of energy. This energy is heat. Also, as a result of this reaction, stars shine.”
Could you say, “We are really enlightened and amazed” about the statement made above? Are you aware that nothing has been said that could have some value other than the event itself and the way it functions?
Even more interesting, if you pay attention to the style of expression, an event with such magnificence that worth being admired anew every day is presented in an ordinary and simplified way. Here is ungodly science, such nonsense without truth! Don’t be fooled! You should know with certainty that it is only Quran that teaches us the true essence of the matter. And it says that “He has made the sun a lamp for you… This is the real wisdom…
Now, again let us give another clear example. A discipline of science investigating the physical characteristics of the soil could easily calculate that it is a very low probability to have such a “fine-tuning” in the soil which enables it to be soft enough so as to be suitable for farming and at the same time firm enough so as to have construction over it.
When we look at the works that are presented to us as “scientific”, we see that the soil’s most detailed characteristics are described, it is classified in most detailed manners whereas the questions as to why the earth is suitable for the formation of human civilization and what is the meaning and the value of this fact for our civilization and humankind and what this information would mean in our journey of making sense out of our universe,
And, what kind of power is behind this miraculous structure, “which is clearly understood to be presented to our usage on purpose” and how we should thank for such a miraculous help, are left outside the context of the science. This situation deprives the humanity of the spiritual and moral ascent and the science of being a meaningful information activity.
In the face of what we have seen, we are asking: isn’t it necessary, due to respect to science and to the human mind, to admit sincerely the real meaning of the scientific data that has been obtained?
It is said that: “Thinking of a God is not serving the scientific purpose. Even thinking of that possibility does not fit with being scientific.” Then, why is this so? For what reasons is it against being scientific to think that this computer we have here, is produced “by a computer engineer who we have never seen” or “by a factory whose detailed properties we never know”? Even when there is no scientist who can claim this; and even when saying that “The parts of that computer came together and created it on their own” is not more in line with being scientific; then thinking that living things which are much more perfect, speaking, smiling, being sad or this orderly universe are created by a logical consciousness, that is, by a mindful creator or making an inference in that direction is “against being scientific”? And claiming that such wonders of design come together and are formed on their own is “being scientific”? Is that so? What kind of logic is this? Could anyone who respects science believe in such a thing?
The expressions such as “We act as if there is no creator, science is neutral”, which are introduced as the philosophy of science are far from being credible. They claim to be neutral, but they do not behave accordingly. Always and under every condition, they behave as if there is no creator; everything is told with assumptions based on the non-existence of the creator.
They say: “Flower does…”, “Nature does that…” and even they claim, “Nature creates…”. Don’t we have to ask what kind of neutrality is this? In our opinion, this style of presentation is not real impartiality.
Certainly, it is not even science at all. We think that it is nothing but promoting as science what you fictionalize in your mind.
Indeed, the reason that leads many people to such a mistake, is the feeling of being obliged to reject the idea of a non-material creator who creates and manages this universe and even if it is forceful, to try to find out another answer except this one. As you know, rejecting from the very beginning is called prejudice. In fact, this is also contrary to scientific thinking technique. These are all shameful attitudes in the name of science: to make the scientific thinking an instrument of this erroneous thinking in order to impose personal preferences and conditioning in the name of scientific thinking; to present this conditioning as a necessity of scientific thinking; and to establish restrictive rules in this area by claiming that assuming the existence of a creator or assuming his existence as probability are all against scientific thinking.
Nobody, who claims that he is doing science, could dare to impose such a rule. He simply cannot. In the face of the probability of a creator, such rule is incredible. How can one call this as “scientific thinking technique”? In fact, this is an unscientific thinking technique. The attitude which is really against scientific thinking is, in the face of the probability of the existence of the creator, behaving as if there is no such probability, basing all principles and rules upon this wrong assumption and narrating and interpreting the working of the universe as if there is no creator, and being disturbed even by the idea of the existence of a creator. Yes, this disturbance is pronounced by some advocates of atheism and they say they don’t see thinking the plausibility of the existence of a creator as consistent with science and scientific thinking.
But, why shouldn’t the idea of the existence of a creator be consistent with science? To the contrary, it can be even more consistent with science.
