Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Bin Qasim

Why a scientist believes in God?

Recommended Posts

Dear elif74,

 

Just as you said an atheist does not believe in god, a monotheist/muslim believes strongly in god and the Quran, so therefore will do anything and look for anything to prove it's authenticity.  I've just pointed out certain historical accounts which should leave a question mark in our minds.  My beliefs do not rely explicitly on how authentic the Quran is, but more so on the basis of logic.  I just found the information I presented to be a bit interesting in the process.

 

 

ok, i understand your point, but if it was the case -i mean if it was the differences and doubts about quran's authenticity- even 1 person did know about this at that time, there would be fitnah on that. so much controversies.... but did not....

so thats why i dont agree with you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

"In the creation of the Heavens and the Earth, it is obvious that this Higher Power actually cares for it's creation. Then I see nothing illogical with the belief that it would inspire certain men with Revelations, as a guide to life."

 

Again, what you see logical is what I percieve as illogical from a philosphical and scientific point of view. How does this higher order care for it's creation? Let's label this higher order god as the first step. God created the stars, the galaxies, cells, atoms, etc. Now take something as small as an atom. An atom contains a nucleus which is surrounded by an electron cloud, these electrons orbit the nucleus similar to the way the planets orbit the sun. The nature of this atom has been proven and supported by the atomic theory and in further detail in mathematical terms by the quantum theory, which was later developed by bohr. Why would this supreme intelligence assign such order to these atoms and all of the sudden create a society of human beings who do not abide by order most of the time? Why did he choose humans to be different, why did we not conform to the same order as the atoms did? Here is a system of complete disorder, which might show us that not everything has order and that it might not be a perfect universe afterall. If god did allow humans to have the option of not adhering to this order, it would seem almost cruel. Why did he transmit feelings onto human beings, is he an emotional god? He designed everything to be so systematic and orderly, but why did he design the biological format of humans to produce such unorderly results such as emotion.

This is a very difficult and complex discussion which does not just fall within the level of theology but very much in depth from a philosophical approach.

 

"So what you are telling me is that we should only accept that which we can define? Anything that is beyond our limits of comprehension should be rejected?

Allah does not require of us that we understand His Attributes, but that we believe in them, even though we are incapable of grasping their nature."

 

 

I am not suggesting or even implying that we reject what we cannot define. I have simply said that if we cannot define something rationally, why are we being asked to define it? I am telling you now I cannot define something which is beyond my mental capacity, but at the same time I don't like someone else defining that concept for me. It should just be left with a question mark. It's like asking me to accept the most complex mathematical equation in this whole universe. I am not going to reject it, I can accept it's existence in the sense accepting that it's complexity is beyong my understanding or capability, but no one else can define it or assert it certain variables and rules since no one truely understands it. To sum up my point, at the beginning of the universe, it has been accepted by almost all scientists that time was created at that initial moment of singularity. What happened before that, we have no idea. The equations we have break down at this point. So we don't know what happened, and it's pointless to argue either way when we don't have sufficient knowledge to declare anything.

 

 

"And what do these schools of thought have to with the caliphates of Ali and Abu Bakr(Allah be pleased with them)? Why do you say that Ali and Abu Bakr disagreed on the Word of Allah? Where is your evidence of this?"

 

This is not about Abu Bakr and Ali disagreeing the general word of Allah which was there is one god, and one god only, he is Allah, and muhammad is his messenger. It goes beyond that. For example the shia school of thought accepts the sunnah of the prophet, hadiths, and most importantly the Quran(obviously), but they have compiled a collection of the sayings and traditions of ali, the akbari which was disagreeing with the usuli school of thought which favored religious interpretation by scholars rather than just relying on the ancient texts. The belief that the imams serve as the authority of law or the regular scholars in their abscence until mahdi returns, can only be traced back to the ideological and political differences between ali and abu bakr.

 

 

"This is incorrect, all four schools state that only the Qur'an & Sunnah are reliable sources. You also say that the schools of thought contradict each other in certain issues. This is true, that is why in Islam, Muslims can follow any of the four Madhabs. They disagree in the minor issues, not in matters of Creed, unlike the Christian schools of thought. They are not sects.This is incorrect, all four schools state that only the Qur'an & Sunnah are reliable sources. You also say that the schools of thought contradict each other in certain issues. This is true, that is why in Islam, Muslims can follow any of the four Madhabs. They disagree in the minor issues, not in matters of Creed, unlike the Christian schools of thought. They are not sects."