Now let us go on with the same example: which one is more logical and scientific: thinking that the computer before us came into existence on its own or making a research over the probability that it could be created by an engineer and by a factory? Which one could be considered as more consistent with the scientific thinking technique? Even if we do not have any idea about this computer at the beginning, isn’t the second option more healthy approach in terms of scientific thinking? Therefore, trying to explain these visible objects with the laws of nature, which are nothing more than the rules of invention and operation of these objects; is a meaningless effort and it is not different from trying to explain the making of a computer, its built-up and working just with its operating system without taking into account its designing engineer and producing factory. It is storytelling, a baseless science-fiction, and nonsense. It is not being scientific.
We have to make a clear determination that explaining the formation of the mater/objects with a creator is more compatible with scientific thought and more logical; a reasonable and acceptable way, an alternative possibility comprising many facilities, almost at the level of certainty, if there is a model worth being accepted as scientific, this model deserves more being accepted as scientific than any other. At that point, we need to clarify some concepts. What do we understand when we say “proving”? What does “proving” mean? What does it mean if a claim has hard/conclusive evidence? What is the difference between the logical evidence and the concrete reality?
First of all, even if something does not have a concrete and visual reality, it could still be possible to prove it with logical evidence. “Proving” means showing crystal clear the trueness of a claim by giving evidence. Now, in matters related to the existence of a creator, there is no such evidence that can be held in your hands and seen by your eyes. Nevertheless, it would be a great injustice to reality and a wrong judgment to say that these matters are not rational and that there are no accurate logical evidences just because this is the case.
The example we will be giving here is a well-known one. However, it is very useful in understanding the essence of the matter and its basic logic. That’s why we think that it should be highlighted. Now imagine this: a painter is working behind a curtain and we can just see his brush. How can we know that this painter has painted that picture?
Should we think that, the picture is done by the paint and the brush just because the painter is out of our sight? However, if we examine carefully, we see that these paints and the brush do not have the capacity to process and make art. Hence, this situation makes us look for a painter with an ability to make art and it makes us accept his existence as if we have seen him. Let us ask you this: According to this example, is it possible to have a visual and material evidence of the existence of the painter? Of course, it is not and It can’t be.
Because there is someone who is influencing/affecting and he is out of your area of observation and experimentation. But, just because this is the case, accepting that the work is done by objects which are visible but which do not have the capability to do that work is not more scientific than accepting that there is a dexterous painter behind the curtain, who is capable of doing artistic work.
The art over the matter/objects is a nonmaterial abstract reality, which is invisible to the eye but can only be known and appreciated by the heart.
Even though we do not have material and visual evidence, the existence of the piece of art seen by our material eye is a strong and definite enough evidence for the existence of the painter. And seeing the existence of the work, that is, the piece of art, as a “scientific evidence” for the trueness of the existence of the painter and using that in evidencing the existence of the painter are acceptable logical evidence whose truth can be seen by the eye of the mind.
As you see, the rational evidence about the existence of a creator, which is formed on the basis of “the transition (making an inference) from the piece of art to the existence of its Artist/Master” have the same characteristics.
They are both very strong and their consistency with mind and logic is absolute; they also have the quality of proving at the level of certainty. This is what we say and claim. The truths of religion are basically theoretical, but in terms of their results, they are conclusive realities, which have logical and theoretical evidence, giving support to each other and with their soundness not giving any possibility to opposite ideas.
In our opinion, the appropriateness of inductive logical inferences related to the existence of a creator with scientific thinking and their inclination to scientific evidencing are beyond any doubt.
Important Points on Evolution, Atheism and Creation
Evolution is an alternative theory (which has characteristics of fiction and which resembles a science fiction story rather than a scientific theory) for “coming into existence and functioning of living beings”. The mechanism itself, this or that, is a variable independent of the fact whether there is a creator of the living beings or not, whether they come into being coincidentally. In other words, the creator could have created the living things by using the mechanism of evolution.
Saying that “living beings are created with material causes and through the mechanism of evolution” is one thing and saying that “living beings are created by materials and by the mechanisms of evolution” is quite another thing.
Nevertheless, we, of course, reject the atheistic notion of evolution which claims that the living beings come into existence coincidentally evolving from each other without intervention of any creator.
However, the Tawheed, which is the faith in Oneness, is a superior model, which is interested not in the mechanisms but rather in who is operating this mechanism, and which does not address itself to such approaches.
In short, the evolution is not an alternative for the creation. The creation model answers the questions of who creates and operates the matter and the living beings (and the functions and mechanisms) while evolution answers how and with which mechanisms they function.
The Theory of evolution, like natural laws, only describes the rules, mechanisms and the system (with its own fictional assumptions) of an existing visible formation and it does not have the properties of a real explanation and does not give any information about the one who really handles and has an effect over the living formations.
But if is somebody, puts his own philosophical acceptance of atheism and coincidence under the cover of evolution and abuses it as an instrument of ungodliness and present it as a scientific reality then we would object to that.
Other than that, we do not address ourselves to evolution or see it as an alternative in terms of the faith in Oneness so that in Risale-i Nur, has been seen as target and adversary and as alternative explanations of the formation of the matter but evolution has not been mentioned at all and no effort was made to refute it, because once it is proved that all these cannot happen accidentally, then evolution will lose its fancy.
(The expression that we do not address ourselves to it in terms of the faith in Oneness means that we do not see as an opposing, competing approach that presents an alternative to the reality of the existence of a creator and Quran has no trouble and it does not fight with such an approach and Quran leaves us room for making all types of research in this area. It is not in a position to evaluate different scientific approaches. Our analysis explaining this expression can be found both in this article as well as in the texts on scientific findings of evolution in the previous section.)
If someone who finds a user manual of a television and a brochure displaying the scheme of evolution for all models of television, from the oldest to the newest ones, and says that, “now we do not need an electrical engineer or a factory anymore to explain the existence of the television” then we can see this as an illusion and a fallacy; then in the same way, thinking that evolution mechanisms, which are working rules and formation mechanisms, also make the creator unnecessary is so much more a nonsense and a scientific lie. (Remember Hawking’s words: “Darwinism ended Biology’s need for a Creator.”)
For years we have been indoctrinated with the idea that evolution was a theory to explain the coming into existence of the living things. Here, we had better divide the theory of evolution in two parts. First one is the approach which presents evolution just as a mechanism by which the living beings come into e existence and not as the real affect leading to that. Then we need not to address to this approach, because functioning and mechanisms could not replace the real cause and take over their place.
The other approach is showed by those who respond to the question of what makes the evolution mechanism by replying (or by being forced to reply) with these words: “of course with coincidence” and claim that the mechanisms based on evolution should be accepted as the real causes of the existence of living beings (coming into existence on their own without a need for a creator). It is this part that is a categorically erroneous.
All the critiques about in our book (Academic Proof of the Creator: New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature) and in this section about the theory of evolution are valid for the atheistic evolutionary approach, which accepts the evolution as the true explanation of living creatures and which asserts that the mechanisms exist themselves and they are created by material reasons and they do not need any external creator. Otherwise, the critiques are not directed to scientific approaches that present evolution as a mechanism of forming the living creature and that do not present as the unique influential cause. (The reasons why we do not accept the evolutionary approach that does not reject the effect of the Creator and we consider this approach distant from the science are explained in the New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature and in the negotiation section at the end.)
Intermediary Note on the Concept of “Coincidental Formation”:
It can be said: “However, in scientific theories and explanations, it is not told that life was coincidentally formed. Everything is based on certain concepts and mechanisms”.
If there is such an objection, then our response is as following: Whatever the name and the mechanism proposed is, whether nature, evolution or mutation, if these were conscious matters/material objects which could perform a work by planning and preferring; then making any explanation based on these factors could be considered as irrelevant to coincidence. Since material causes are lifeless, likewise, they are things that act in an unconscious, ignorant, and unplanned fashion without any willpower. Our position is so clear indeed. Nevertheless, however hard you may try, you can’t paint the imaginary fictions with the colour of the truth. The fact that processes and material causes lack the capability to create the results themselves necessitates the search for another external reason affecting the events. Then of course, attributing (the reasons of existence) to these ignorant, unconscious, powerless matters, even to laws of nature, which do not have any material existence, not being more than the explanations of the emerging events, and to evolutional processes; would not have a meaning other than randomness, spontaneity and coincidence.
Approach to the Laws of Nature
For the execution of a law, a lawmaker that is, willpower, is necessary, otherwise, laws do not have the capacity to be implemented on their own. As their name suggests, they are laws, principles showing how a decision given on a specific issue shall be implemented. What kind of thing is a law? It is something abstract. Does it have a concrete existence? No. How is its existence known? With its works and results. It makes itself known when it is applied. When you say, “The Court implemented the death sentence, executed it” the law comes to the fore. It shows itself with the execution of the decision.