 

I apologize on my behalf, I should have been more clear in my last post.

Al-Shafi said the sunnah of the prophet and the Quran were the only two reliable MATERIAL sources. He also said that there were four sources of Islamic law: The Quran, the sunna of the prophet, ijma or consensus of the community, and analogical reasoning or qiyas.

 

From the shia and sunni school of thought, even within their own ideogies pertaining to Islamic law, they disagreed for a long time and had to change their methods back and forth until they reached a mediary ground for carrying out legal decisions in Islamic society. And as I said before, I don't understand why this was neccessary if there was the word of god, perfect, flawless, with every guideline needed for human survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peace;

 

I say we must obey Allah, but this is your choice either you obey or not. Disobeyin king or ruler is not the same as disobeying Allah. You may do everything includes disobeyin in this world. But punishment will be afterlife. And second for a tyrant, he has his ambitions, his self-interests etc. we cant think he is fair to all people. But Allah is fair, if you do something for the sake of Allah, He gives its reward to you. No its not the best way to engrave fear w in them. Bec. While I fear Allah , I love Allah either. We cant separate each other. But you think just one side of it. The game of fear??? Conquering other lands ???? what is to do with fear of Allah???

For the example you give: if his dad actually bad person, his boy does not want to be with him even in this world. Y he wants this afterlife?

And second question that you’ve asked me: my family is muslim, but I was not interested in religion before. I did anything , I had girl friends ,you know, we had fun etc. but I was not happy in my life. And one day, I saw a dream. I was reading quran, after I woke up, I did start to read quran. Everytime I read the quran, I saw the answers of the questions that Ive in my mind… that affected me too much…and I am here  following ayah is very important for me, people can laugh, but this does not make him/her happy...

13/28: Those who believe and whose hearts are set at rest by the remembrance of Allah; now surely by Allah's remembrance are the hearts set at rest.

 

yousuf ur a revert ! sounds good. Such things affect me so much….

 

 

 

 

The game of fear I am talking about is a psychological game. Mentally submitting yourself to something. You talk about fearing Allah and loving him at the same time. I admire the universe and it's great power, and you could even say for a second I would fear it just because it's so beyond me. But, do I mentally submit myself to the universe? I am attached to the universe, in the sense every atom composed with within me makes up the universe as well, I share this oneness with it. But I do not form a personal relationship with it, I exist as a subcomponent of it's infinite space, I don't thank it, and it doesn't thank me. I may love it, and by love I mean am struck by it's existence, but it doesn't love me back. Again, this idea of an afterlife sounds so soothing to the mind, but there is no proof or logical backbone behind it.

 

You're telling me in my example the boy would not love the father, but how do you know that? Maybe the boy had an early relationship with the father that he cherished. The point is that eternal paradise is supposed to be one hundred percent perfect, so you have to challenge that ideology with every possible existing scenario or one that can exist, even if it's improbable, but it's not impossible. It can happen. What if the boy is adopted, and his real parents have never found him, but are good people, and the boys adopted parents are good too and they all go to heaven. The real parents want to see their child, but the child wants to be with the adopted parents, another imperfect situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freethinker I think your lost - big time. I dont think any counter argument which is bought against yours will make any difference to you - whether the evidence/proof is clear as the midday sun because that will just cause you to bring about another non-sensical philosophical argument. You seem to be contradicting yourself, at one point you cant accept that this wonderous universe came from nothing - in other words admitting that their is a Creator and at other points your more or less denying the existence of God. Do you really think the One who created the universe and everything within it would just leave us without any purpose - of course not - because that would be to ascribe foolishness to the Creator and the Creator of the universe is far beyond of having any defect and faults. Instead out of His Mercy he sent us Prophets/Messengers and Books for us to remind us of our grand purpose. I feel people like you will always have questions, more questions, wandering around like last sheep - a very sorry state and never reaching any certainty about anything (but quickly adopt and believe in anything to do with science - eventhough most of them are just unfounded speculative theories and in most cases not even a shread of evidence just a scientists imagination run wild - more deserving to be called fantasies rather than theories - such as evolution, ddark matter, worm holes) - just thinking were a bunch of atoms. May the Creator of the universe open up your heart to His guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freethinker I think your lost - big time. I dont think any counter argument which is bought against yours will make any difference to you - whether the evidence/proof is clear as the midday sun because that will just cause you to bring about another non-sensical philosophical argument. You seem to be contradicting yourself, at one point you cant accept that this wonderous universe came from nothing - in other words admitting that their is a Creator and at other points your more or less denying the existence of God. Do you really think the One who created the universe and everything within it would just leave us without any purpose - of course not - because that would be to ascribe foolishness to the Creator and the Creator of the universe is far beyond of having any defect and faults. Instead out of His Mercy he sent us Prophets/Messengers and Books for us to remind us of our grand purpose. I feel people like you will always have questions, more questions, wandering around like last sheep - a very sorry state and never reaching any certainty about anything (but quickly adopt and believe in anything to do with science - eventhough most of them are just unfounded speculative theories and in most cases not even a shread of evidence just a scientists imagination run wild - more deserving to be called fantasies rather than theories - such as evolution, ddark matter, worm holes) - just thinking were a bunch of atoms. May the Creator of the universe open up your heart to His guidance.