Laws of nature are also abstract concepts, which show their effect over the matter/objects, but which lack external and concrete existence. Famous laws of nature are nothing more than that. In other words, they are just empty concepts. In essence, laws of nature are names given to the principles of the action/movement of the matter/object, which act/move continuously in a certain orderly way, which can be determined due to this order in their actions/movements.
It could be claimed if the matter/objects did not move orderly; no discipline of science would ever be established. A specific point: The Laws of Nature are not objects with the material substance, which have the properties, capabilities to create themselves or other things. They could not be the source of anything or any event. They could not be the reason of any formation. They are nothing more than explanations of the working of a systematic event or formation. Otherwise, let alone the creation of the matter/objects or be a source for the movement of the matter and objects, these laws could not even explain their own essence or the reasons of their existence.
For example, we look at a valley from the top of a hill, and we see that every day at 12:00; 14:00; 16:00; 18:00 and 20:00 a train passes by and this is repeated regularly. Having observed that this is an event happening regularly without any interruption, we take note of the way this event happens, that is to say, the principle of the movement of the train, on our notebook and write down the following: “A train passes through the valley every day at certain times. This event is continuously repeated without any interruption. Let us give a name, in our explanatory note, to this reality, the rule or the principle related to the time and the speed at which the train passes: “The law of Train’s Movement”. We wonder if this “Law of Train’s Movement” could come to life and have a material existence and then going back in time, could it become the conscious power making the train pass by at certain hours at a certain speed? And even, could it become the one who designs and creates this train? Could such an absurd idea be accepted as scientific thinking?
Here, we repeatedly manifest that: The laws of nature are also exactly like this. Just because you give a fancy name to a visible event or you have explained the principles of the formation of that event, your explanations could neither be the real cause creating that event or become a source of effect leading to that event.
The laws of nature, which are claimed to operate living or non-living elements, cannot really explain anything, as they are non-solid and abstract concepts referring only to the description of the movement and operation of the material, let alone the works requiring consciousness, will and knowledge.
Stephen Hawking, in a television interview, gave a very interesting reply for a question, and said that the origin of the force of gravity is in M Theory. Dr John Lennox, a Math Professor at Oxford University and the writer of the book titled “Let’s keep it between you and me but there is God” evaluates, in a striking way, “Grand Design” and “Theory of Everything”, the books written by Stephen Hawking:
“Scientists create theories which include mathematical laws, in order to explain natural events. However, theories and laws themselves can’t create these natural events. Theories and laws are mathematical explanations for certain things that take place under certain conditions. A law of nature is descriptive and predictive. However, it is not creative and it can’t be.”
(In other words, the law of nature says: “This happens in that way and will happen like that in the future”. If we say it more concretely, saying that laws are descriptive means telling the object is falling because of the force of gravity. When we tell “if we leave the object free, it will fall down” is an example of laws’ being predictive. But it does not necessitate being the creator. It, at most, describes the event.)
“Newton’s law of gravity can’t create the force of gravity or the object which is affected by the gravity. And even Newton himself realized, it does not either explain the gravity itself. Neither scientific laws could create something or cause something come into being. Newton’s law of motion has never moved any billiard ball over a table. A billiard ball can only be moved with the use of a stick by human muscles. Laws only enable us to observe the movement of the ball and to forecast its course until another event / force interrupts it. Let alone creating anything, laws could not even make a ball move.”
Dr. John Lennox continues with his striking points: “1+1=2, this simple arithmetic rule has never created anything. This rule has never deposited some money in either my bank account or in someone else’s bank accounts. Today I have $1000 in my bank account. And if I put $ 1000 dollars more tomorrow, this arithmetic rule says I have $2000 in my bank account. But, if I don’t deposit any money and expect it from this rule of arithmetic, then I would stay bankrupt forever. Thinking that laws can do something on their own is no different than thinking that you can earn money just by doing addition. Thank you Dr. John Lennox and we keep going:
On the other hand, all material elements moving and operating with the functional principles of the laws of nature cannot be considered as influential causes in real terms or the real demonstrators of their creation, indeed.
Because a simple condition for a thing is not the “real reason/cause” of that thing. If you do not give water to a garden, it dries out. Just by looking at this fact, it can’t be said that water is the sole reason of existence of the plants in the garden. This is what we are trying to explain.
The appearance of the images on a television is dependent on the condition of a switch button being pressed. However, believing that it is the magical switch what makes this television work is something that could be done, by someone who is unaware of the existence of factory producing that TV, the electronic engineers and numerous parts making up the television, that is to say, the civilization. Or at best he or she could be considered as a thoughtless person.
Now we are returning the laws of nature and asking: In a situation where the matter acts disorderly, how will you find rules and put them into a book? What then will you call as science? Everything that we call science and whatever we have in the name of science, is the knowledge accumulated as a result of the orderly movement/acting of the matter and it is a reflection of the regularity of the universe. If the matter did not act orderly, would we have anything called science? Of course we would not, As you see, although the law of nature is a concept which does not have a material body, it just serves to express how the matter/objects act, move. What we intend to say is this: trying to explain the movement/action of the matter just by the laws of nature only resembles the following example:
Just how much far away from being intelligent and scientific is trying to explain (the creation/flight) of a passenger plane, which is designed by an expert engineer and produced by a big factory, just with the air’s lifting power, with law of thermodynamics, with electric power or with coming together of the parts of the plane, and even going further and claiming that the plane is self-created, not taking into account the engineer and the factory at all, not mentioning their names and leaving them out of any explanation in this regard. We think it is a thousand times more unintelligent and unscientific than this example to explain the mechanism of birds, which have a far more advanced flight system, comprising thousands of species, hundreds of millions of members with laws of nature.
Just like it is impossible for a plane to build itself (presumably, there is no one claiming for the opposite). In a similar way, the matter /objects in the universe resemble the parts of a plane. The parts of the plane cannot be produced and they cannot function without the knowledge and the will of an engineer and the power of a factory. In fact, everybody accepts and nobody denies that this plane is made by using these parts. This is a very important detail. We also accept it and we do not deny it. But we say this: “My Friend, for God’s sake! May Allah give you a heart! These parts cannot say this “Let’s come together and form/create a plane! Is this so difficult to understand? What is unscientific about expressing this fact?
We say that the universe is also wisely designed and built, and that the creator of the matter and the living things inside it cannot be the universe itself. With this thinking, the causes are never denied. Is it science or the, causes, the nature or the creator? There is no need to make a choice between them, there are no dichotomies. In fact, they all function/work together! You can’t think of a plane as something separate from the laws of thermodynamics. The point against which we make our objection is this: why the engineer of that plane is not taken into account. This is all that we care about. Here, it is concluded by reason that all these causes, and the object of design and great art are made by someone who has the characteristics and the qualities to create them.
In summary, the laws of nature do not have external material existence; they are just existent in the knowledge of Allah and they are applied with the working of his power. Their existence is known with their consistent effects and results and their working based on a principle is scientifically determined.
Nature is an imaginative concept which does not have material reality. Even though its material existence is accepted, it could only be a piece of art; it can’t be the artist, the master of that art. As it does not have such capabilities, he can’t do it. Since it does not have and such capabilities do not appear with it, then, it means it does not do these works, but they are done by someone else above it. In this situation it is necessary to accept that, nature is not itself an artist, but it is rather a canvas on which a picture is painted, that is why the pieces of art are shown over it.
We see there are certain embroideries decorated on the nature, and we do not deny it. We don’t have such a claim. We accept the parameters provided by the science as given. But there is a difference of interpretation here. Our objection is to the labelling of the differences of opinion as science. We say our interpretation is this one. Our interpretation is more logical. And we claim that those embroideries are made by someone else.
The laws of nature apply rules and have effects, but we say that the one who puts these rules, that is to say, law-maker, is someone else. We accept that nature sometimes functions as a curtain covering the states of the matter that look not appropriate with the greatness and the glory of the divine power but we reject the idea that it is the creator itself. We say that, the created actions work in nature and it is not nature what creates and work on those actions. A law of nature, which has abstract existence, is not a force that has the characteristics of carrying out actions on its own, so it is not possible to attribute the actions done within the objects to the laws of nature. Nature is like a table over which a note is written. It is not the hand holding the pen or the person writing the note. It can’t be.
Scientific Findings about Evolution
“How should we answer such a question with an approach appropriate with Quran? Can we accept Evolution if we take coincidence and atheism out of it? Have all living things come into existence from a single cell, having evolved from each other? Our short answer to such questions is this:
Evolution and development are two different things. Allah creates the universe and the living beings through a process of development. He does not create it all of a sudden, not just like a magician taking the rabbit out of his hat out of blue. However, the creation of the first individuals could be out of nothingness. And it can be thought that, the creation of other individuals continues through certain processes of physical and natural development. In that matter, let us try to look at the issue from Allah’s perspective and make our deductions accordingly. A Master of Art, with limitless power, although he has the capability to make a limitless number of canvases and paintings, he does not make separate paintings over separate canvases, but he makes all his painting over a single canvas by making changes over the pictures/paintings. And even he uses the paints of all pictures to make new paintings! We wonder if this is logical.