 

 

Dear Sonofadam,

 

All I have said is that before the creation of the universe, there existed some state of being which our laws cannot define, because they do not exist in that domain. I have not once said there is no god, I am skeptical about god in the sense I find it hard to accept if there is such an entity that it watches over me, loves me, punishes me, and sends prophets to warn me about some afterlife which has no logical foundation. This mental state of being unsure is why I am agnostic. Sometimes, there isn't always an answer for everything, or we haven't reached it yet. You talk about mercy, again you are faced with the same challenges all theists are that a merciful god created a merciless life, and you try to cover it up with such ideas as this life being a test by god, like it would really matter to the all powerful and wise. You seem threatened by the fact that people like me:

 

will always have questions, more questions, wandering around like last sheep - a very sorry state and never reaching any certainty about anything (but quickly adopt and believe in anything to do with science - eventhough most of them are just unfounded speculative theories and in most cases not even a shread of evidence just a scientists imagination run wild - more deserving to be called fantasies rather than theories - such as evolution, ddark matter, worm holes) - just thinking were a bunch of atoms

 

Is the will to seek more knowledge and find answers to higher truths, even when we cannot find them which is not a crime, such a problem for you? Yes, you are right, scientific theories have become my allies because even if they are not 100% true, they are within some boundary of being tested and remotely proven true. Science is different from religion, science does not seek the truth it only defines it for us. I have not even admitted to accepting evolution, but you seem oblivious to it without a doubt just because of scriptures that were formed 1400 years ago. We are just a bunch of atoms, this is why we don't care about eachother and are killing eachother to this day. You label them fantasies, but when it comes to simple biblical and quranic verses/beliefs that are contrary to the very basic laws that govern nature, you try to cover them up by saying it's within god's power to do so. I don't see why god would create a universe with certain laws to define our world, and then violate them. So I would call the idea of jinns, angels, heaven and hell one of the biggest myths/fantasies of our age.

 

 

The defense of theists and people like you is that our existence must be justified through some eternal justice after we die. It doesn't even matter, our existence on this earth, in this world precedes the essence of this life and is independent of it. So what's the point either way, you can justify our existence without this whole idea of an afterlife, and eternal paradise and punishment. If there is an old man who is having a heart attack on a street and there is an atheist standing there, it doesn't mean he won't help the man, in most cases he will and this shows us that there is such thing as godless morality - "godless" doesn't mean god doesn't exist. And there are two reasons for morality:

 

1). Because it's logical and helps society function. This is more of an organized and defined doctrine of morals.

 

2). Because it is the nature of human beings to act morally. (The example I just gave above)

 

Just as the great german philosopher Immanuel Kant said:

 

"Happiness is not an ideal of reason, but of imagination."

 

and

 

"In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so."

 

This satisfies 1). The point he is trying to make is that morality is neccessary, when based on logic. If a man is guilty for even thinking of stealing, he will obviously in his mind not even attempt to steal. In the end, morality serves for the better of society. We are simply predators playing the game of survival for the fittest, and in the process we developed ethics and religious morality to aide us.

 

 

I would even rally with you to say that sex before marriage should be forbidden. If this is done, no illegitimate or fatherless children, our taxes don't have to go to those teen parents raising their kids because they don't have time to go to school.

So it would be logical to integrate that sort of morality into society.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with being a "lost sheep", because it leads us down a safe path which doesn't diverge from the truth, but keeps us in a safe spot. The second humans start criticizing science because it collides with their belief systems, is when we have reached a state of insanity. But when science is in the best interest of religion, such as claiming the quran or bible "say this about the universe" and such fictitious theories, people like and start to adopt science. Blindly accepting science isn't the same as blindly accepting religion, religion is a theory, a theory about life. Science is the absolute, it defines the absolute, and underlies the single principle in our universe, it is not interested in trying to prove anything right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

peace

 

All I have said is that before the creation of the universe, there existed some state of being which our laws cannot define, because they do not exist in that domain.

 

Have you not considered the perfection in which this world and living creatures are created? had it not been for Allah (swt) what would stop us from holding knowledge upon everything? It is the creator that creates men and jinn....Allah (swt) has sent the book of knowledge and many signs for those in doubt and if ye continue to ignore it then nothing will save you from your eternal fate....think about life and its worth...if you're a believer then you have nothing to lose but if you don't believe then what will be your excuse in the day of ressurection? we are all given choices...use it wisely while time is still on your side.

 

have not once said there is no god, I am skeptical about god in the sense I find it hard to accept if there is such an entity that it watches over me, loves me, punishes me, and sends prophets to warn me about some afterlife which has no logical foundation.

 

It is our ignorance to blame if we can not begin to conceive the existence of God...no one elses....clear signs are scattered in this world

 

This mental state of being unsure is why I am agnostic.

 

so you have said many times....

 

Sometimes, there isn't always an answer for everything, or we haven't reached it yet.

 

Allah (swt) has revealed somethings to us and others have been kept hidden so it may not burden the hearts of men....Alalh (swt) knows best.

 

You talk about mercy, again you are faced with the same challenges all theists are that a merciful god created a merciless life,

 

It is not God who created merciless world but humans who have turned this world into a merciless place...is it God who murders? we have been given a free will...blame humans for their arrogance and stupidity to not do good...not Allah (swt)

 

and you try to cover it up with such ideas as this life being a test by god, like it would really matter to the all powerful and wise.

 

Life is a test...if it were not what would be the purpose of our existence?

 

You seem threatened by the fact that people like me:

 

I do not fear those who like you or feel threated for i am liked too in my own way....this is not a cheerleading competition to see who is the most popular...Verily that will not save you in the day of judgement.

 

 

 

Is the will to seek more knowledge and find answers to higher truths, even when we cannot find them which is not a crime, such a problem for you?

 

seek knowledge but in the way do not fall into the trap of arrogance and feeling proud....surely those who re proud and sneer at others are disliked by Allah (swt) and men.

 

Yes, you are right, scientific theories have become my allies because even if they are not 100% true, they are within some boundary of being tested and remotely proven true.

 

or being complete nonsense just like many more scientists have been dismissed for their theories after new and more appealing theories came into our knowledge.

 

 

 

science does not seek the truth it only defines it for us.

 

you are incorrect...in order for science to be used it has to be 'truth' therefore it does not only define for us but brings truth so tat people may use it and not dismiss it as being another theory of nonsense.

 

I

have not even admitted to accepting evolution,

 

You see the inaccuracy and flawed argument raised too?

 

 

 

 

 

We are just a bunch of atoms,

 

true and the point being?

 

this is why we don't care about eachother and are killing eachother to this day.

 

humans are ungrateful, greedy and selfish....that is what causes death of many innocents.

 

I don't see why god would create a universe with certain laws to define our world, and then violate them. So I would call the idea of jinns, angels, heaven and hell one of the biggest myths/fantasies of our age.

 

is your imagination that limited that you can not begin to believe in such creation but take darwins theory of evolution as being more truthful? right....

 

The defense of theists and people like you is that our existence must be justified through some eternal justice after we die. It doesn't even matter, our existence on this earth, in this world precedes the essence of this life and is independent of it. So what's the point either way, you can justify our existence without this whole idea of an afterlife, and eternal paradise and punishment. If there is an old man who is having a heart attack on a street and there is an atheist standing there, it doesn't mean he won't help the man, in most cases he will and this shows us that there is such thing as godless morality - "godless" doesn't mean god doesn't exist. And there are two reasons for morality:

 

Humans are not immune to emotion and sympathy....i should hope that all humans are capable of aiding others without having a second thought.

 

 

 

 

1). Because it's logical and helps society function. This is more of an organized and defined doctrine of morals.

 

If it so logic why do so many atheist kill and murder others? why do they rape? do these people truly help society function?

 

 

 

2). Because it is the nature of human beings to act morally. (The example I just gave above)

 

hmmm....

 

There is nothing wrong with being a "lost sheep", because it leads us down a safe path

 

if only the young men who become murderers and rapist due to lack fo their fathers and being the lost sheep thought like you it would be great.

 

which doesn't diverge from the truth, but keeps us in a safe spot.

 

safe is something conceived in the conscience is what your post implies....

 

The second humans start criticizing science because it collides with their belief systems, is when we have reached a state of insanity.

 

the second humans start criticizing religion because it collides with their science system, is when we have reached a state of insanity....so you nicely put it.

 

religion is a theory, a theory about life.

 

even with evidence you claim it to be a theory? how do you manange to then take some science on board when they provide nothing but theory?

 

 

Science is the absolute, it defines the absolute, and underlies the single principle in our universe, it is not interested in trying to prove anything right or wrong.

 

except science tries to prove itself to being 'truth' and 'right'

Edited by Crystal Eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you are putting words into my mouth. For you, you make the assumption right away if I don't accept creationism, that puts me right away on the ballot for evolution. Using that logic, anyone who was against the war would be viewed as supporting saddam, but this an absurd way of thinking. Evolution is a new way of looking at the development of mankind, it leaves us with a question mark between the dawn of mankind and apes. It doesn't mean you have to believe in it, it's just opening up your mind to a different theory of life, a more critical outlook on what religion has taught us.

 

You tell me we are being tested by god, and alot of us have failed by turning this world into a world of injustice. But why is god testing us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is the absolute, it defines the absolute, and underlies the single principle in our universe, it is not interested in trying to prove anything right or wrong.

 

Following is an extract from an article -

 

In the age of science people have come to believe that because of the amazing discoveries of science and the dramatic impact of technology based on scientific research and discovery through experimentation, scientists using the scientific method hold the superior knowledge. This however, is a shallow error committed by the one who does not know the reality of the scientific method and the principles on which it is built. Firstly, we should distinguish between scientific theory and scientific fact. Scientific theory is a speculative idea that may be logical but not necessarily based on reality and could be based on imagination. The scientist then searches for evidence or what he erroneously perceives to be evidence. The evidence is often incomplete and does not take into consideration other possible factors an example of scientific theory is the theory of evolution. Although people may think it a fact, scientists must submit to the reality that it lacks evidence and is unproven, on further investigation the theory is full of inconsistencies and much contradictory evidence exists, more importantly however the theory is fundamentally refuted by rational principles and things already established as fact about the reality of living organisms.

 

Scientific fact on the other hand, is sound because it is not speculative but is only based on observation of natural phenomena or experiments, all factors are considered and the conclusions are only based on the reality and do not go on to project beyond the evidence.

 

Sound scientific method however, although necessary for discovery and progression is not the superior form of thought. The superior thought is rational thought and this what sound scientific method depends upon. Science is not a comprehensive thought upon which life can be based, it is only of use in observing present things. Things not present, and intangible concepts are beyond its scope. It does not produce answers to the three fundamental questions about life on which true progress is based. Science therefore can not produce the foundation of a system of life or the foundation of a comprehensive viewpoint about life. Science often bases its conclusions on that which is outside its natural conditions, experiments are error prone and often open to different interpretations and results often not decisive enough to outweigh the possibility of external factors or minor errors. Science studies a specific object or group and then applies the conclusion to all similar species generally. Thus science makes a jump of faith to the general from the specific.

 

Rational thought looks at the whole of perceived reality and applies the judgement to the specific element of reality. The reality is all that the human being can base his conclusions on and he can then progress when he combines this with previous information about the reality. When a scientist sees change in experiments after making an alteration to the subject matter, he concludes that his interference brought about the change in the results, this is because he believes in cause and effect and he knows that the change did not just happen by itself. This is not because cause and effect was proven through scientific experimentation but it was always assumed because it is intrinsic to the reality and is constantly perceived in the reality. Without cause and effect all scientific experimentation would be pointless because the results may have been caused by the experiment or may have just occurred by themselves and there would be no way of knowing. Additionally, science can not judge cause and effect through experimentation because the analysis of the results of the experiment itself are based on cause and effect and an independent test can not be dependent upon the principle which it is supposed to be testing. To conclude cause and effect is based on ration and is external and prior to scientific method, scientific experimentation is dependent upon the belief in cause and effect which itself emanates from rational thought.

 

 

You have to differentiate between scientific theory (better word would be scientific fantasy) - such as evolution etc. and sound scientific fact - which most scientific theories of today are void of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again you are putting words into my mouth.

 

Peace

 

I have not spoon fed you....it is you assuming things, furthermore this is the first time i replied to you so i'm not doing it 'again'

 

For you, you make the assumption right away if I don't accept creationism, that puts me right away on the ballot for evolution.  Using that logic, anyone who was against the war would be viewed as supporting saddam, but this an absurd way of thinking.  Evolution is a new way of looking at the development of mankind, it leaves us with a question mark between the dawn of mankind and apes.  It doesn't mean you have to believe in it, it's just opening up your mind to a different theory of life, a more critical outlook on what religion has taught us.

 

 

 

It differs to think about evolution rather than to believe that it could be true simply because it seems like an intellectual theory and atheist/agnostics have something to hold on as being 'evidence' when really there is no evidence.

 

You tell me we are being tested by god, and alot of us have failed by turning this world into a world of injustice.  But why is god testing us?

 

To see our Iman (faith)...who loves this world more than their creator etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu Alaykum..

 

"http://ummah/science/viewscfeature.php?scfid=4&scTopicID=2"]Source[/url]

 

Why A Scientist Believes In God

 

 

 

This article of Mr A. Cressy Morrison, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences, first appeared in the "Reader's Digest" (January 1948); then on recommendation of Professor C. A. Coulson, F. R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, was republished in the "Reader's Digest" November 1960 - It shows how science compels the scientists to admit to the essential need of a Supreme Creator.

 

We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. In the 90 years since Darwin we have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humanity and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching even nearer to an awareness of God. For myself I count seven reasons for my faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence. Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, pulling back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in ten thousand million. By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day, while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is, just far enough away so that this 'eternal fire" warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast. The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our season; if it had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon was, say, only 50 thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires everywhere. Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all-pervading Intelligence. What life itself is no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock. Life has conquered water, land and air, mastering the element, compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations. Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs every leaf of every tree, and colours every flower. Life is a musician and has each bird to sing its love songs, the insects to call each other in the music of their multitudinous sounds. Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the rose changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen that animals may have the breath of life. Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this transparent mist-like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life, and has the power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and small. The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and a saltless sea could not meet the necessary requirements. Who, then, has put it here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures. The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own river; and travels up the very side of the river into which flows The tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? If you transfer him to another tributary he will know at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny more accurately. Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing creatures migrate at maturity from all ponds and rivers everywhere - those from Europe across thousands of miles of oceans - all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they breed and die. The little ones, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water nevertheless find their way back not only to the very shore from which their parent came but thence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds - so that each body of water is always populated with eels. No American eel has ever been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey. Where does the directing iruptilse originate? A wasp will overpower a grasshopper, dig a hole in the earth, sting the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect on which they feed, to them dead meat would be fatal. The mother then flies way and dies; she never sees her young. Surely the wasp must have done all this right the first time and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniques cannot be explained by adaptation; they were bestowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct - the power of reason. No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra. No need to belabour this fourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of Universal Intelligence.

 

Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed in phenomena which we know today but which Darwin did not know - such as the wonders of genes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that, if all of them responsible for all living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be less than a thimbleful. Yet these ultra- microscopic genes and their companions, the chromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are the absolute keys to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A thimble is a small place in which to put all the individual characteristics of two thousand million human beings. However; the facts are beyond question. Well then, how do genes lock up all the normal heredity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve the psychology of each in such an infinitely small space? Here evolution really begins - at the cell, the entity which holds and carries genes. How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultra-microscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence - no other hypothesis will serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sixth: By the economy of nature, we are forced to realize that only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute husbandry. Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the cactus soon began a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms. Seeking a defense, the entomologists scoured the world; finally they turned up an insect which exclusively feeds on cactus, and would eat nothing else. It would breed freely too; and it had no enemies in Australia. So animal soon conquered vegetable and today the cactus pest has retreated, and with it all but a small protective residue of the insects, enough to hold the cactus in check for ever. Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body. Hence there has never been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check. If this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seventh: The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof. The conception of god rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world - the faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can fmd the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfected, imagination becomes a spiritual reality.

 

 

Alhamdulillah..

 

"http://ummah/science/viewscfeature.php?scfid=4&scTopicID=2"]ummah/science/viewscfeature.php...d=4&scTopicID=2[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×