Does he have such a necessity or requirement? In that case, nature is just like the canvas over which individuals are painted. Now make your own decision. Which one seems more logical?
Now there is no point in denying the evolution (so to speak), not in the sense of coincidental development but rather as development processes decided and created by a divine Master of Art, because there is already a development process going on in the universe, which is clearly observed. In that sense, Quran, Islam and we do not deny the existence of a limited evolution, though we do not see to label this with the name of “evolution”. There is a development going on in the universe, but it does not mean that all these things happen without anyone handling these processes. In the processes taking place before our very eyes, Allah does not create most things out of nothingness. Of course, there are things He creates out of nothing. Which ones? This is not known to us. Is this so important? We don’t think so. “How did sun come into existence? Was it formed with the reaction of hydrogen with helium, or in another way? The answers to these questions and how such processes take place are not important in terms of the existence of the creator. It is very important for us to understand that no scientific finding or no process could change the following fact: There is an order here, a result that can’t be achieved coincidentally and we have a deduction made out of this result, that is, from the fact that this visible design and art bring about certain benefits. This conclusion is the following: “This huge unconscious sun and the atoms it contains do not move on their own. They must be the result of a knowledge, will and power.” The essential purpose of Quran is to teach about the creator and the Master of Art and to prove his existence with the order of the matter. It is important to come to this point. This is the perspective in which Quran is interested. The rest is thought to be details that do not harm the real purpose. It happens this way or that way. This is the field of science. Quran leaves this completely as a free field. It says: “You should search and learn about it” and encourages the efforts in that sense. But whatever the processes and workings and the styles are, it asks us certainly to notice this order and through this to reach to the existence of the creator.
Because, the order does not change, stays as it is, without being affected. What is important is to notice this fact. Quran teaches us about this order. Is it evolution, science, multiple universes or the creator? There is no need to make such a duality, differentiation, and to make a choice between them. In fact, all work together! There is only one mechanism! You can’t think of a plane separately from the law of thermodynamics. The point that we object to is why the engineer of that plane is not taken into account. This is all we care for. Can’t a creator, who created this universe, create also multiple universes?
In fact, Quran starts with the expression “God of All Universes” What if there are multiple-universes; does it mean there is no creator? Of course not! The Creator could create multiple universes as well.
Another important point to be made is this: once it is understood that living things cannot come into existence coincidentally, it is not important whether they do so through evolution, or suddenly out of nothingness; or how much of it is the result of evolution and how much is made out of nothingness. The important thing is that this mechanism can’t function coincidentally. Otherwise, He can decide to create through a development process, and create progressively; as long as we can see the processes. As a matter of fact he creates in this way.
For instance, if the baby in mother’s womb was created all of a sudden out of nothingness, we would not have the opportunity to see that spectacular art and this splendid process. Perhaps, this is the wisdom of this truth. He does not create abruptly. This is also contrary to the secret of the trial. If creation were abrupt, without material causes, timelessly and out of nothing, they would say: “Oh, really, have a look, God creates! Could this be denied?” and out of necessity, everybody would have to accept it. Then there would be no meaning of the proposal and the trial forwarded to human beings by the religion.
However, once it is dependent upon a process, time is passed by, and some causes seem to exist, it seems to be happening coincidentally. In videos, which show the formation and development of plants in much shorter times, reducing a process which takes place within weeks to a few seconds, it can be seen by naked eye how that plant comes into existence in a miraculous way. If this formation happened suddenly rather than taking place in time, there would be some drawbacks which we have already mentioned.
In sum, we reject an understanding of evolution, which is based on the coming into existence of living beings by evolving and multiplying from each other on the grounds that it is not only against divine wisdom, power and divine revelation but also there is not enough evidence all over the world supporting such an allegation. Since development (or progression), that is the act of creation and development within a certain time period is a visible reality, we accept its existence. However, we do not find it appropriate to use the term “evolution” which is used for species of living things evolved from each other through mechanisms based on coincidence.
Share this content: