Blasting The Foundations Of Atheism

Blasting The Foundations of Atheism

Blasting The

Foundations
Of Atheism;
Its Pseudoscience and Pseudo-reason
Answering Richard Dawkins‟ (The God Delusion)

Volume I
Second Edition

Written by:

AbulFeda‟

1


“Have you seen that which you plant and cultivate?

Is it you who grow it from seeds, or are We (plural of majesty) the
Fosterer?

If We so willed, We verily could make it but wreckage, then would you
cease not to exclaim:

Oh! we are laden with debt!

Oh! We are so deprived!”

(Translation of The Quran 56:64-67)

―I do not think an atheist can actually prove his own existence!‖

―The art of making up fallacy, compiling it, believing it, and passing it on to
next generations; is indeed the easiest of human crafts!‖

―Death is not a failure! Decay, pain and disease are not a defect in ths
system! It is obviously and indisputably perfect, and this negative component
is obviously an essential part of the perfect way it is made to work! So why
does there have to be negative? You can never answer that on your own!
You need to know the exact purpose of its making, and that can only come
from He who created!‖

AbulFeda‘

2


3


Introduction
‫تسن هللا الرحواى الرحين‬
.. ٍ‫الحود هلل وحد‬
.. ٍ‫والصالج والسالم على هي ال ًثي تعد‬
.. ‫أها تعد‬

All praise be to Allah, Lord of all that exists..
Lord of those who accept the truth, and those who do not! Lord of those who
see it for what it really is, and those who see not! Keeper and sustainer of
those who praise Him, and those who praise Him not!

It‟s been said that: ―Wisdom is the treasure of a Muslim; wherever it may be
found, he‘s entitled to it‖

This is exactly what this book is about: Wisdom.

As a Muslim, I am not searching for wisdom; I believe that what I already
have and am about to exhibit here: IS wisdom. This is why Elder sages of
Islam, students of the disciples (Salaf) never condoned or approved of the
Greek practice of philosophy when it came to issues that have already been
answered soundly and consistently by the scripture of Islam. Most of the
philosophers of Greece lacked knowledge of the deity; they knew none other
than those pagan gods that were by nature, highly questionable to every sane
self-respecting man at the time! So to obtain the ultimate truth; I do not have
to be a philosopher! Only those who lack wisdom and sound consistent
answers to the largest questions of life would stick to theories of
philosophers!

I do not need to study philosophy or logic to be capable of thinking
properly! I am not a philosopher or a logician, I never was and I never will
call myself a philosopher! And the same goes to Richard Dawkins, author of
(The God Delusion)! Perhaps he takes pride in studying some philosophy,
4


searching for the truth in that literature the way he does, I - on the other hand
- do not! And I may easily tell him: “Sorry to disappoint you professor, but
you‟ve been searching in all the wrong places!”

Some people think that rational thinking has to be guided or governed by the
theories of logicians and philosophers!

Well, it doesn‟t! Rational thinking – as deep as it takes to examine a
philosopher‟s argument – is not a practice that only a philosopher can do! It
was not discovered or devised by a logician! And although the majority of
arguments that professor Dawkins puts forth in his book are arguments
tackled in the western society basically by philosophers of science and
theologians, he was never held back from offering his own views on them by
the fact that he is a professor of zoology not of philosophy or theology! He is
simply a man who specialized in a certain field of human knowledge that – I
must say – was for the most part founded on a philosophical stance that
drove him – out of his own personal experience with rationale - to the
position he is now adopting towards what he calls faith and religion!

The problem now is that he thinks he is using science to make his case here,
when indeed he is not, as I shall come to demonstrate! He is only applying
fundamentally corrupt philosophical assumptions, supporting them with a
radically false application of the scientific method! The rational issue of
what “natural science” is, and what it is all about, is an issue that I addressed
repeatedly on the course of this book, but let‟s just say for now that agreeing
on a proper definition of science; its purpose, its limits, the nature of its tools
and the way it operates, will certainly help us put the subject matter of this
book in its correct discipline of human knowledge, and choose the correct
tool of human reason to approach it!

I should not go to the lab in search for answer to a question that CANNOT
be answered by the tools and the means of “analytic chemistry” as a
discipline of human knowledge, should I? A medical doctor is not in a place
of authority to apply medicine for the sake of solving an economical
problem, is he? But then again, all humans HAVE to contemplate in those

5


major questions and obtain their correct answers! Those questions about
God, life, death, the purpose of life, and so forth!

Now, in order for them to do that (to simply think properly); do they have to
confine themselves to the postulates and theories produced by other humanly
limited minds like their own? This would only be unfair wouldn‟t it? Those
are people who knew not, and who only had their shots and attempts by
postulating what they only hoped would be the truth! Should you my reader
be confined in any way to the means they took, or the arguments they held in
so doing? Do you have to follow the lead of this or that philosopher or this
or that theologian only to learn how to apply axiomatic reason? What if his
choices were all wrong?

In fact this is exactly why disciplines of human knowledge would usually
rejoice in the advent of a new theory that would bravely dig deep enough in
the foundations of a previously adopted one, and prove the inconsistency
inherent in its postulates! This is what made Einstein – for example - the
champion of human knowledge that he is viewed to be! It takes bravery to
question the foundations of a certain epistemic doctrine, a lot of bravery
indeed; and it takes even more courage to put forth a totally different
platform in its place!

It is amazing though, that as revered as those icons of human knowledge are
in the eyes of atheists, they would still hold fast to the platform they have
chosen for their process of reasoning as though it is the only humanly
acceptable rationale for the question in hand! Einstein did what he did only
because he dared to break loose from the platform of the Newtonian
conception of the universe! He said to himself: “This is only a model of the
universe proposed by a man like myself; I‟m not forced by any authority to
follow it as though it was unquestionable!” He was brave enough to
challenge it – as foundational as it was to the field of theoretical physics in
his time – and bring forth a different model!

Atheists never had any problem with that “revolution”, did they?

So why not be at ease with someone who does something similar with the
Darwinian conception of life? Well, they may easily praise a new Darwin

6


that may one day come to offer them a better theory (of philosophy actually
not of science), only as long as it includes no deity or metaphysical agency
whatsoever! Only as long as his theory is confined to the same platform of
thought and reason they have chosen to stand upon and to call „science‟, will
it be granted approval in their eyes, and will it then rise to the magnitude of
the advent of the theory of natural selection itself in their consideration!
What a pity indeed! Should they for once succeed in taking off the dark,
thick shades they put on their eyes, they would easily see that they are
actually no different from any ministry of faith that defends and actually
fights for its beliefs no matter how questionable they may be, except in the
fact that those guys would call it theory of science, while priests would call
it tenet or doctrine of faith!

The meaning of faith and the meaning of theory in addition to the question
of what science is, are questions that I will have to address throughout this
book to a certain depth – for necessity of the arguments I will establish - , as
I answer to Dr. Dawkins‟ arguments, not according to this or that
philosopher; but according to a free mind that bears – because of its
education in ultimate wisdom; the God-given knowledge of the truth - no
submission whatsoever to any manmade hypothesis or postulate of any
form! It will thus be only out of sheer coincidence that any of my arguments
may come in resemblance to those of a particular philosopher or a
theologian, and you can rest assured that I did not take him for reference or
influence!

I follow strictly the teaching of this magnificent verse of the Quran, and the
knowledge that follows it in the Wisdom of Sunnah:

((Say Bring forth your evidence if you were telling the truth)) Translation
(2|111)

This is the basic axiom of reasoning that every Muslim who is well
established in his faith, stands upon!

For the sake of comprehending the arguments I put in this work, my reader
will not need any previous education in philosophy or philosophical Jargon.
One only has to have a mind that is capable of running properly, and

7


examining every argument of reason in an evidently correct manner, free
from all bias, pride and prejudice, to see the truth for what it is! As for
theorization of philosophy on the subject matter; this is merely a mental
asylum of wishful thinking to those who know not, on the hope that perhaps
one day, one of them would eventually come up with a convenient answer
that may fill this monumental gap!

Learning faith- along with its evident understanding – from its evidently
divine source (scripture) is one thing, and postulating theory of philosophy is
another! It‟s the difference between obtaining the answer from its only
authoritative source; and – to put it simply - GUESSING it!

Although this notion regarding the approach to understanding scripture may
appear to be irrelevant to the purpose of “science”, it is actually far more
relevant than many scientists may think, as will be explained in this
literature!

A sharp line of distinction has to be drawn clearly between what people
propose to be the truth, and what is evidently the truth; between theory and
indisputable fact, between what people like to call evidence, even if it does
not meet the first rational criteria of what may be called evidence at all, and
what is indeed irrefutable evidence and proof; between what is truly a
question of science, and what some may insist on calling “a question of
science” even as it is obviously not within the tool of science or its end
purpose to begin with! This line of distinction, I declare, comes from the
only correct understanding of the only true scripture rightly ascribed to the
only true creator of the universe, as I shall come to demonstrate within this
book.

It is people like professor Dawkins that have to be addressed by this notion
concerning the interpretation of scripture, to a certain level, as they attempt
in many sections of their arguments against religion to raise the claim that
dispute upon explanation of scriptures makes it easy for any holder of any
false faith to find an easy way out of the charge, and claim that this is not the
correct interpretation of those texts! This is a famous error of logic that he
keeps making over and over throughout his argument against religion! The

8


fact that people differed in interpreting a certain text, does not disprove the
authenticity of that text, neither does it render it obsolete! The fact that a
certain volume of scripture has been proven inconsistent, does not prove that
there is not a single statement of truth anywhere in its midst! The fact that a
certain religion has been proven corrupt does not prove that all religions on
Earth are nonsense, not to mention disprove the existence of God Himself!
Those – my kind reader - are but a few examples of a barrage of scandalous
logical errors and irrationalities underlying the arguments made by the
professor throughout his book, as shall be elaborated in detail in this volume.

As I pointed out earlier, it is not science we are going to be discussing here
for the most part; it is the underlying philosophy that constitutes the western
secular understanding of what science itself is and what it is about, in the
first place!

One of the signs any sane man should identify for the truth about the
meaning of life – even before he examines it – when it is taken from any
scripture, is that it should be by definition: Quite simple! You do not have to
hold a PHD in philosophy to understand – as a human – what your creator is
addressing to you! It is inherently unfair that only the most intelligent of
men could understand it! If indeed the Lord creator is the source of this bulk
of knowledge that you people – from any faith - ascribe to Him, then it must
be comprehensible and easily accessible to every healthy human mind: and
at that; you will never need to practice philosophy in attempt to explain it or
understand it! Once you‟re sufficiently educated in the language of scripture,
you should only have to use the clearest, the simplest and the most profound
axioms of human reason to understand it, the way those people who were
originally addressed by it did! Otherwise, what wisdom would there be in a
God that chooses to teach meaningless riddles or irrational claims to
humanity?

Now, let me tell you what this book is not.

This book is not about the refutation of (The God Delusion). It certainly
doesn‟t take two volumes spanning over a thousand pages to refute (The
God Delusion)! I chose (The God Delusion) in particular to achieve my

9


higher ends in this book, because to me it represents a conclusive example of
all the damage that atheism and secularism have been doing to the world
within the last century in particular, especially since Darwin turned this
senseless belief into a philosophical doctrine of science! It gives a clear
demonstration of how ultimately vacuous every atheist argument really is. It
also portraits the dreams and ambitions of atheists, their views of morality
and justice, what they are so desperately trying to create and propagate for
the world to take in the place of religion, and their self-contradiction with
regards to the way they think the world should be running with all those
religions competing over the hearts and minds of men! Thus it appeared to
me that it would be very convenient to destroy all the foundations of atheism
and secular thought in our time, by means of tailoring a detailed response to
the bestseller of a man who is currently considered to be the most effective
and influential preacher of atheism in our times! It is – to my eyes - an ideal
example to demonstrate to the world how inverse rationality and utter
nonsense can be made into mainstream „science‟, not only so, but even start
to wage ideological warfare against human reason and clear commonsense,
in the name of “raising people‟s consciousness”, promoting science and
defending proper reason against „superstition‟!

This book is not a literature of apologetics! Its object is clear from its title!
There‟s too much fallacy taking radical dominion over modern thought and
scientific academia in the Western world today that I decided it‟s about time
somebody did something about it! Let the world see the depth of the fallacy,
the magnitude of the loss and darkness, and the logarithmic descent on the
curve of humanity, that mankind had gone through ever since they
overthrew the leadership of the true wisdom of their creator! It‟s a pity that I
had to respond to all sorts of uneducated and brainwashed bloggers,
reporters and authors, who are enjoying the freedom to write and publish on
religion even though they really do not know the first thing about Islam or
about any religion for that matter, but that‟s the way it is in the world today,
thanks to the circus of “freedom of nonsense”!

As I hope the reader will realize by the end of his long journey throughout
this fat literature; it is not this large because I was having difficulty

10


explaining what I believe to be the right answer, no, but because I took my
time in arguing forcefully and effectively against a great deal of fundamental
fallacies that have become mainstream in our times, and I took great
pleasure – I may add – in exposing in fair detail the irrationality and sheer
emptiness of almost every fallacy that I came across as I read (The God
Delusion)!

Thus I took liberty in quoting and commenting on so much of the professor‟s
words, page by page, in a way I suppose my reader may have never seen in
any western literature before, not because I needed to do so for the sake of
proving that he stands upon nothing, but because I wanted to show the
reader how empty, self-contradictory, inconsistent, anti-semiotic, anti-
rational and even anti-scientific everybody who chooses to deny the
undeniable will have to go in every claim that he makes in support of his
position! This demonstration in itself was one of my goals for this book, and
is one of the reasons why I chose (The God Delusion) in particular for my
literary end. Sometimes I would find myself saying: “But my comment to
this quotation will not add anything new to the main argument that I have
already proven and demonstrated, so why bother make it?” but then I would
find myself compelled to proceed with it for the sake of piling up further
effective demonstrations of how fallacy only begets more fallacy. So as the
reader approaches the conclusion of this book (Both of its volumes), he will
have seen that it‟s not the building of the truth that took me so many pages;
it‟s the demolition of the foundations of fallacy (along with many of its
branches) that has become mainstream in a world of ideological chaos! He
will see that he needs not be a biologist or a philosopher to accept the perfect
and simple truth that has always been there before his eyes!

Here‟s an atheist biologist who believes that man needs a lot of
“consciousness raising” to accept Darwinism and become a total liberalist!
So let‟s see if it‟s really “consciousness raising” or “consciousness
RAZING” that he‟s doing to his readers in the (The God Delusion)! Read
through this literature and be the judge! So many are the ideas and theories
that have been taken for granted within the last century that I know my
reader will find the mere suggestion of challenging them or shaking them is

11


unthinkable! But I urge him to remember that some of the greatest
breakthroughs in science itself were at one time “unthinkable”!

I appeal to your decency and self-respect my reader, to be brave! To have
the courage to admit the truth as soon as it is revealed to you, no matter what
people would think about you, no matter how many academics of your field
may disregard you; the truth we are talking about here is no less than your
own fate after death! This is a question of eternal fate; it is not the urge to
consult a good doctor lest we get serious physical trouble for not doing so! It
is a question of eternity!

You never know when you‟ll die! Death could come to take you any minute!
And once you‟re there, there‟s no coming back! It will be too late! Too late
indeed! So you really have to take this question seriously, very seriously,
and be brave!

In a very popular video clip on Youtube, when asked a very simple question
by a student: “What if you‟re wrong?” Professor Dawkins replies in clear
scorn – not unexpectedly though – saying: ―Well, What if I‘m wrong, I mean
anybody could be wrong! We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti
monster and the pink unicorn and the flying tee-pot! ….‖ And after a short
lecture making the point that every child is naturally brought up on the faith
of his parents, he winds up in an even more pompous comment saying: ―You
ask me what if I‘m wrong, What if you‘re wrong about the great JuJu at the
bottom of the sea?‖

At that, the audience breaks in laughter and he rejoices in his answer,
pretending that it doesn‟t concern him in the least that he could actually be
wrong! While the question was plain and simple; the professor obviously
hated to declare the clear and simple fact – a fact even to him - that if he is
wrong, then he may - at least in what should be in his eyes a minute
probability - meet with an unknown fate to him after his death; one that is
determined by some of those many systems of faith he easily makes fun of,
and could easily be that eternal inferno claimed by the three major religions:
Islam, Judaism and Christianity!

12


He does recognize the likeliness of it, doesn‟t he? Shouldn‟t it make him – at
least – a bit more humble in his reply towards the magnitude of knowledge
in question and the possible consequences of the choice he is talking about?
So why reply in such a scornful and arrogant manner?

Of course he knows it‟s a possibility! Very little probability (according to
his philosophical position and understanding), but still a possibility
nonetheless!

Well, he simply couldn‟t find it in him to make that brave and
straightforward admission! Instead he strikes it right back in the face of his
interrogator as though she insulted him with the question! He was defending
his position by dropping his opponent down to his level saying, ―so what?
You could be wrong too! You being born Christian means you have to suffer
the same probability yourself as well, because your being born on a certain
faith does not by any means prove that faith itself to be the truth!‖ Well,
you‟re right, it doesn‟t! So what if you‟re BOTH wrong? Suppose she asked
the question this way: “What if we‟re both, you and I, Wrong?” Does this
make the question more comfortable and more worthy of a straightforward
and honest reply from you, professor?

One has no choice but to wonder then: as a scientist, is he not prepared to
accept the natural „probability‟ that he might be wrong on this question, and
take the responsibility for his choice and the choices of those who followed
his teaching? It is not a falsifiable theory of science then that he is
preaching! It is another doctrine of blind faith, one that he obviously takes
great pride in holding, no matter how hard he tries to look and sound as
skeptic about evolutionism as any natural scientist should really be!

I hope my reader is not that biased, not that proud in dealing with such a
dangerous issue! I hope he does realize that it is evidence he is looking for
and that he should accept it no matter where it comes from, or who it is that
holds it!

Initially, this book was planned to be published as a single volume of a
thousand pages! However, I was advised to split it in two volumes, for ease
of publishing and reading. Thus I chose to assign „volume 1‟ to the

13


refutation of the core arguments in (The God Delusion) as presented by the
professor in Chapters 3 and 4, hence making this Volume the core of the
literature that may suffice for a reader who does not find ease in going
through as much as a thousand pages! „Volume 2‟ included the discussion of
the rest of the (The God Delusion), and the fundamental refutation of some
basic misconceptions about Islam that the professor – unsurprisingly –
regurgitated in his book, especially in the last few chapters.

I now place this First Volume in my reader‟s hands, hoping that by the time
the second volume was published, he will be more than willing to read it…

May the Lord guide every honest truth seeker to the truth, and take him into
His limitless grace and mercy …

Amen.

14


15


Chapter One

Answering Chapter Three of the Delusion:
Arguments for GOD‟s
Existence

In this chapter, professor Dawkins approaches the arguments for the
existence of the creator in a manner as though he is criticizing a theory of
science! As though he is falsifying the postulates of a manmade theory! He
probably imagines that there once came along a philosopher, long ago,
somewhere in the world, who was contemplating in the beauty and
magnificence of the universe, and after a long tiresome struggle with
mathematics and philosophy; all of a sudden it struck him and he burst out
saying: ―Eureka! That‘s it! The universe must have had a Creator!‖

16


17


As mentioned in the introduction, I have chosen to start this literature with
response and thorough discussion of Chapters 3 and 4 of (The God
Delusion) in particular because they represent the footing of the book, or the
core argument so to speak! Once we got those two chapters out of the way,
I‟d then proceed with discussion of the rest of the book, putting forth the rest
of what I wish to say.

Now let me begin by maintaining that the existence of a creator is not the
advent of some human postulation or presumption that just appeared or came
along at some point in history, the way Dawkins believes! It is – by
necessity - the only reasonable outcome of axiomatic reason based on
accumulative perception in every healthy mind! So, prophets or no prophets,
doctrine or no doctrine, people never need – because of the very nature of
human reason - to be told that a superior creator exists or to have somebody
prove it for them! The concept of the creator was always conceived of as
true and perfectly rational not through a single source of perception, but
through ALL income of human perception; not in a single fragment of the
universe; but in the entire universe! Such is – quite simply, and as I shall
come to elaborate – the natural way the human mind works! Creation – and
perfection at it to say the least - never needed to be “proven” in the same
sense that any theory demands proof, not because people are being brought
up on it, taking it for granted among other things as „blind faith‟ without
ever daring to question it, but because it is simply not possible that any
reasonable man could look at this marvelous universe and find himself
compelled to think otherwise! It is indeed a meaning too clear and
reasonable to be questioned or to demand any particular proof for it! It is not
a theory or a philosophy! It‟s basic axiomatic reason! A marvelous system
that is perfectly composed, restricted, balanced and controlled necessitates
an ultimately perfect composer, restrictor, balancer, and controller! This is
not a statement that people make from blind faith in any given religion, it is
an argument that is as axiomatic and self-evident – in terms of language and
reason – as the argument – for example - that since I can think then I must
have a mind!

18


Let me express it mathematically: Since system A is a set that is composed
of elements {a,b,c,d,e,f} and since system A is decomposable by nature and
its elements – in principle - can be made to compose system A once again,
or any other system, therefore system A was composed. And since “to be
composed” necessitates that there be a willful composer that causes
composition of elements to be initiated, and a system to be made up, then
there must be a composer for A. The same goes for any given system B, C,
D, and so forth. Now, if set U is the universal set of ALL systems that have
smaller components (U = set A U B U C U D …etc: the set of all systems
that we see around us that are compose and decomposed), where all those
systems interact, some of which decompose in due time, leaving elements
that would then be made parts of new systems that come to take their place
in perfect integration within this coherently stable and perfectly consistent
system U, then U necessitates a superior composer and keeper, who made all
those components and composed U, and then kept it running in this
particular way (the way of systems and subsystems interacting, composing
and decomposing).

In short: Everything around us is composed = therefore it has a composer!
Because composing is a deed that demands a doer! It‟s not just the effect of
a cause, it is a complex work of organized causes that demands a willful,
purposeful and determined doer; a composer. We are talking about the
establishment of the very meaning of the verb (to compose), which is what
begets the meaning: (composed)!

Now this meaning, my reader, is rationally indisputable! This is basic
reason! It is not a theory! If we did not see it as a rational necessity, then we
should never trust our minds anymore! My previous statement of it is only
my mathematical attempt to express a meaning that is as axiomatic to human
reason as this statement: (1 + 1 + 1 = 3)! Without the willful composer and
keeper there would be no order, and no natural law to keep systems and
components bound to this particular path; it would be just like saying (1 + 1
+ 1 = 0)! This meaning was never proposed or theorized! It emerges
naturally from our observation of everything in the world around us;
everything we can observe is made of components that are “put together”, so

19


there must be an initial “putter”; thus the entire universe (the sum of
everything that is composed of components) necessitates a superior
composer! A composer that is by necessity not composed Himself, otherwise
he would be just like us: only another element of the set U (the sum of all
systems that are composed of subsystems and components)!

I ask every reasonable reader now: Does this rationale demand “proof”? Do
we need to prove that since something consists of perfectly functional
elements, then they must be put together in this particular way by a superior
maker for a particular purpose? It‟s quite obvious that we don‟t! This is the
way the mind works; it cannot think of this universe as anything but a
perfectly created and masterfully composed and preserved universe! Natural
law in itself is proof for this! Even atheists cannot resist this meaning, and
they find themselves compelled whenever they describe the universe and
elements of natural life, to use a language that - despite their hardest efforts
as we shall see - continues to betray their ultimately irrational belief! As we
will elaborate later in this literature, they cannot escape using words like
(selected: which necessitates a selector), (designed: which necessitates a
designer) and so on.

This is why I don‟t know whether to laugh or cry when I listen to atheists
saying that the burden of proof is upon the rest of humanity to “prove”
creation! This is nonsense! It is exclusively upon atheists, to prove that such
a - very clearly - magnificent universe, such a perfectly conserved and
controlled system, is – and against what all humans hold by necessity of
reason – NOT the outcome of the work – both the initial and ongoing work -
of what is clearly a masterfully wise and purposeful maker-sustainer, but the
outcome of the contrary to that! There‟s no proving this nonsense of a
meaning no matter how hard they try! Their very tongues cannot allow
them! When the meaning is so audaciously FALSE, no mathematical
argument, observation or scientific discovery could ever qualify as evidence
or proof for it! We cannot prove that all humans are deluded to take creation
for an axiomatic rational necessity, because then it will mean that they could
easily be deluded – just the same - on all other rational axioms that they take
for granted; meanings without which reason itself cannot work! If I cannot

20


trust that I exist (for example), and I need to search for proof of this very
meaning; then I am indeed a sick man that is in a desperate need for help!
How can a man trust his own senses and his own judgment when he forces
himself to believe that his senses delude him, and that they fool him into
seeing purposeful creation where there is actually none? And if the very
meaning of the word (true) or (real) is open to questioning, then what could
any (search for the truth) ever lead to, and what then would be the very
function of reason itself? There‟s no point arguing with such a mindset!

Atheism is indeed a mental sickness as I shall come to prove by tens of
different arguments in this literature! So I ask of my reader to be patient and
read this large volume all the way through to the end.

Dawkins is trying in this chapter – against everything that humans hold dear
in their heads and in their hearts - to prove that we ‗no longer‘ have any
reason to take creation for granted! He is out to tell the world that we now
finally have a theory, or a body of theorization that leaves no room for that
creator! And since he deliberately denies this rational necessity to which all
healthy humans are bound, he embarks on a futile attempt to disprove the
existence of God by examining the writings of a few theologians or
philosophers from here or there, as though this is everything that theists rely
upon to hold their fundamental rationale of the creator!

Atheists have got to understand that unlike atheism, “theism” was never
“theorized”! There never came along a monk or a figure of authority in a
human nation who proposed this concept and called upon others to follow
him on it! It is, as I shall elaborate in this section, a necessity of reason, and
a deep call of innate bright-right from deep within every human being!
Prophets only teach us who God is and what purpose He has assigned to us,
but nobody teaches us that there has to be a creator who made us the way we
are, and made the world around us the way it is! We see it with our own eyes
ever since we start making sense of the world!

Heading this chapter professor Dawkins states:

21


―Arguments for the existence of God have been codified for centuries by
theologians, and supplemented by others, including purveyors of
misconceived 'common sense'.‖

Now I have to wonder, what does he make of this “codification” and how
does he really think of it? Is it to him; the “innovation” of the concept itself,
as was the case with every philosophy or theory put forth by an individual
human mind? If this is what he means by applying the term “codification”
here, regarding the existence of a creator, then I should say that he is making
in advance a proposition that cannot be accepted, much less built upon,
without being in itself proven!

I may be asking him now to prove to us that there once was a time in history
when humans never imagined this marvelous world to have a creator, and
the thought never even crossed their minds, until all of a sudden an
individual mind started “codifying” this “claim” and hence calling unto them
to follow it! It is clear to me that this is the underlying belief that Dawkins
holds concerning what he calls the arguments for the existence of God! This
will be revealed in detail later on when he discusses the origins of religion,
and we shall attend to it in „Volume 2‟. The point is; this is nothing but a
statement of blind Darwinian faith from his part.

And of course when professor Dawkins speaks of a “misconceived common
sense” one has no choice but to wonder, what “kind” of a common sense is
he speaking of, and according to what authority of reason does he give
himself the right to accuse a figure that may go somewhere around 99.99
percent of all humans that ever set foot on this earth of misconception in the
way they accepted their common sense in regards to this basically
reasonable question?

So it turns out that I – along with the rest of humanity - am a misconceived
fool to let myself think that I and everything around me was created
masterfully, now that someone has finally succeeded – according to
Dawkins – in forging a “magnificent” explanation to “the origins of life”
that just might be good enough to be a replace “God” and save me from

22


following this natural reasoning and this common meaning that all humans
find within themselves as soon as they start making sense of things!

I am supposed to let go of pure reason and very clear common sense
regarding the origins of everything that I see around me, for the sake of a
clearly un-provable and – as we will demonstrate later on – clearly flawed
theory on the origin of species! Those are the grounds of reasoning upon
which he accuses the human race – save for atheists like himself – of
suffering from misconception of their very own common sense!

Oh what a miserable race we are indeed!

Now make no mistake my reader; I‟m not taking support for my argument in
the multitude of its holders across human history, no! My position of
knowledge is entirely against this kind of reasoning, as I will be
demonstrating throughout this literature! The truth remains to be the truth,
and a fallacy remains to be a fallacy, no matter how many people believe it!
I‟m simply expressing my astonishment at how a man can so easily accuse
almost all humanity all along its history of “misconceiving” its “common
sense”! What meaning would remain in the word “commonsense” itself (as
opposed to nonsense) if all humans have been misconceiving it? Or in
clearer words, are you trying, Dr. Dawkins, to shout in the face of all
humanity saying: “You people have all been fooled by your commonsense
and the very tool in your minds and in your cognition that made you the elite
species that you obviously are”?

What an outrage!

Thomas Aquinas …

In a debate with Michael Shermer held in August 2008 in Sydney, Dr. John
Lennox declared his amazement in the fact that Dawkins did not call his
book: “The (Created God) delusion”! I can only salute him for this witty
comment! Because simply, no theist believes in a “created god”! The
concept of infinite regress – as shall be elaborated later on – is by no means
an argument to hold against the rationale of the creator!

23


(http://www.google.com/search?q=shermer+versus+john+lennox&ie=utf-
8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

In this section of the chapter, we can see how Dawkins goes to extremes in
applying philosophical tricks for the sake of putting off the argument of god!
Those tricks are not without a simple and reasonable answer as we shall see!
Those are not unsolvable problems of reason as he presumes them to be!
They are simply the outcome of a corrupt philosophy, nothing more nothing
less!

Dawkins starts examining the arguments of Thomas Aquinas for the
existence of god, and I quote:

―The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth
century don't prove anything, and are easily - though I hesitate to say
so, given his eminence - exposed as vacuous. The first three are just
different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered
together. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a question
raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.‖ (The God Delusion
p.77)
Now the professor thinks that by refuting Aquinas‟ arguments, he will
“disprove” the existence of God! Okay then … let‟s see those arguments and
his answers to them!

―The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This
leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something
had to make the first move, and that something we call God. …‖
Well, to build his objection on describing the answer of “god” here as an
“escape”; this is clearly no argument, and it reflects the sheer poverty of
reason upon which all atheists build their position as we shall demonstrate!

Why call it an escape? Because he doesn‟t like it? Because it‟s too simple an
answer? Because it can‟t be tested in a lab? Why? Since when was the
clearest and most obvious of all answers to such a question (supposing there
are any other answers at all to begin with!): “An escape”? Escape from what
and to where? If you have managed to come up with another answer,
professor, then by all means put it forth and prove its rationality! But DO

24


NOT describe the only reasonable answer any man can think of to such a
fundamental question as an “escape”! At least, at the very least, give the rest
of mankind (besides atheists) the credit of believing in something that is
good enough to be a possible „explanation‟! Since you‟re so fond of
fallaciously putting “statistical probability” into every “gap”, professor, tell
me then, what are the odds that 85 % or more of humans alive today (and a
much bigger percentage of humans indeed all along the history of mankind!)
have all been delusional on the creator, and are only just “escaping” the
“problem”?

You say this is “infinite regress” and then call the notion of God an escape
from it! But whoever said it‟s “INFINITE” or endless to begin with? And at
that, let us ask you: what is the meaning of this infinity that you – a limited
being clearly limited by the system that confines you – are speaking of here?
Simple reason shows that it has to have an ending, as it is the natural
property of everything that we see in this universe!

The basic components of the universe are clearly finite! Every system that
we can now observe is built of smaller components, built from the
decomposition of previous systems! So no matter how far up and down the
levels of complexity would go, it has to come to a limit! Otherwise the very
concept of equilibrium and balance would be obsolete! Actions would not
yield equal and opposite reactions; they wouldn‟t yield a reaction at all!
Positive polarities would not demand equal negative polarities! The system,
no matter how huge it really is, has to be limited and enclosed!

All those motions, all those reactions, all those intertwined causes we rejoice
in contemplating and discovering (and we can only see the tiny tip of the
iceberg) must all be enclosed in one huge envelope that is controlled and
sustained by an external agent; the creator! So when you say “infinite
regress” implying that the levels of causes in the system are endless in their
count, you are actually breaching the system itself, and proposing a model
that destroys the rational necessity of its enclosure and consistency!

25


Even the mathematical infinity itself is an expression of the rational
necessity of this limit at the top of all material causes, beyond which comes
the external creator!

„Infinity‟ is treated in mathematics as a quantity in itself! We found we had
no choice but to deal with it as such. An exceptional type of quantity
(number, or value) of course, but a quantity nonetheless! There‟s no
escaping this! It‟s like we know there has to be a final value at the far end,
but we just cannot afford to determine it, trace it down or even imagine it,
thus in our limitedness we call it “infinity”; the numerical inverse of the
zero! It‟s an expression of recognizing the existence and general
qualities of X coupled with admitting the incomprehensible nature
(quantity) of X! Please reread this previous sentence carefully because it is
important.

This incomprehension comes from the fact that though we know – recognize
- that this value has to exist at the end of the line, we understand that
whatever comes after it, is simply uncountable, and does not fall within the
field of what “counting” itself is about! It is wrong to suppose that there‟s
nothingness beyond it! Something odd happens there that breaks the trend
and terminates the line; but it‟s not the turn into nothingness! Simple reason
denies this meaning, and necessitates the existence of something there that is
totally different in its quality and the way it works than anything that could
be counted by human numbers!

This is why this quantity (infinity) is the only quantity where it is true to say
(X+n = X) where “n” is any real value other than zero, and X substitutes for
infinity! At that point, there is no meaning for any further addition or
multiplication or any mathematical operation whatsoever! It is a point
beyond the capacity of mathematics itself as a tool! The scale or the number-
line simply ends there! The purpose of mathematics and human analogy
stops there! And though it is obviously a rational necessity that something
does exist beyond that point; it is also clear that whatever it is, it cannot be
quantified or analogized to anything within this system!

26


This phenomenon of mathematics (numerical infinity) has only one rational
explanation: It describes that point in the universe where all that is
reasonably quantifiable by the human mind ends! Is this mathematical
quantity thus – by definition – a connotation of “endlessness”? No! It is
clearly the last recognizable point – though obviously unreachable to human
reason - on the scale of all that can be counted, analogized and quantified
WITHIN THIS SYSTEM! And the very fact that we do recognize this point
the way we do, and deal with it the way we do, proves that this regress of
causes, levels of causes, or layers of complexity, or whatever scale you wish
to apply it to, does indeed come to a final point where this mode of
reasoning itself has no choice but to recognize that something fundamentally
different in nature or attributes comes in place beyond it! Something that is
truly limitless, countless, and cannot be analogized or quantified by any
means that could be afforded by man! In other words; mathematics in its
very nature cannot go there!

I urge my reader to contemplate deeply on this insight!

Mathematical Infinity obviously does not mean that this model, this
countable model of the universe that we observe and deal with by our tools
of reason, keeps going on to no end! It does not mean that the scale is open
ended (which is the common – and basically linguistic - understanding of the
term infinite), it actually means that it does indeed have an ending; one that
cannot be determined by any tool of reason that we humans possess! The
point of arithmetic infinity is simply the point where our minds fail and we
can no longer count!

It may be worthwhile to add that astronomers managed to calculate the size
of the observable universe. This size they calculated – roughly 30 billion
light years - is not all that the universe is! It‟s only how far they can
currently see! In fact, the universe as a whole; has to be as wide as this
“infinity” value that we ponder about! The edge of the universe, beyond
which exists the creator Himself, has to be at that point that is recognized by
mathematical reason as the last point where numbers have any capacity to
count or to mean anything at all! That is, no matter how huge the biggest
value you can think of is, the universe is much wider; and this goes on not

27


forever, but until the actual value of “infinity” – unachievable by man - is
reached!

And since we cannot reason this value or even imagine it, it must follow that
no matter how far we may ever manage to go or to measure in the universe,
there will always be much further away to go, and much more to measure
and count! We – the limited humans - will never come even remotely close
to that place on our own! The very concept of mathematical infinity proves
this meaning, because if we could reach that point, then it‟s not “infinity”,
and we can still count further and go further beyond it! This is how the
universe is built, and how our minds are formatted to make sense of it! Our
very tool of reason screams in our faces that it is indeed limited, and that it
must be that beyond this unreachable limit is the almighty Himself, in
perfect accordance with what reason necessitates His attributes to be, and
what He – indeed - teaches about Himself!

Thus I hold that reason, physics, astronomy, and mathematics necessitate
that there be an end point at the top of the scale, any scale within this
system, at which the regress ends, and where the tip of the chain is held by
its keeper, sustainer! And even though it may be recognized as “infinity” to
our human mathematical capacity, it is by necessity of reason the end point!
It proves – in its abstract meaning – that our capacity to do science and
philosophy was not made to help us understand anything about the ways and
the nature of what is there beyond: The uncreated creator of this limited
system! Infinity in this sense is not the indication of endlessness of the
universe itself, but of the human inherent inability to determine or even
imagine the value defining the end of the system! I emphasize this meaning
and I say that if this is your conception of mathematical infinity, then yes,
the regress of causes is mathematically infinite, and at its very end, beyond
the point of infinity (∞); comes the creator! And if – on the other hand –
you define infinity as endlessness (linguistically, not as the mathematical
quantity) then I say „infinite regress‟ is false and in this case I would argue
that the regress is FINITE, not infinite! Either ways, it has to end at the
uncreated creator, by necessity of reason.

28


In a further insight, I would like to point out that this meaning supports the
attributes of the creator‟s almighty self that He teaches in Islam. He has to be
– by necessity of reason - the sole holder of total control, with no partner,
and no chance whatsoever for any creature to compete with Him or to rebel
against Him or to share power with Him; otherwise the system will be liable
to crash! The Quran coins this argument clearly in this verse: ((Had there
been therein (i.e., in the heavens and the earth) gods besides Allâh, then
verily both would have been ruined.)) (Translation of meanings 21:22)

It is essential for the sake of the system itself, that no element within it
should ever have the capacity to breach it on its own will and power, or
escape from His total dominion! This is why man has to be limited in such a
clearly demonstrable way, even as he attempts to imagine how big the
universe itself really is! He was not made to be a god, or to share dominion
upon the universe with its creator! In this respect one can see that even when
you call it “infinite” regress, it does not refute the existence of the creator; it
actually proves it mathematically! It is the only explanation that comes in
perfect accord with the way the human mind works.

―2 The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has
a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to
be terminated by a first cause, which we call God. …‖
Yes indeed … so what‟s the problem with that, professor?

―3 The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time
when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist
now, there must have been something non-physical to bring
them into existence, and that something we call God.‖
I feel compelled to comment on the argument itself and its choice of words
here. If by physical the author of this argument means “material”, that is; a
subordinate element within this system, then yes indeed, the creator of the
universe is non-physical! But if he means by physical; the contrary to verbal
or metaphoric, then of course the creator is in this sense, physical; that is He
is real! As for the meaning of the argument; it simply goes down to the very

29


simple meaning: “Since this universe exists the way it does, it must have had
a creator that differs from it in His properties.” And this is obviously a
rational necessity; the very same necessity we are trying to push back into
the minds of atheists! 1

1
It may be true that none of the commonly known versions of the Cosmological argument is sufficient on

Here's a rather long version of the cosmological argument, one that may seem to be inspired by "Set
theory".. You may call it "the systemic cosmological argument" if you wish. I made it up just now only to
make my point here!

Premise one: Every system that is composed of smaller components (the terms particles, parts, or
elements may be used here), must begin to exist by means of a definitive cause that is external to it,
which brought its components together.

Premise two: Composed systems interact systematically (emerging and decaying) as subsystems of an
even bigger system in the universe.

Premise three: The universe is - by definition - the sum of all composed systems, subsystems and
particles that we know exist (The mother system of which all conceivable systems are subsystems).

Premise four: The cause of all systems and components cannot be a system comprised of components
himself, or else he will fall within the set of all composed systems!

Therefore it follows that the universe had a beginning and is - by necessity - caused by an external
composer that is not "composed" or caused, has no beginning, and is not bound by any of the rules that
bind this system or any of its components.

Premise one, to my eyes, is both an irrefutable A-Priori statement (it follows from the very meaning of the
passive verb "composed") and is supported by all conceivable observations and human experience of the
way matter (both animate and inanimate) works. Premise two and three are equally plausible, since all
particles in this universe are in an ongoing process of composition and decay, in the form of systems and
subsystems at numerous levels, the highest level of which is the envelope of all particles and systems that
we call the universe! The view of the universe as a consistent collective system of all systems was never in
need for verification, least of all today with all the knowledge we have gathered in the last two centuries
about the way it works and the way its constants are all tuned, and its elements are all organized in perfect
equilibrium. No one can claim that it is wrong to call the universe a closed system!
Now this version of the argument is far more powerful than other commonly known versions because it
does not leave room for an objection by the claim that - for example - the universe cannot be proven to
have had a beginning, or the ridiculous claim that the word "everything" in the common wording of the
temporal cosmological argument is contradicted by the impossibility that time (in its abstract meaning) may
have had a previous cause to it, viewing it as a "thing"!
It may be worth noting that someone may argue that the first premise here does not include the smallest
particle that cannot be divided into smaller components! My response would simply be that no such particle
was ever proven to exist, and it‟s not a rational necessity! Prove to us that there is indeed such a particle in
nature, and then we will debate! But you can‟t do that, can you?!
In fact, not only is it not a rational necessity; it cannot be justified by any rational process of analogy we
humans can propose! If this particle is indivisible because it is too small to be divided; then it‟s not a
particle at all, and it cannot be part of a bigger particle! It is true that a point – in Cartesian geometry – has
(zero) length, but it is only true because a point is not meant to express a physical quantity! A point is only
the abstraction of a particular place in space, a locus! There is no such a thing in real life as a (Zero)
diameter circle (i.e. point)! Whenever you plot a point on some piece of paper, it will always have a

30


Now watch how Dawkins comments on those three arguments; I quote:

―All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and
invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted
assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we
allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to
an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one,
there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the
diameter; otherwise it will not be there at all! No matter how tiny an entity may be in reality, the way we
see nature works, demands that it be divisible into yet tinier and smaller parts. Reason does not allow us to
claim that at some point at the bottom of this system, there is a particle X that can only be divided into
particles that are dimensionless (which means: it cannot be divided)! Something that has no width; is not to
be called a physical particle, the accumulation of which should give us a particle that has a width! It‟s
simply (nothing)! It‟s like saying (0+0=1) or (0 x 2 = 1); it‟s a false meaning! So not only can you not
prove that such an indivisible entity exists; fact of the matter is it is not a rational necessity, not even a
reasonable possibility!
We simply say that this regress cannot keep on going down to a (zero) particle, because if zero means
nothing (which is indeed what is means), then we obviously cannot reduce the smallest “thing” to
“nothing”! So there can be no such thing as a smallest indivisible particle, which is rendered indivisible
because if it were divided, its parts would be (zero) in mass or volume! Every fraction (real number) could
indeed be (fractioned) – in theory - to yet a smaller Real number, which goes down to an end that just
cannot be conceived by man (A kind of infinity that is identified by mathematics as tending to zero: not an
actual zero, but can only be treated as such). The smallest “fraction” in mathematics is not Zero, but it is
too small a value for human reason – not to mention human senses – to deal with, or to distinguish from a
Zero. So we can see that mathematics – in its blunt axiomatic referential – expresses the limitedness of our
human tools of knowledge in this respect (in micro-scale) just as it does at the other end of the spectrum
(macro-scale). We simply need to acknowledge this, and force our limited minds to just stop there!
Reaching out beyond the imaginable is so tempting indeed; but unfortunately, it drives a man out of his
mind!

Now I feel I should draw my reader‟s attention to the fact that even though I just crafted and furnished a
rigid philosophical argument for the existence of God, and even furnished responses to possible objections
to it; this is NOT by any means the way I know that God exists, and this is not the method I use to argue in
His favor! His existence is by all means rationally axiomatic and is evident from all that comes to me from
my senses, and from all that my mind makes out of that input! Thus we say that any argument of
philosophy that seeks to present itself as evidence for His existence would be reductive no matter how
masterfully it is crafted! This is why followers of prophets never asked them to “prove” the existence of
God to them, but rather to prove their claims of prophethood! It has always been a rational and linguistic
fact that demands no proof! Now the fact that certain miserable people started to question this fundamental
notion does not leave me in need to forge such arguments of philosophy to prove to them that bright is the
day and dark is the night! It only leaves them in need for a mental cure to sweep away those layers of false
philosophy that have inverted their natural human reason and spoilt their commonsense! This is exactly
why this literature turned out to be a huge two-volume book! I‟m not arguing for the truth, I‟m rather
destroying huge towers of false argumentation and philosophy that have captivated western thought within
the last few centuries! I will discuss in detail my position to the issue of arguing “for the existence of God”
in volume 2. Just let it be clear for now that no matter what atheists may do in refutation of this “argument”
I just forged; I couldn‟t possibly care less! I never said it is a text of scripture or God-given revelation
anyway! So I tell them now: save your efforts and don‟t bother! Just read this book (both its volumes) all
the way to the end, and see if you could break free from your biases and prejudices, and specifically from
your deep despise and hate for Islam in particular, because if you could do that (may Allah give you the
strength), then I guarantee to you that by the end of this long journey throughout these two large volumes,
you will come out a different man!

31


properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience,
goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes
as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. …
“ (Dawkins p. 78)

This reply clearly demonstrates the delusion the author suffers from in
approaching the question of God. As we keep repeating over and over again:
we DO NOT speak of a CREATED God! He has to understand that regress
is only a property of the system and its created elements within it, just like
programs running on a computer system; they may regress in amongst their
inter-processes for as many levels as the system contains, but they will never
include the human programmer himself anywhere within that particular
chain of regress; it will only have him seated at the end of it, at the keyboard
of the computer machine, where he runs the system from outside! The
creator of the system is by necessity EXTERNAL to it, and is not liable to
any of the processes that He created within the system, level above level,
and cause above cause! Yes there will be regress, and yes every cause will
have a causer affecting it in the system, but for any given system or set of
systems, this will have to come to a point where the regress ends (the system
closes) at the last cause within the system, and the chain terminates before a
creator who is – by necessity - external to the system he created!
So claiming Him to be part of the regress is simply to turn Him into a
subject of creation; just like all other elements of the chain of regress within
the system that He created! This is clearly false! Its fallacy comes from the
fact that He must be the one who created ALL “creatable systems”! If He
himself was creatable, then he is yet another “creatable system”, another ring
in the chain that will have to end at the „uncreated creator‟! The chain has to
come to an end, otherwise the very meaning of causality and “system” will
fail! Hence the rational necessity of “the first cause”! We are speaking of the
creator of all created things in existence, the one who gives the act of
creation itself its meaning and purpose, and the word cause itself its initial
definition! You cannot demand of the laws of created things to apply to the
creator of all created things! He created the chain of regress; he‟s not part of
it!
The point it; you have no choice – rationally - but to acknowledge the
existence of an uncreated creator; an uncaused case! Commonsense leads to
it, reason necessitates it, language presupposes it, and mathematics
demonstrates it!

32


Some philosophers would easily object to the argument of the first cause
saying that there‟s no reason to believe that there‟s a first cause, stemming
from the famous question: (If God created me then who created God?)…
They would argue that philosophers have been questioning the very meaning
of “cause” itself, and the determinism of causality. Well, philosophers have
gone as far as questioning the very meaning of reality itself, to the extent of
actually making a man doubt that he himself exists to begin with! Does this
make such arguments reasonable or at any level: worthwhile? 2
I mean suppose a philosopher came to you one day with a book, a large
volume, and told you that once you have gone through this book, you will
come out doubting your very own senses and your perception as a human
being; would you really bother reading it? Perhaps you would be tempted by
the challenge of the idea itself and that‟s why you may go through it; a
mental exercise of some twisted sort perhaps! I can think of no other motive
for any sane man to go through something like that, other than of course

2
One of the silliest arguments I ever came across against the position that the universe must‟ve
been caused to exist, is the argument that causality itself did not exist or did not make sense
before the origination of space-time! I ask, what is space-time? Space-time is only a mathematical
means of relating two events to one another on a frame of reference for both space and time!
There is no rationality in claiming that time did not “exist” before the advent of the universe as
we know it, because time is only a measure of the progress of events! Yes of course our own
model of it and the way we perceive it and calculate it did not exist before the advent of the
universe, it did not exist before the advent of man himself, but this has nothing to do with the
rational necessity of causality at every conceivable instant of time, be it within our human frame
of reference of space-time that we came to establish after the advent of the universe, or before
that! An argument as such – I believe – would only emerge from the mind of a scientist who
doesn‟t quite comprehend the distinction between the rational necessity of a certain abstract
meaning, and the human ways of applying this meaning to their own frame of existence! Yes
before the universe came to be there was something else, something we have no way of knowing
or imagining (we can only be told about it by its creator, if we were ever to know it at all), but we
certainly have no rational argument in claiming that causality did not apply there! We cannot
conceive an existence without causality in the first place! And we know it is impossible because
by making this claim, we would be making a proposition of an existence that couldn‟t possibly
allow for any system or any order or anything at all to emerge! We would be wondering: How
was it ever possible that the very concept of „natural law‟ would emerge in such an a-causal
existence? So denying causality before the advent of the universe is utterly irrational, because it
destroys the very rationality of the universe itself ever coming into being (the event of its
emergence) in the first place! It destroys the very meaning of an „event‟, so to speak!

So in short: while the rational argument goes this way: without causality, there couldn‟t have ever
emerged any matter or anything at all that we may conceive by measures of space or time, some
atheists would put it in the exact inverse order saying: without (or before) „time‟ there couldn‟t
be any causality!

33


debunking it and proving its sheer corruption! But if we, humans, have come
to a point where we need to prove the very basics of our reason and
cognition, or to prove that we actually exist in the first place; then we really
no longer deserve to call ourselves rational beings!
A mind that is so disturbed as to doubt its own senses is one that needs cure,
not recognition as an intellect of philosophy that is worth listening to and
arguing with! Yet, those poor guys are philosophers whose works do cover
library shelves everywhere and are viewed with respect and veneration by
millions of people! It‟s a pity indeed!
Not everything that was ever questioned is indeed questionable! The mere
fact that philosophers questioned this and questioned that doesn‟t render a
given fact of human reason and perception: questionable! It rather renders
those philosophers – most of the time - mentally challenged!
If you have something against causality that is expressible in the form of a
rational argument, then bring it forth and we will examine it! But to carry the
sum of all futile claims and debates of philosophers questioning everything,
and come up with the conclusion that this “sum” leaves those facts lacking
for rational evidence; this is just like dumping yourself in a big trash can and
complaining about the offensive smell that is everywhere around you,
concluding that there is no evidence for the existence of clean air itself! Just
get your head out of there and you will smell fresh air; that much I
guarantee!
So again, this is simple reason and language at work here! The creator of all
that is created COULDN‟T be Himself created! Otherwise, he would not be
the creator of everything, but would only be another part of the chain which
will still have to end at a first creator that is not just another part of it! We do
not claim the creator to be part of the chain of causes; atheists ought to
understand this meaning! We reason Him to be the source; the maker of that
chain itself, from its very top all the way down to its very bottom, with all
levels of causes layered in between! We humans find it only reasonable to
think of Him as an external being to everything that is caused and created!
If the meaning of “being created” is to be applied to X, along with those
things that X created, then it follows that X is not the rationally necessary
end source beyond that chain of created creators, and we will still have to
think of yet another external source from whence the very meaning of cause
and creation itself emerged, and from nowhere else! And then again,
wherever that external source beyond X will be, it can only be GOD! There
34


at the point where nothing further can be counted! Keep wiggling around it
for as long as you wish; you will never find a way out of it! It‟s just the way
the human mind works!
Now, imagine a man who would ask: “Did the creator create the uncreated
(or the un-creatable)?” This is nonsense! It‟s like asking: “Have you ever
gone beyond existence?” Or “Are you not what you are?” Or “Can you give
me something that does not exist?” Or: “Can you be you and me both at the
same time?” Or: “Can a single being be both here and there at the same
time?” The answer to all such nonsense is not just a simple “NO!” Those
people have to be dragged back to common sense and correct reason, if they
wish for our debate with them to take us anywhere!
It wouldn‟t be “un-creatable” if the creator could create it, would it?! It
would be “creatable”! To go beyond existence is to not exist, so nobody can
go there, or do you think otherwise?! Can anybody (who does exist); “not
exist”? This is the problem with claiming that the chain doesn‟t have to end
this way!
The uncreated creator or the uncaused cause is an inevitability of reason! It‟s
only a pity there are those who would really acquire “proof” for its rational
validity!
Another misconception is tailored in this commentary by the author as he
claims that even if we admitted the rational necessity of a terminal source at
the end of the chain, there is no reason to believe him to have those
attributes that he mentions! I have to comment on Dawkins‟ proclaimed
certainty here as he states in amazing confidence: “there is absolutely no
reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally
ascribed to God‖! I take it that Professor Dawkins may come to accept the
concept of god one day but only provided that we accept the possibility of
His being a pathetic, incomplete being that does not enjoy any attributes of
perfectness as such! Yes indeed! He may only be comfortable – as we shall
come to see clearly throughout this book - with a poor negligent god that
does not control a man‟s life or demand his submission!
This is by the way a questionable shift by the author from the argument at
hand! Nothing but „white noise‟! You still have not answered to the regress
problem professor, and have not founded your objection on sound reasons!
So to jump – in this context - to the examination of certain attributes
ascribed to the creator by certain religions, on the claim that even if there
was a creator then there‟s no reason to view him to be so and so … this is a
35


clear escape from the groundless refutation of the previous argument! It‟s a
statement of stubborn denial! It‟s like saying: ―Ok, maybe I can‘t really
determine why your argument is false; but even if it were true, you people
are talking nonsense anyway!‖
Is this all you‟ve got, professor?
One can‟t help sensing the FEAR in this man‟s heart as he writes down
those literary “escapades” of his! Yes; FEAR! He is obviously doing
everything he possibly can to mutilate the image of the creator that is
described as such in the three religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) in
particular, probably out of fear that he may one day find himself compelled
– by force of rational evidence - to choose to submit to Him! It‟s as though
he‟s saying: ―Even if I one day accepted the argument of a god eventually, I
will not accept that god to be so powerful, so knowledgeable, and so
―judgmental‖! I refuse to surrender myself to any celestial being in such a
way!‖
This is obviously where this “absolutely” gesture is coming from here!
In fact as we will see in coming sections of his book, Dawkins almost
declares that he may be okay with a deist god like the one that Einstein
spoke of in the few occasions that he expressed his views of God, but a
“personal”3 God who “reads your thoughts”, listens to your prayers,
commands you to submit to Him, and eventually judges you in the afterlife?
No way! We will see by the end of this literature that all that atheism goes
down to is a personal attitude of rejection against the particular idea of
submission, not a rational objection against the existence of the creator!
This is why Islam – in particular - always comes at the very top of their list
of enemies, and always takes the greatest share of their hate and contempt!
Because Muslims – by the very name of their religion - do take the meaning
of submission seriously! Only those Muslims who are “lax” in this respect
and are willing to take some of the religion and leave the rest of it out, are
3
The idea of claiming an impersonal god is every bit as irrational and vacuous as believing in no god at all.
In fact, it is only an atheist’s attempt to put some sense into his faith. This is because by necessity of
reason and language, the creator has to possess the intent and the will to compose this system the way
He chose for the purpose He chose, freely and capably! This is the very definition of “GOD”! He should
possess all attributes that define a wise and capable “doer”/”creator” who gives purpose and determinate
order to everything we see in this universe! Ergo, it has to be what atheists call a “Personal god” (in
meaning and attributes, not in nature or properties)! It follows then that you either believe in a true God
(by the true definition), or you don’t! So the “deist god” is clearly nothing but the miserable position of an
atheist who sees that he cannot escape the rational necessity of there being a masterful creator; yet he
hates to submit to any religion that claims to express the will of that creator! So miserable indeed!

36


partially accepted in their view as “reasonable people”! And of course if
they were to let go of it entirely and join the atheist camp as “ex-Muslims”,
they will be their heroes!
Well, I‟m not into analyzing the motives of the author! Yet I shall not
discard certain keys and signs that will help the reader go as deep as possible
within an atheist‟s mind! I remind my reader that I‟m not merely in the
business of refuting a number of feeble philosophical arguments here! Those
meanings – however - are further revealed in later sections that are yet to
come near the end of Dawkins‟ book (discussed mostly in Volume 2).
So as for this broad claim he makes here, let‟s examine those attributes he
finds “absolutely no reason” to ascribe to the creator!
In order to answer to this claim let me assume for now – for the sake of the
argument - that he is already standing with me on the platform that there has
to be an uncreated creator at the end of the chain. He‟s then claiming that
there‟s no reason to ascribe those attributes to that creator:
omnipotence,
Omnipotence simply means complete and perfect power and ability! How
can any sane mind imagine a creator of a system who does not have total
power upon – at least – everything within it? And if the very notion of power
and ability in human understanding is a making of that creator Himself, and
it is necessary for the sake of reverence, respect, and submission by the
worshipper – the very things that give the word god itself its meaning! – that
he sees His creator in no less a position than that of perfectness in this
respect; how can any sane man expect from the creator of everything – man
included - anything less than being perfect on all accounts and in all
attributes? It was He who made man to think of an attribute like “weakness”
as a negative attribute that demises its holder! So if I can – as a man – think
of a creature within this universe that is more powerful than my god, more
powerful than the creator of the universe Himself, then how can I revere and
respect – hence take for a god – that creator that I worship when I know that
it is not at the reasonably necessary rank of total power and control of
everything? How can I reason an „incomplete being‟ to be the creator of
everything that is created? This is not possible!
omniscience,

37


Same goes here! I cannot think of a creator of a system who does not possess
complete knowledge of that which he created, can you professor?
This inclination to mold the creator in a cast of human (anthropomorphic)
limitedness and incapability and to analogize Him in the nature of His
attributes to man, is clearly and understandably the remainder of what used
to be his own personal image of the creator, founded on the teachings of
Christianity that he was brought up with! I can understand why it is so easy
for an atheist to take this corrupt imagery and charge Christianity with being
responsible for it! Because, quite simply, Christianity is indeed, – especially
Catholicism and Orthodoxy – and to a great extent responsible for it, as we
may further elaborate later in this book! But to take the leap of pointing the
very same finger to all other religions in such a way is simply a clear sign of
ignorance and bias!
goodness,
Would you, professor, rather worship an evil unjust god than one who is at
the level of perfectness in goodness? I hope not! Because by creation, it was
He who made his creatures reason those meanings that define that which is
good in the first place, so how come He creates them all in a way that fails to
see His goodness, and yet ask of them – like all religions that are ascribed to
Him demand - to respect and love Him? Being the sole creator of man, his
mind, and everything around him it is only rational that He should make
those meanings of goodness all attributable – in the mind of every healthy
man - to Himself in unequivocal perfectness! He can do that can‟t He? Man
sees this – naturally - as part of the necessary overall perfectness of His
attributes! He has to be perfectly good, because He made us to condemn
every being that is bad or unjust! So He cannot have failed to make humans
ascribe all goodness to Him, and true followers of His prophets respect Him!
This is why we say that any religion that fails to offer clearly coherent and
consistent meanings of perfection and goodness to all His attributes in this
respect; is by definition not His religion! Atheists need to bear in mind that
the creator not only created the universe around us; it was He who created us
as well, our experiences, our minds, our reason, and the way we understand
and compare different attributes and meanings! They should at least give
Him the credit of knowing what He‟s doing!
All praise be to the Lord almighty!

Creativity of creation (design),

38


So you‟d rather worship an uncreative designer? A creator who is less
creative than some of His own creatures perhaps? Even though you can
clearly see in everything around you that He can be nothing less than perfect
in this respect? (And please do not raise the objection of why there has to be
pain, war, mutations, and so forth, because we will come to that later on!)
“Absolutely no reason”, he says!

Listening to prayers, forgiving sins

The professor objects to this attribute as it is to him an example of what he
calls “human attributes”! If such reasoning was valid professor, then actually
all attributes are human attributes as well, aren‟t they? Even creation itself,
and the purpose behind it, would – according to this reasoning of yours – be
a human deed coming out of human attributes! Actually the very meaning of
there being a willful creator itself should also qualify as such! The chain of
causes has to end at a purposeful creator, so it‟s either a “personal God” who
does what He pleases (sharing the meanings of these attributes with
humans), or an infinite regress that destroys causality altogether!
And thus the rational question here should be: By what criterion of reason
have you chosen to call these particular attributes: “human”?!
Because they provoke a human image in your mind of a man in heaven,
lowering his head here and there to listen to people‟s prayers? Because you
cannot think of a being that “listens” to prayers and forgives sins unless that
being was “human”? Who said that there is any necessity of reason that links
between the creator being capable of “listening” to His creatures – for
example – and His being in any human – or similar - form or nature? This is
absolutely false! The WAY we listen; is not by any necessity of reason the
same WAY the creator listens! And the mere fact that He does listen,
doesn‟t make this attribute “human”! In fact reason necessitates that there‟s
no way it can be analogous to the way creatures listen! Obviously the creator
should have the power to observe all, and listen to all simultaneously! One
cannot imagine His being omnipotent and in full domain over His creation,
while there‟s the slightest possibility that something may come to take place
in the universe without His seeing it, listening to it, and knowing it fully!
The meaning of omnipotence itself – which is already a necessity of reason
for Him – necessitates His being capable of seeing all and listening to all,
simultaneously! It actually necessitates that the very meaning of time itself
does not limit Him in any way! Thus it follows by simple reason that none of

39


His attributes should be viewed in analogy to corresponding attributes in
humans!
In the Quran we are told that He sees all, hears all, knows all, even more, we
are told that He has a hand, eye, finger, and so forth! However, we are also
told that there‟s absolutely nothing like Him!: ((Naught is as His likeness;
and He is the hearer, the seer))) Translation of Quran (42|11)
This verse is a rule of thumb that actually separates the rightful followers of
the prophet and his disciples (the Salaf) (I.e. Ahlul sunnah wal jama‟a) in the
way they understand scripture of Islam, from almost every other sect of
innovators (i.e: Mutazilites, Shee‟ites, Ash‟arites, … etc!). The distinction
comes from the fact that, while innovators were – like Dr. Dawkins here –
influenced by philosophers in holding the opposite extreme position to the
pagan view of a deity that is human – sometimes even animal in form! -,
those who seek authentic references of knowledge in Islam and seek to
obtain the correct understanding of the disciples as the only reliable source
for understanding Islamic scripture correctly, find no contradiction and no
trouble at all in ascribing those attributes to the Lord the way they are
ascribed in the Quran and in Sunnah!
The rationale is this: His having a hand – for example – by no means
necessitates that this hand be viewed as a limb or a “part” or an “organ” or
be in anyway anything “like” a creature‟s hand! The meaning is not at all
rationally objectionable! Whatever attribute of His that we learn from an
evidently authentic source of scripture 4, we treat it in this exact same
manner!
Reason necessitates that His attributes – all of them with no exception –
undergo the golden rule of the Quran that there‟s nothing like Him! The
reasons behind this debate among Muslim scholars who followed those
philosophical innovations in Islam, and the evidence that we use to prove
them all WRONG, is not our concern here. I only had to point out for every
sane reader that those objections the professor poses here are not at all new
to Muslim scholars, and ever since the first three centuries of Islam, scholars
have been answering them in a clear and consistent way, with nothing but
rational and scriptural evidence! However, it is a universal law that there be
4
Remember that I‟m speaking at the level of examining scripture on the presumed basis that we
already agree on the necessity of there being a creator! It was the professor‟s leap into the
question of (human) attributes that drove me to do this

40


innovations and people who call unto them, for a reason that has to do with
the wisdom and purpose of the creation of life itself, which is another issue;
topic for another discussion in another section of this literature.
The point is; if I have come to the rational conclusion that there has to be a
creator, and that this creator is indeed and by necessity an omnipotent
creator, with nothing less than perfectness in all His attributes, and then I
have identified by means of evidence – not blind faith - what volume of
scripture on this earth is indeed His word, and the teaching of His true
prophets, and in those evidently authentic scriptures I found that creator
describing Himself and ascribing certain attributes to Himself; I thus must
accept those attributes as they are, since by necessity of reason I should
expect them not to collide with anything that reason necessitates for Him!
And the case here is that none of those attributes mentioned by the professor
collides with what reason necessitates for the almighty creator, and they
certainly do not necessitate any “human” resemblance, not in the pagan
sense or in any other sense for that matter!
Many people have the problem of mixing the meaning of an attribute, with
the way, or the nature it is manifested in the thing or the being it is attributed
to! The meaning that I have the ability to see, for example, is one issue, and
the question of HOW I can see, is another! We may agree that a certain
species of birds – for example – has the ability to determine its path of flight
and orientation for long distances, but we may – at the same time - lack any
knowledge of how those birds do that!
So we accept the MEANING of this property or attribute to those birds, both
rationally and by means of observation, but we do not know the WAY or the
exact nature of this property!
Not knowing the latter, does not necessitate denial of the first!
A fly can see, and it does have an eye, doesn‟t it? Yes indeed! And so do
we! So, in meaning; both humans and flies have the attribute of eyesight!
And they both have what is to be called an eye! But does this mean that the
way or the nature of a human‟s eye has to be analogous to that of a fly‟s
eye? No, it doesn‟t!
Now if such is the case with the property of the sight, and the possession of
an eye, in two species of creatures that are equal in their general physical
nature and their submission to the laws of this universe; what would you
expect, my reader, of the creator of the entire system Himself, who is in no

41


way of reason anywhere close – in His likeness - to humans or to any of His
creatures, and who is by necessity of reason unlike anything any man has
ever seen or could possibly imagine (out of reach of any humanly affordable
analogy)?
So yes, reason necessitates all perfectness and completeness in all attributes
of the Lord, and it does not find any acceptable reason to deny Him those
attributes, or to claim them to necessitate any form of human analogy
whatsoever! We accept the meaning of those attributes, and refrain from
attempting to imagine or understand their „nature‟ or the way they work!
As I mentioned earlier, as a Muslim I fully understand where the professor‟s
position comes from! It is that of a former Christian, or at least one who was
raised in a Christian household or a Christian society, and who once had to
ask himself – like I suppose most Christians do one way or another at a
certain point in their lives: “How do they claim the creator of all this majesty
to be in the form of a superhuman white-bearded father up in heaven; one
who regrets, changes his mind, sacrifices his own son unjustly when he
really doesn‟t have to, and so forth? How come he begets a son in the first
place, and to have him crucified and resurrected for the sake of the very
same creatures he once flooded mercilessly? And to be three gods and one
god at the same time… and they still claim him to be perfect? The myth is
clearly badly written!”
And he is certainly right! Such clear paganism cannot coincide with
meanings of ultimate knowledge, wisdom, power, grace, and so forth! The
very faith in the trinity – the heart of what Christians believe – is clearly a
claim of a meaning – not talking about the ways here but the meaning itself
– that cannot be swallowed by any sane mind! Its mathematical expression is
quite simply this: (3 = 1)! Not (1x1x1 = 1) by the way as some priests would
so easily claim! This is not the logical meaning of multiplication!
Many Christians would argue that if He is omnipotent, and we cannot
understand His nature, then we must find no trouble in accepting the
meaning that He can be as such: three in one and one in three! I hope we can
now see clearly where this argument goes wrong! Since we cannot
understand the Means or the WAY he does what he does, then we cannot
object to the MEANING of the trinity! I say no we certainly can, and we
should!
If our minds cannot accept the meaning itself, then it‟s irrelevant to speak of
the way it happens or the nature of it as though our lack of knowledge of this
42


nature would affect our position regarding the meaning in any way! It‟s
simply a FALSE MEANING! So there‟s NO WAY for it to be true! It‟s just
like believing that God exists and does not exist at the same time! There is
no reasonable argument that since God is omnipotent then He must be
capable of doing this, one way or another! This is rationally impossible!
The trinity is possibly one of the clearest anti-rational arguments ever known
to man! And they – Christians - are not the first to make it up in history by
the way; history has known many trinities before this one! Many pagan
faiths of old met with the very same dilemma! They have three gods, but at
the same time they have every reason to believe that there can only be one
supreme god, lord creator and keeper of all; not three! So there comes the
trinity to say it‟s okay to have it both ways! The deity is both: Three gods
and one god at the same time!
So, all in all, Dawkins is right to see that this faith is offering his mind a
pagan imagery of a human god, and a core attribute the very meaning of
which is clearly false! Thus I totally understand where it is coming from
when he claims – following whoever he chooses to follow on that claim –
that those attributes he mentioned imply or necessitate analogy to humans,
or draw the pagan imagery of a superhuman god!
However, he has no right at all, to generalize his deductions in such a way
that makes it appear to the uninformed as though all religions endorse such
paganism! He knows that Islam condemns those meanings forcefully!
I hope that as I proceed with this book, my reader will start realizing how
much knowledge the professor lacked and still needed to possess in order to
acquire the position where he can so easily generalize all his comments and
criticism on all “religion” the way he does! He‟s either a man who doesn‟t
know the first thing about Islam – which is very unlikely – or a man who
insists on lying to himself and to his readers regarding the reasons why he
rejects it and places it in the same basket with all other religions! He lies to
himself when he holds – like most western atheists do - that Islam is only a
derivative from Christianity and Judaism, and that refuting Christianity
would be enough to refute Islam as well! As a respectable scholar one would
have expected from professor Dawkins to practice a sound process of
scholarly research and induction as he approaches such an extremely
dangerous territory of the human knowledge! However, it comes to none of
my surprise that he doesn‟t; after all he is indeed a man of blind unfounded

43


faith who bears not upon evidence, but upon whatever theory that comes to
his liking! No offense intended!

And reading innermost thoughts

Yes! How can you deny Him the ability to know what‟s going on in the
mind of one of His creatures? He MADE this mind and gave it to you!
Whatever could be wrong with claiming Him to be in complete and
thorough knowledge of everything that runs in it? It is silly how an atheist
would object saying: “How can he possibly listen to all the thoughts of all
humans at the same time?” I would answer by saying: Your not knowing
how it happens does not render the meaning itself irrational! There‟s much
in the universe that I – by necessity of observation – accept as a fact without
really knowing HOW it happens! To me, a simple mind thinking with the
very basics of human reason; a creator capable of creating and maintaining
such an infinitely complex universe, MUST have nothing in His creation
that falls out of His knowledge or out of His control at any given moment;
our innermost thoughts and secrets included! This is a meaning that I accept
so easily, and I can think of nothing less for Him! But to ask me “how” and
to make the ability to explain the way He does that, a condition for accepting
this rational necessity as an attribute to the creator; this is like saying I will
not believe in God until I see him with my own eyes; not only so, but until I
manage to test and examine him in my lab!
Praise be the Lord of heaven and earth!
And again I can easily see that the professor is objecting and denying simply
because he is uncomfortable with the idea that there‟s somebody watching
Him from above, knowing everything he says or does wherever he goes!
This is the ultimate drive here, because quite obviously there is not an ounce
of evidence or any rational objection whatsoever by which those attributes
could be refuted, or by which any sane man could expect anything less of the
creator!

In his next argument the professor vainly attempts to prove a contradiction
between two of those major attributes. He says:

―Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that
omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is
omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to

44


change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he
can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not
omnipotent. Karen Owens has captured this witty little paradox in
equally engaging verse:
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?‖
Omniscience gentlemen, is – in its very clear meaning – the complete and
total knowledge of all: every single event along the course of history
included, from day Zero all the way to the end! This means that all decisions
and choices of the Lord were previously made, even before the act of
creation!5 The universe is now taking an already determined path! Thus, the
question of “changing the mind” is clearly irrelevant! It is only the property
of a being that is limited in knowledge! Changing one‟s mind comes from
the realization that the first choice was wrong or imperfect; hence it has to
be changed! Perhaps because he did not expect the outcome of the decision
or because he did not see all that shall be affected by it! In all cases it comes
from the position of need or obligation to make a better choice! Either the
previous choice had to be changed, or would better be changed; which in all
cases means lack of wisdom and knowledge in making the first one!
Otherwise; why change it?

I am amazed at how they failed to realize that the very meaning of changing
the mind, contradicts fundamentally with the meaning of omniscience! It has
nothing to do with omnipotence! To ask “Can the Lord change His mind?” is
just like asking: Can the Lord forget? Can the lord kill Himself?

If I answered to any of these questions by a clear NO, is it by any means
rational to take this answer to mean that He is not omnipotent, because

5
There is authentic scripture of Hadith that actually teaches that Allah first created the PEN, and told it to
right down all that shall come to pass since the first day of creation and all the way to the end! There is
scriptural evidence for the fact that Allah had laid down the plan of all that is going to be in this universe,
some fifty thousand years before its creation!

45


there‟s something that He “can‟t” do? This is nonsense! Omnipotence has
nothing to do with meanings that are rationally impossible!

Thus we can see that the question presented here is clearly false!

There are many similar examples of a rationally false Question…

Q: Can the Lord create an equal to Himself?

A: The Question is false, simply because He is an eternal uncreated being;
and an eternal uncreated being cannot be created! Thus the creation of His
likeness is – in meaning - a rational impossibility!

Q: Can the Lord throw a man out of His Kingdom?

A: False Question! There is simply no place in existence that is outside of
His dominion or His knowledge! So it‟s a rational impossibility!

Q: Can the Lord create a stone He cannot carry?

A: False Question, because anything He creates must – by necessity – be
under His power as well! Something that is impossible in meaning is simply
not “creatable”, and is irrelevant to the Lord‟s omnipotence! An omnipotent
creator, who can create anything, can also carry anything! And since there‟s
no limit to His power, then this is a rational impossibility!

Q: Being the one who created something from nothingness; Can the Lord
see or know something that is not there (nothingness)?

A: False Question! Nothingness is not “something” to be seen or known; a
rational impossibility! A “nothing” is not “something” to be known!

…… etc.!

You can think of as many such “nonsensical” questions as you wish!

The author then exclaims:

46


―To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to
terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big bang
singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it
God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.‖
„Best‟ and „worst‟ for what exactly? For a man‟s blind ambition to obtain
knowledge of something he can very clearly not acquire? Science is a
process of examination and explanation of CREATED things by means of
analogy. The material of this process; its givens, the givens to our
perception, are those elements of this very system surrounding us, as they
are; as we see them, as we experience them! Our current recurring
experience of natural phenomena is what defines the way we think of nature!

The methods and ways that we see are the only methods and ways we can
afford to reason and attempt to explain, by means of analogy! Now to ask of
this tool of science and reason to aid us in discovering how the universe
came to be at its very beginning, we are actually committing a rational
mistake, because we are asking this tool of analogy that is naturally limited
by its perceptual input to already created things, to apply to a process that
must – by necessity – have involved methods and ways that are like none we
have ever perceived, to be created and originated!

The birth of a star or a solar system, the death of a planet, the fact that the
universe is expanding, … etc., none of those observable pieces of the
universe and its ongoing processes that we see today could ever tell us HOW
exactly the universe itself came to be! Because prior to it, there must have
been something that is fundamentally different from anything we have ever
seen! Either nothingness or just something else! Something that is not of this
universe, or not bound by its rules!

So this process of change from „no universe‟, to „this universe‟, includes by
necessity events that cannot be analogized to anything that we now see or
comprehend in the universe itself! Please note that when I speak of analogy I
also include mathematical formulation and expression! Equations in
mathematical physics are forged in expression of philosophical theories;
they don‟t prove them or validate them! So when a physicist makes a

47


theoretical claim, his mathematics is every bit as hypothetical as the claim
itself!

Thus I argue that even the Big Bang theory; that “Booming” theory
venerated by many today as a “fact of science” is simply another hypothesis
that lacks any rational – not to mention empirical – proof, and more
essentially, it is not falsifiable; there‟s no possibility of ever proving or
disproving it as a fact! Moreover there is the rational necessity that
whatever went on at the origin of this universe; cannot be analogized to
any process that is part of the way the universe itself is currently
observed to work! The way a car is manufactured, obviously cannot be
explained by analogy to any of the events that take place in the car itself,
like the way the spark plug works or the way the internal combustion engine
starts! We are speaking of an event that brought all those elements together
and originated the system that is known as the car!

A great majority of brilliant scientists can hardly – indeed – make that
essential distinction between a theory that comes from a reasonable analogy
and we could look forward to proving or disproving it rationally or by means
of observation, and a theory that addresses such areas of knowledge that are
simply out of the reach of science; areas where no analogy to anything we
have ever seen can be made, and no observation could ever verify any
manmade assumption in this respect! And while one family of scientific
theories is indeed beneficial to mankind; the other is far more destructive to
man‟s mind and soul than any doctrine of false religion, as we shall come to
elaborate. It is about time that the scope of science was redefined, for the
salvation of a miserable mankind that has come to think of the simplest of
rational necessities as a difficult dilemma that needs intensive work of
„scientific research‟ to be solved!

The origin of the universe is NOT a problem that scientists should seek to
solve! Man could never manage to acquire any valuable knowledge in this
regard through the scientific method, no matter how hard he tries!

Scientists have got to learn the natural limits of their device! But they will
only do that when they have acknowledged the purpose of their existence

48


itself in the first place! They should first admit that since they did not bring
themselves in this world, and they did not earn those tools at birth; it is not
up to them to decide on why they are here, and why they have those tools!
But that‟s the heart and soul of the problem with atheism, isn‟t it?! A
stubborn denial that stands on no reasonable grounds whatsoever!

This is the way our scientific method works: You see a phenomenon,
propose an explanation for that phenomenon, and expand that explanation to
cover other analogous phenomena, and on doing so, and as you expand the
umbrella of the mother theory, you feel more satisfied with it, and it appears
to be more likely than not, to be a good explanation! Now that‟s alright as
long as the objects of this analogy are all parts of the very same system. But
when the umbrella is made to expand its analogies to an area that is – by
necessity of reason – not of this system, or to cover elements that are – by
necessity of reason – un-analogous to anything we could possibly see or
observe in this universe; this is by all means an insult to the human mind,
and an offense to the scientific method itself! This is not what it was made to
do! You don‟t use a „table fork‟ to drink soup or to dig a hall in the ground
or to cut down a tree, do you?! Wisdom is putting everything in its right
place, and that‟s something that western scientific academia does not
possess!

The problem with atheist scientists of modern times is that in their desperate
need – as human beings - to obtain knowledge in those areas, and because of
their unshakable faith that it is only through the scientific method that such
knowledge is to be obtained; they have committed some of the greatest
crimes ever committed against human reason and against science itself. They
maintained that their theories in this area (the area of origins) are proven true
by the mere accumulation of a multitude of proposed explanations of
different phenomena that can be synthesized from those theories, even
though they know that the very basis upon which those mother theories of
origins stand is rationally challenged! In their enthusiasm they even went to
as far as saying that since we have managed to propose all those „simplistic
explanations‟ to the origins of natural life by means of natural selection, and
we can explain all fossil findings accordingly, and since creation on the

49


other hand gives us no such explanation that goes with the way we see
things work in this universe; therefore creation is false, and Darwin was
right! In their blind ambition they fail to realize that Darwin‟s theory – by its
very name – only describes a process of change, not of origination! They
took the observations of the way natural life changes for the purpose of
adaptation and other reasons, and claimed that this is how life itself came to
be on this Earth! And even though they know that the rational grounds for
this analogy are absolutely counter-rational, they claim that only because of
the number of phenomena they have been capable of explaining by this
analogy itself, and since it has become mainstream in academic circles; the
theory is to be qualified as a FACT, or at least an explanation that is far
more “probable” than creation!

And now we have people debating on the “probability or improbability of
creation” as though it were a proposition of „science‟ that is yet to be
proven! They went further to claim that those phenomena themselves are
EVIDENCE for evolution and natural selection! The mere fact that the ape
looks like a man is evidence that they both had evolved from a common
ancestor! The mere fact that amphibians can live both on land and in water is
evidence that its ancestors lived in the sea, and that some of its relatives
evolved into reptiles! Natural phenomena – in themselves – are now taken so
bluntly as EVIDENCE for the Darwinian story of origins! And when they
are asked they say, creation does not give us such “scientific explanations”
of the origins of those things, so it is not science!6

Well we never said creation was „science‟! We did not hypothesize creation!
We only say it‟s the perfectly rational truth! It is you – Darwinian atheists -
who are driven by blind irrational faith to push „scientific theorization‟ to a
place where it obviously cannot go, to have yourselves convinced that it is a
superior source of knowledge on those essential questions to anything that

6
At this point they would often contend that the science that deals with the origin of life is not Darwin’s
evolution; it’s a branch called “abio-genesis”, whereas Darwinism is not concerned with how life itself
came to emerge! And in response we remind them that Darwinism was the concept that spawned
(abiogenesis) theorization as essential key to the chronicle! The idea of a single ancestral being is the
proposition of Darwinism, and the theories dealing with the problem of how that being was composed,
are only the extension of Darwin’s conception and his notion of chance-driven events that yielded
working systems, which accumulated gradually in evolution.

50


religions have to offer! There could be tens of possibilities on how – for
example – man came to be on this Earth; the truth among which could never
be known by such blind analogies! Not in a billion years of theorization and
not with ten tons of fossil findings could the knowledge of our exact origins
be achieved! And when your theory goes against fundamental rational and
semiotic necessities; then whatever you call evidence is simply futile, no
matter how many explanations it gives that you may view as “plausible”,
“simplistic” or “Scientific”!

The problem we have now with contemporary atheists (Darwinians) is that
they are trying with all their intellectual powers to prove their position by
means of such “scientific evidence”! Observations that could be explained
by their adopted theories and beliefs just as they could be explained by other
hypotheses; are now made into PROOF for the nonexistence of a creator!

For example, the Cosmic Microwave Background which is currently viewed
to be evidence that supports the Big Bang theory, is considered to be so only
because the pattern the “fog” takes looks similar – one way or another - to
the one that could be expected from the “blow up” of Red-Hot Gases in open
space! Similar in what exactly? In apparent „randomness‟? In the
uninformed eyes of a human beholder, this is a phenomenon that might as
well be explained by an infinite number of possible explanations, other than
the position of favor in Cosmology today; that the Universe started out as a
dense body that just „exploded‟! However, while they explain this pattern by
the Big Bang Model, they would easily – in a different discourse – take it to
be evidence to PROVE the Big Bang is true! There is no consideration as
they present this „evidence‟ of how a blind BANG could happen – by pure
chance – to place the Earth and all celestial bodies around it in such a
perfectly balanced position in space, in a way that is perfectly tuned for the
benefit of life on Earth! No wondering for a moment on how possibly such
an unbelievably perfect system could originate and then get all physical and
chemical variables preserved and maintained at those exact perfect values,
not a bit higher or lower, all by means of an unguided, unplanned explosion!
An explosion is nothing but a phenomenon of destructive blast that results
from certain changes that take place in an unstable system within this

51


universe, in accordance with the laws of this universe itself; so by what
miserable disconcerting analogy could this physical event of destruction that
takes place in a balanced theme of natural forces in an already stabilized
universe, be taken as a model to explain the way this perfect universe itself
(with all its laws and conditions) came into being?

Notice that I‟m talking about the kind of proof that should get a reasonable
man convinced that this marvel of a universe was not created at all; it was
only a ball of matter that just exploded!

The Big Bang remains to be no more than a hypothetical Model of favor in
current circles of Astronomy, that attempts to explain an event that cannot
by any argument of reason be known with reliable evidence through analogy
to anything we can now observe!

As a matter of fact, Georges Lemaitre, who was the first to propose it, was
clear in calling it “the hypothesis of the primeval atom”! A hypothesis; like
most such theories are!

They‟d say: “It was confirmed by particle accelerator experiments!”

I say; no it was not! When experiments were performed on particle
accelerators, what did their results really prove? Did they prove the universe
to have actually originated out of a Big Bang? No! They only proved that it
might be one of endless possibilities, and that on succeeding in copying
those conditions that we see in nature, in a lab, we will most probably have
similar results in the lab to those we currently see in nature: An already
indisputable axiom of causality, one that certainly didn‟t need to have so
much money and time wasted on the purpose of proving it!

And after all, they only proved that this process to be possible WITHIN the
system of the universe as it is (in lab conditions, as well as anywhere else in
the universe)! But they certainly did not establish any evidence to support
their claim that this is indeed how the universe itself, the system itself with
all its conditions and binding rules, must have originated! It is supposed to
be a rational axiom or „A-priori‟ law to say that the way things run in a

52


given system is one thing, and the way the system itself came to be is
another!

You would easily listen to arguments from many prominent mathematicians
and astronomers stating that since we have come to view time to “behave” as
another dimension of space, we can no longer find any reason not to say that
any evolutionary model that is currently observable in progress, might as
well work to explain the origins of the Universe itself!

What are they talking about? This is illusion of reason; not reason! This is
not a statement of science; it is the wishful thinking of a deluded scientist!
What is a dimension? What is time? And what is space? They would
repeatedly bring forth the term “Spacetime” as though they‟re talking about
some weird physical phenomenon they have recently discovered that
supports their corrupt reasoning!

Space-time is only a mathematical system of coordinates that
REPRESENTS events rather than objects, due to the inclusion of time as an
additional “dimension” to the three dimensions of space! That‟s all! It‟s only
a model for plotting events on a mathematical plane! A camera that records
motion in a numerical media! How can this tool itself or the graphical
presentation it offers, be used to claim “time” to be – indeed – any different
in its meaning from the way every sane man observes it to be: Just a scalar
measure of the progress of events in space, that we humans quantify by
relating all observable motions to a universal standard motion (that of the
sun or the moon or the atomic clock)?

What is the actual meaning of time “behaving” differently because of its
being treated as a new dimension of space? And in what way does this
change our understanding of what time really is? Relativity does indeed
cause this confusion to those fascinated by its conception of time! They are
so fascinated and fueled by science fiction stories that they forget along the
way many basic meanings and mix them up, proposing theories many of
which are no more worthy of consideration than any mythological story of
the gods of the Olympus! I‟m in no opposition at all to being inspired by a
science fiction novel! However, if this novel is actually imagining something

53


that is a rational impossibility or that collides with facts established by
observation or reason; it is to be taken for no more than valueless farce! It is
not to be taken for a possibility of “science” that might fuel a scientist‟s
ambition!

For example they would say that since relativity proved that time is relative
and can be dilated, in a space-time Model they would start dealing with time
as though it is something that might as well be reversed, or even stopped,
thus to them, relativity “proves” the possibility of “time travel” and other
similar irrationalities of science fiction novelists! Watch the sequence of this
reasoning! The variable of time (t) or (dt) they are toying with in their
equations, which expresses the relativistic time, is only the mathematical
expression of the progress of events within a particular model of space-time;
a particular frame of reference! So when they start viewing it to express the
universal progress of time, they have to be careful what motion exactly it
expresses; for it is right there that the error of reasoning takes place, causing
the deduction of false theories concerning time!

If I reversed the motion of a few beads on my table for example, then
perhaps I might then take the liberty of saying that I “reversed time”, or
moved them back in time! This is because by time I mean: the relative
measure of progress of events or motion within this particular frame of
reference! I only reversed a state of motion or a sequence of events of a
particular set of elements, relative to my own frame of reference; that‟s what
I did! If ever any conception of reversing time or going back in time could
be reasoned; that might be it!

However, to speak of moving back in time, in the sense of riding some
“time-machine” and being capable of meeting with your dead father or
grandfather, or even examining the truth about the origin of life and so forth;
this is just impossible! Because quite simply it means that we think we could
one day be capable of moving the entire universe with everything in it in
reverse, like rewinding a video tape, so that we could reach that point in
“time” when a certain event took place! Physicists have got to snap out of
this nonsense and realize that this point no longer exists, because quite
simply, the particles that where once in the past composed in the way they

54


were in that particular instant, are now composed in a totally different way,
and the distance between those two instants on the watches we carry on our
wrists is our way of measuring the unstoppable motion of all those particles
in the universe, as they progress each on its own path!

So that instant, defined as a previous state of composition of all particles of
matter in the universe: just doesn‟t exist in reality anymore! It‟s nowhere to
be revisited! To go to the future or to the past, you are speaking of the
acceleration or the reverse of the progression of motion of all particles that
exist in the universe on the path that was strictly determined for them by
none but the creator Himself! In addition to this, you are also speaking of
splitting yourself apart from the system by necessity; which is impossible
because particles of the universe are restricted to the very same laws to
which your own particles are restricted! In the past, before you were born;
particles of your body where in billions of different places, and in the future
they will be scattered all around the world just as they were before they were
gathered in your body! So for you to go to the future or to the past it means
that each one of your particles will exist at two places at the same time; in
you, and wherever you left it when you died, or in you and wherever it was
before you were born, or in you and in another you that was or will still be
alive at that time you‟re “visiting”; which is – very obviously - rationally
impossible! In a simple mathematical expression it actually means (0=1), or
(1=2) at best! Your body is restricted to the path of progress of the universe
just as everything else; there‟s no changing that! There‟s no “transcending”
this restriction to the path of destiny that will become history just as the Lord
intended for it, it‟s going just the way He determined whether we like it or
not! The question of choice and destiny is another issue that I will come to
discuss in „Volume 2‟, my point here is; time travel is only a fool‟s dream of
assuming the position of the creator Himself, taking the upper hand over
whatever power that keeps the universe running the way it is!

Yet, today I know of many physicists who are actually taking the creation of
a time machine for a goal! And they do not call this “science fiction”

55


anymore! 7 And even though the rational corruption of the basic meanings
implied by time travel is very obvious to any sensible man; ignorance
regarding the creator and lack of heavenly wisdom let those people drown in
nonsensical theories and interpretations that are orders of magnitude more
“pseudoscientific” than astrology!

Atheism coupled with a wild imagination is the perfect combination for such
a “cartoonish” damage to the mind of a decent human being, and for having
him waste his entire meaningless life working – under a tag of science – on
something as lunatic as the dream of building a “Time Machine” so he could
go bring his father back from the dead! But this is no worse than the rest of
their belief system anyway, is it? They dream to go back “there” and relive
the past, perhaps save people they loved from death, and have destiny go just
the way they like; but the fools have failed to realize that there is no “there”
to go to in the first place! In simple human language, “When” and “where”
are two rationally distinct meanings, none of which could be used
interchangeably! This is an illusion! A pseudoscientific interpretation of
mathematical dimensions and models of mathematical presentation of space
and time, resulting in a fundamentally false conception of basic linguistic
meanings!

I really hate to disappoint all those teenagers fascinated with the theory of
relativity who take it for a goal of life to one day be capable of inventing the
(time-machine)! This is just not science; it is corrupt philosophy!

They forget that time is only a measure of motion, and it is relative only
because the way we observe and measure motion is relative! Relativity is
only in the way we see things, not in the way they really are! Einstein did
not come up with a new discovery about the universe or about time, he
7
It’s such a pity to listen to someone like Michio Kaku, a famed professor of physics at City College in New
York, argue in a TV show entitled ‘Science of the impossible’ (just look at the title of the show!), in
response to Stephen Hawking’s objection to time travel saying “maybe time travelers are all around us
but they’re just invisible so we can’t see them!”, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkE2yQPw6s) or to
watch a brilliant scientist like (Ronald Mallett), an established professor of physics at the university of
Connecticut, waste his lifetime along with those of many other students and colleagues, in addition to
endless resources and funds, on a wild dream to actually travel through time, on the hope that one day
he might be able to bring his dead father back to life! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnLIxEso4rg)
It’s such a pity that the so called (grandfather paradox) or (autoinfanticide) is only viewed as a ‘paradox’,
one to which a good solution may one day be discovered! Such a pity indeed!

56


simply drew the attention of physicists to the fact that the way they measure
and quantify things in the universe is relative, not absolute as it was
previously viewed to be! In that, he did not CHANGE our understanding of
what time, space or gravitation are in reality, or what meanings they express,
he rather altered the way we model them!

You‟d think that scientists do make the distinction between the nature and
purpose of the tool they are using, and the true nature of the phenomena they
are applying it to! Unfortunately, they no longer do!

Theoretical Physicists and mathematicians really need to stop drawing charts
and studying maps and plots for a while, raise their eyes to the sky and
revise the basic norms of human reason, and the actual meanings of the core
variables they are trying to measure! They need to sit back and revise what
mathematics really is, what it is for, and what it can, and cannot do! What
meanings can or cannot be deduced from a mathematical presentation of
time and space, is indeed a serious question of reason – or philosophy as it
were – that demands attention! It demands addressing before a physicist or a
mathematician could jump into statements like the one I presented above!

The concept of the Big Bang attempts an analogy of the process that caused
the entire universe with all its systems as we see them to come into being (as
distinct as it naturally should be from any process we have ever observed),
to an “explosion” that we see taking place here and there as part of many
cosmic processes running within the universe itself. This analogy is by all
means wrong! It‟s what sages of Islam would call (an incomplete analogy, or
analogy with a difference!); such analogy is corrupt and cannot be taken for
evidence.

Some might object here and say: “But this is not what we claim the theory to
do! We do understand that it only describes what has been going on steadily
starting from a particular instant before which we still know nothing and can
prove nothing! We do admit it does next to nothing in explaining the initial
event” I would then wonder: “So why speak of it as a “bang” at all? Isn‟t the
term “bang” a description that you propose for that particular event you say
you know nothing about? There once was a very dense body of mass and

57


energy that just “exploded”, giving rise to the universe as we know it today!
This statement sums it all up! So by what means of reason can you drive this
process and claim it to have been going as such, ever since the first event,
and call that first event a bang, and then claim so easily that the theory has
nothing to do with the initial event that originated the universe?

It is even interesting enough that one of the models they propose to explain
the advent of the universe, is what they call “the Oscillatory universe” which
simply – and so boldly – claims the universe to be a bulk of mass and energy
that passes through endlessly oscillating cycles – endless from both sides,
past and future – of expansion and collapse. It explodes, and its pieces keep
moving away from one another, until at a certain point they stop moving
apart from each other and start to move in reverse, shrinking all the way
back to a crunch, and then explode again, over and over! They make this
claim on the grounds that we have seen objects in the universe explode, and
other objects collapse to a very dense body!

One has no choice but wonder here; if they claim that this currently ongoing
process could one day come to a point of seizure and start reversing – due to
the effect of gravitation or dark energy or negative matter or whatever they
wish to call it! – then how could they – in the first place – speak as though
they know that at any given moment in the far history before the present, no
such seizure or any similar cosmic event that may destroy the model of the
ongoing expansion itself, ever took place? They don‟t, and they never will!

So letting the question of the very first origin aside, it is clear that even the
very claim that the universe expansion necessitates an initially single mass,
is obviously one that stands totally un-provable!

Well, I say, to jump to the claim that this process of explosion – expansion –
seizure – shrinking – and collapse is an endlessly repeating cycle; is as much
of a fairy tale as any ancient myth they so fervently ridicule! The only
difference is in the fact that one of them takes the form and taste of
“science” while the other carries a tag that says: “religion”! Thus one of
them is said to be human “enlightenment” while the other is utter
“backwardness”!

58


We watch pieces of the universe going apart from one another (supposing
that this is what‟s actually going on!)… Okay, so how do we know that this
has always been the case? Yes if we have no reason to believe otherwise, no
counter evidence, it would only make sense that we make this assumption; to
presume a standard linear path for this stance that we currently observe and
take its current motion to have always been taking this particular pattern that
we see, and no other! This notion is fundamental to a science like geology,
in principle. But how can we use this method of deduction to explain the
origin of the universe itself, and to claim that it was a „Bang‟ that started off
this pattern of expansion?

This is like a little ant, looking at a train running on its tracks, capturing it at
the instant when it starts accelerating at its departure from the station, and
saying in conclusion: “Well, we, the ants, conclude that at the current rate of
acceleration, this object will reach the speed of light after some hundred
thousand years or so, and would have probably gone half way across the
solar system by then!”

The mere fact that the universe is currently expanding at whatever rate, does
not prove this “Bang” to be the event responsible for the origination of the
universe! Moreover, the Bang does not answer the question of the origin, for
we would still have some initial body – the one that exploded in the bang –
we do not know how it came to be or where it came from, or even what it
was that held it in its place in infinite space! Whatever any theorist may
attempt to propose in this respect, will ultimately lead him to nothing but
regress, which should lead him eventually, whether he likes it or not, to an
initial act of creation by an external creator (first cause) that is not bound to
those laws to which the regress itself is restricted; which are laws of which
He is the ultimate source!

So no matter what any man will ever come up with in attempt to explain the
origins of the universe, it will be nothing but fantasy; speculation at best!
Why? Because there‟s no way we can prove or disprove anything there!

I know that such a disappointing statement may very well come to the
condemnation and dislike of many cosmologists and astrophysicist but this

59


doesn‟t mean it‟s not true! If there is a single statement by Richard Dawkins
that I really appreciate, it‟s his repeated emphasis in many debates and
public appearances on the fact that the truth doesn‟t have to come to our
liking! If only he were true to this meaning, personally; he wouldn‟t
continue to be an atheist for a single minute!

Many scientists have blind ambition to perhaps score the Noble Prize and go
down in history as the first man to propose a plausible theory that explains
the origin of the universe! Even though they know in advance that there‟s no
way anybody can prove anything there by means of science; they‟d continue
to call it science and chase it nonetheless! Are they simply trying to fabricate
a substitute to religious faith in creation that would have people believe it
automatically just because it is taught in science classes? It is obvious that
this is the true motive they stand upon, as I will come to elaborate in later
sections! It is now an actual war between atheists and Christians over
science education in American schools! If it was not a position of faith on
the part of atheists, why then do they hate so much to have children taught
that the universe was created, or even that evolution – every single bit as
they explain it - was triggered and guided by a transcendent intelligent being
of some sort? That would only be an additional hypothesis to their theories
on the origins of natural life, not a substitution! I mean what if a theorist –
not a Christian by necessity - claimed – for example – that God created the
universe, set the laws into it, and tuned all the conditions necessary for the
story of evolution to be triggered and to continue throughout the ages the
way Darwinians believe it did? Do they have any scientific argument to
deny this possibility? No they don‟t! And yet they‟d fight it so hard all the
same! And even though it has been argued that even the story of evolution
itself and the detailed paths that it took, as it is told today, is nothing short of
a MIRACLE, hence necessitating an intelligent agent nonetheless; they‟re
not even remotely willing to give this meaning the least amount of thought,
not to mention let it be acknowledged in text books of science as a “theory”!
Why?

Well, the reason is obvious: They chose to believe in Darwinism only so
they could dismiss any form of belief in God! They took Darwinism for the

60


scientific “evidence” that supports their atheistic faith! So they NEED to
take Darwinism to its atheist ends, and to even fight for that! And while
many Christians are willing – because of their faith - to accept evolution as
part of the way all creation was made by God, atheists on the other hand, and
from their own position of faith; would persistently refuse to have God
mentioned anywhere in the house! So it is indeed BLIND-FAITH DRIVEN
theorization from both parties! It is only because of this drive of faith that
atheists are so determined to forge theories of origins regardless of whether
or not they could ever be proven scientifically! If the universe did originate,
and is now believed not to be eternal like atheists of the past used to think,
then they must have their own atheistic narrative of how it all came into
being, or else they would have to accept the existence of God and the story
of creation! This narrative would then be given the intellectual privilege – in
Western academic circles that are dominated by atheists - of being called a
theory of “science” rather than “a scriptural story of religion”!

We have this very same rational flaw (applying Uniformitarian deduction all
the way up to a first origin, regardless of any opposing evidence even if it a
rational necessity) in the theory of evolution! This is how it goes: Since we
can see species mutating and new species emerging from interbreeding and
for re-adaptation and so forth, and we can see that those species are variably
proximal in form and structure; then we conclude a huge tree of ancestry for
all species! We conclude that all species must have descended from a single
origin by means of those particular phenomena, starting from a primitive
unicellular organism! So how can they ever prove the initial point for all life
to have been a primordial lake or a unicellular being? They cannot! And
every experiment they ever attempted to prove it; and to bring dead matter to
life has failed!

This, my respectable reader, is not science! It is mythology of the highest
order!

So when somebody says: “We have discovered that the universe originated
from a Big Bang” or “We now know that the universe came about from a big
explosion” One should answer saying: “No you don‟t! … You Have Not
discovered that, and you do not know it!”

61


What led me to all this, - even though I may be repeating much of it in better
detail in other sections of this book - is the bold claim by professor Dawkins
that the claim of a god at the end of the regress is – according to his words –
“futile”, unhelpful, misleading - … etc.!

Why futile? Well, because the belief in a creator simply puts off the flame of
blind ambition within them to become historical icons of reverence in
generations to follow, for answering those great questions by means of
science, and to go down in history alongside Darwin and others! It simply
terminates their faith, their ambitions, and probably their scientific careers!
We are still waiting for the „Darwin of cosmology‟ professor Dawkins
would say! Oh yes, and millions of atheists are dreaming to become that new
Darwin; for the glory of it!

It‟s like when you turn off the lights in your room, deliberately, and then
start searching for something there in the dark, because you think it‟s more
fun, more “scientific” and far more challenging and self-gratifying this way!
After all who wouldn‟t dream of becoming a great, or even the greatest,
scientist in all human history?

It‟s no surprise at all that he calls it futile!

He speaks as though by propagating the clearest and the most rational –
inevitable – explanation for the origin of the universe, we are blocking
“science” from achieving some of its biggest goals!

Well, no we‟re not! We‟re only blocking atheists from achieving THEIR
personal goals and glories in scientific academia at the cost of the truth!
That‟s what we are indeed seeking to block! And for that, they will never
give up fighting us!

Yes the concept is futile and disappointing indeed, but only in the eyes of
atheist “scientists” who would dream of building their personal glory even if
it be on the ruins of the truth and the fate of others, by formulating yet
another myth that would come to the linking and applause of others like
themselves, under a tag of science! And for that, we sure enough will
deserve to be condemned and labeled: Anti-science, pseudo-science, etc! But

62


we don‟t care! It is a universal constant this struggle; one that we – Muslims
- fully understand, and are fully capable of winning! The strength of the
argument is clear and is there for every sane man to see and to examine for
himself, no matter what they would call it!

Yes it is dark and disappointing to you professor, because all that you aspire,
dream of, and work for is in this limited world, and you know that by
accepting the creator in your life, you would have to watch it all go away!
After all, what more could an atheist professor of biology dream of than
becoming the next Darwin; even better, a braver and more revered
“prophet”, topping the stream that is led by all those who are glorified in his
field?! Well, we on the other hand, find the concept absolutely fair, hopeful
and meaningful, as we work for an evidently glorious eternity – deservedly
so - that is as evident and ascertained in our knowledge as nothing that
atheists have ever known!

Examine the goals and objectives of your research professor, examine them
carefully and honestly before you commence with it, examine your true
motives and be true to yourself, and define your end clearly and the true fruit
of your work, before condemning the concept of the creator and accusing it
of standing in the way of …. “science‘!

I condemn all forms of false faith, no matter what their holders call them!
And I hope that by the end of this book, the reader will have seen how deep
the snake pit goes!

Next, the professor mentions the example of the regress of cutting down a
steak to the smallest possible piece, and cutting down a piece of gold,
determining that those are examples of “naturally terminated” regresses,
since there comes a point where any further division would leave us with
something else other than meat or gold! Well, by what reason is any one of
these regresses comparable to those that we say are terminated by God at
their end? They are obviously not! And all we have here is another attempt
to blow some noise over the concept by simply saying: “well, there are some
regresses that can be terminated by other means than invoking god!” And we

63


say: “Okay, yes there are! So what? What does this prove? And what
evidence does this argument bring against the creator? “

None at all!

He comes out from the previous argument with this conclusion:

―It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the
regresses of Aquinas‖

Some people think that by repeating terms like “By no means” “absolutely”
“most certainly” and so forth, over and over again, in support of their claims,
they build an autonomous conviction in the mind of their reader that may
make up for their clear lack of evidence and the weakness of their position!
Well, only a biased reader - a blind follower (believer) by nature - would be
convinced by such means!

((Say bring forth your evidence; if you were telling the truth)) Translation
of the Qur‟an (27|64)

As a matter of fact one cannot help pondering at his delicate use of words
here: “By no means CLEAR”! He knows that he cannot afford to make the
statement that he has one way or another disproved the rationality of the
creator being at the end of those regresses mentioned by Aquinas! So he tries
his best shot at rendering the argument “unclear”!

I tell him; give me your sound definition of “natural terminator” first and I
would tell you whether or not it is true that the creator offers or should offer
a natural terminator to the regress! I say that, because by “natural” all
atheists mean something from within the universe as part of what we call
“nature” by necessity! Something they could hope to one day perceive
somewhere in nature! So if this is what you professor wish to make of the
creator; a part of nature itself; then no, He is NOT a “natural terminator”!
And the fact that the word “supernatural” has become – in every atheist‟s
dictionary – synonymous to myth and superstition, does not make it by any
means false to call the creator – according to this conception of the term
natural -: the supernatural terminator! For that‟s what necessity of reason

64


makes of Him! He cannot be part of nature! By the very meaning of
creation, the creator is by necessity external to what He created, He is
nothing like any of His creatures and is – of course - unbound to the laws He
set to run and control the universe He created!

The professor then moves on to the next Aquinas argument:

―The Argument from Degree. We notice that things in the world
differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfectness. But we
judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum.
Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot
rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum
to set the standard for perfectness, and we call that maximum God.‖

The way this argument is written here, is clearly incoherent.

First a statement is made with the fact that things in the world differ in
goodness and badness in degrees. Then the author says there are degrees of
perfectness … and this meaning in such a phrasing is itself questionable,
because perfect is by definition: the optimum; the top of the scale! Anything
below perfectness is not a “degree” of perfectness! It‟s simply NOT perfect!
Very good, maybe, but not perfect!

Then he states that we judge those degrees by comparison to the maximum.
Well, this is not particularly accurate. We know good and we know bad, and
as such, when we see good that is incomplete in any way, we realize – in
meaning – by comparison to other forms of better good, that it is incomplete
and imperfect, with variance in degrees of that!

We, on the other hand, conclude the necessary existence of a perfect being
by applying our reason on those meanings that we see around us and identify
as good! And since we realize we vary in degrees of goodness, we then
deduce that since our creator made us see general meanings of good and bad
the way we see them, then it follows that He himself must be at the top of
every single one of those meanings that He made His own creatures view to
be good; namely: perfectness! He cannot create us in a way that identifies
the necessity of existence of this rank, and make it impossible for us to
assign it to Him!
65


It also follows by necessity that all general meanings that are conventionally
and rationally bad; cannot be attributed to Him! This is why it is ridiculous
that the professor would speak of “perfectness” in smelliness in his comment
to this argument! I take it he is trying to make a serious issue “funny” by
making such a gesture! I hope the reader would better realize the seriousness
of the issue in hand!

Although the extreme in “bad” attributes may be called – in language –
perfect at that; this is not part of what we conventionally call “perfect” or
“perfectness”! When we describe something as perfect, we generally do not
mean it is perfect in evil! Unless we particularly mentioned that it is perfect
in evil, like “the perfect crime” for example, our minds take us to the good
meaning. And it is of course not part of what we ascribe to the creator, who
taught us – by the way He created our reason itself - to be repulsed and
offended by negative meanings, much less the extremes in them!

This argument may be better worded as such: “Since man can identify good
from bad, and can identify degrees of both, and since he identifies the
rational necessity of a creator, and it is this sole creator who created man, his
world around him and his reason within him, it follows then that every
meaning that man views - by creation and natural reasoning – to be perfect,
must be an attribute to that creator Himself, for He should not be surpassed
in His attributes by any of His creatures! It was He who created them, and
their ability to qualify things as good and bad! Absolute Perfectness and
goodness is thus a place that only a single being should occupy: The creator
of the system Himself”

At this point the atheist may object saying: “How do you know that He
demands of us to view him to be good?” I would then say: What would you
think of a creator who demands of His creatures to view him otherwise? He
enables them to identify good from bad, makes them favor and revere every
meaning that is good instinctively, and at the same time; hate and belittle
every meaning that is bad instinctively, and yet reveal himself to them as an
entity that they would only view as “bad”?! What would you think of such a
creator? Well, obviously He would not be called wise and would not be

66


favored over his creatures! He would be doing them injustice if He ever
commanded them to love Him or respect Him!

The atheist would then say: “But how do you know He commanded them to
do that?” I would then say: “First of all, what exactly He did or did not
command is a question of which book and which prophet is really His own,
and that‟s another issue. However, we can see that since we humans are
naturally born the way we are and the world the way it is, and we think and
feel the way we do; then it‟s only rational that He created us as thus to place
Him at the peak of all good feelings that we could humanly afford. For we
cannot escape admitting the rational necessity that the creator of perfectness;
be perfect Himself in every good meaning a created man can think of! The
very fact that we are born with the capacity to think and feel this way, and to
make this distinction between good and bad; proves this meaning.

The atheist may then raise the famous argument of what he views as
imperfectness of creation, saying how then do you explain death, pain,
venom, crime, wars, disease, etc.? And I must point out that it is right here
that every debater other than a well informed Muslim, would collapse and
fail to reply! Christian debaters always crash at this point, making weak
statements that simply cry: “I do not know”! Well, Muslims do know, and
without clear and precise heavenly knowledge of what exactly the world is
all about and what we are here to do – which is a knowledge that can only be
obtained from the creator Himself – there is no way any man could explain
or understand on his own why such atrocities have to exist and take place
within the system the way they do.

Actually, it is obvious that the system is made such that those events should
take place! Earthquakes have to take place for the sake of the earth‟s crust
stability! Volcanoes alike! Thunderstorms and even hurricanes, all natural
disasters have to take place so that nature would keep its balance! Death is
essential for the birth of new life! What this clearly means is that those are
NOT errors or imperfectness in the system! Those are parts of the way it is
built! Essential parts indeed; polar elements! This system would simply fail
without them acting as the opposite pole!

67


So to claim that they take place against the will of the creator is to say that
He doesn‟t know what he‟s doing! Because it is clear that as consistently
balanced and stable as the system is; those are by necessity fundamental
components of its perfectness! Also to claim that they disprove the
perfectness of His attributes is to take an extremely unjust position
unrightfully judging the system and its creator! Because there is clearly a
body of knowledge that is essential to acquire before doing this! You first
have to obtain the knowledge – not the theory or the philosophy -that
answers this particular question:

What is the purpose of this system, and why did the creator choose to make
those atrocities fundamental components of the way nature works?

All reasonable men know that the success of any system is measured by how
much it serves the purpose for which it was made! If I created a device that
evidently fails to do what it was made for, then I have failed, and it is thus an
imperfect device! But then, how should the user of this device measure and
judge its success or failure? He must first know what exactly it is made for,
and the way it works for that purpose! Because, if He thinks it was made for
something other than what it was really made for, then how is he expected to
make any fair or correct judgment of its performance or of the success or
failure of its maker? He cannot! This is why he first has to refer to the
maker, and read the manual of the device! He has to obtain knowledge of the
purpose of creation of this perfectly balanced and masterfully maintained
device before having any right to judge whether or not it is working well!
Nobody said that you were born in this world to live in a paradise, and that
since it is not a paradise; then the creator had failed in creating it! This is an
argument from sheer ignorance!

The perfection of the system as it is – including the perfect way by which all
catastrophes and mutilations are balanced and made to even be of benefit to
the system itself in many ways – is undeniable; it only remains to be known
why exactly it is made in this particular way! This knowledge is to be
obtained from none but the creator Himself!

And this is where Scripture comes in the picture!

68


This is where we seek a knowledge that can only be delivered from the
creator Himself to mankind to tell them what exactly this world was made
for, and what they are here to do! Without this delivered knowledge, no
man, no matter how wise, intelligent, or knowledgeable, could ever know
the correct answer to these questions:

Who is the creator? What does He want of me? Why am I here, why should I
die, and what will happen to me after death? Why is this world the way it is,
and what am I supposed to do with it?

Such questions obviously CANNOT be answered by theorization or
philosophy! Philosophers themselves do realize that! So what are they
doing? Well, many of them have come to the point of thinking and
questioning only for the fun of it! Posing questions just for whatever self-
gratification it gives them, to know that at least they have the power to make
a „good‟ question, and make up whatever they wish to be its answer, and
even enjoy having others follow them on those answers as though they were
indeed the truth!

But are they?

Well, they simply don‟t know!

Man may keep thinking and contemplating for as long as he wishes,
formulating as many theories as he can, fabricating all forms of hypothesis
or legends, but he can never know the true answers on his own!

So it is here that revelation comes! The god-given knowledge! And at this
point, reason poses the next rational question as such:

“Where is that revelation? Among those thousands of books that ascribe
themselves to the creator; which one is the truth?”

Obviously this is a level that builds on the rational consensus that there has
to be a creator! Now that we know there has to be a Lord, and that people
claim to have received teachings from Him, we have no choice but to start
inquiring for those teachings! The problem with an atheist is that every time
you drive him to this point of the debate, he jumps back to the point of

69


“proving” the existence of the creator, all over again! He knows that this is
the only rational result of accepting the concept of God! The next rational
step! He has to search for the text that rightfully tells him what to do and
how to live! And he simply hates that! He‟s too proud to accept somebody
telling him what to do, even if it is his own maker!

We tell him to be honest as he looks around him and stop claiming that he
doesn‟t see the truth in any of the world‟s religions, and hence claiming that
it doesn‟t exist at all! But the sad reality is that most atheists are into atheism
only because they HATE the very idea of submitting to scripture, any
scripture! And a man with this inclination will never accept the truth no
matter what anybody does!

And because they have no rational argument against God whatsoever; while
we usually see them attempting poorly at different bodies of scripture from
different religions trying to prove all religion wrong, we find them shifting
back and forth repeatedly between this task and the task of attempting to
disprove god altogether in the first place! This inconsistency of reason is
understandable, because as much as their reason tells them that there is
clearly no acceptable argument against the necessity of a creator, their pride
blocks that meaning and drives them to keep arguing in arrogance! Every
text of scripture that makes no sense to them is in their eyes evidence to
disprove the existence of God altogether! Why? Because such is how they
wish it to be!

Nobody said that all religions on earth are “correct”! This is impossible!
Reason has it that only one of those many religions ascribed to the creator is
the truth! Obviously no two religions share the same attributes of the creator,
His deeds and what happens to man after death, not to mention the Lord‟s
assignment to men in this world! And obviously there is fallacy and myth in
written texts that carry the tag of religion all around the world that is enough
to actually cover the face of the earth!

So you can rejoice in refuting as much scripture from as many false religions
as you can, professor, this certainly doesn‟t give you any reasonable grounds

70


to make the conclusion that there is no “word of god” on this earth, not to
mention refuting all religion and destroying the concept of God altogether!

This is nothing but Wishful thinking!

You do need to learn what the world was made for, before deciding on your
judgment of its performance! So do not jump to the conclusion that since
Christianity couldn‟t offer you a satisfactory answer to this question; the
question of why there has to be suffering in this world; then no other religion
can! No, life was not made so that you could enjoy as much food and sex as
you desire! And no it was not made so that you could spend it all browsing
lazily on the beach! It was not made to be a paradise! And no, the Lord
doesn‟t love us all unconditionally, like evangelists would flatly say! Be
honest with yourself and you will see where the truth has to be!

Now back to the argument of good and bad by Aquinas, the author states:

“Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest
in us. ―

I say: Yes indeed; quite obviously so!

So what‟s the problem professor? Do you claim otherwise? We certainly do
not attribute “smelliness” to our creator, or any such clearly “bad” attribute,
so where is your objection?

Dawkins then moves on to a fifth argument. I quote:

―The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design. Things in the
world, especially living things, look as though they have been
designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed.
Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God.‖

It is amazing that the very first argument that moves the heart of every man
and that is obviously on the top of it all, is put by the author here in number
five! One cannot escape the urge to wonder, is this particular arrangement
deliberate by the author? I do not know if such is how Thomas Aquinas
originally wrote them, but I have to say that obviously no reasonable man
would put this argument for the existence of the creator as number five!

71


So what does the professor say about this argument? He says it will be
discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of his book! Well, I can‟t wait to get there!

However he doesn‟t forget to apply some spicing effects in attempt to fog
off this argument, by speaking the magic word; the thread that every atheist
seeks refuge for his faith in hanging by!: Darwin! It is really amazing how a
man of “science” would apply such “cheap” tricks, thinking that broad
claims like: “Darwin has destroyed the argument from design” would sell in
the market of reason and scholarly argumentation! I say, a high priest of “the
little JuJu at the bottom of the see” could do better, arguing for his faith!

He is trying to imply that since Darwin managed to offer a theoretical
attempt to “explain” the advent of life by “natural selection” rather than the
work of the creator, and since it has become mainstream “science”, then it
must be the truth, and there‟s no longer any reason to accept the argument
that anything that appears to be “designed” is by necessity “designed”! This
is really all that he has in his attempt to disprove the existence of a creator!
A fundamentally flawed theory in terms of rational deduction; a theory that
actually paints a purposeless, limited and imperfect planner (selector),
responsible – by pure chance, in a “try and error” pattern - for the advent and
the progress of life alone – not the rest of the universe - existing somewhere
within the universe, under the tag of “nature”! Followers of Darwin are now
trying to put that pathetic imagery in place of the perfect creator everywhere
in the world, in the name of science! But have they managed to disprove the
rational necessity of creation and purpose? Never!

The theory does not and cannot disprove creation (design) or the fact that the
necessity of a perfectly consistent and inclusive predetermined course for the
entire system to emerge and endure, is by all means rationally inevitable, as
we will discuss thoroughly in another section! It builds on a fundamental
linguistic and rational flaw as it is the case with all false faiths! It was no
more than a pathetic attempt to say: “Well, why not suppose that life
emerged by a huge multitude of acts of chance that just happened to deliver
–given sufficient time - order from chaos, and perfectness from
nothingness?”… Then, gradually the argument turned into: “Do not believe

72


your eyes, do not be fooled by your senses and the natural conclusion they
lead you to; supreme design is a delusion, Darwin has proved it to be so!”

When you come to tell me not to believe my very own eyes, you have to
present truly valid and substantial evidence to be granted acceptance of such
a claim! Darwin and his followers never did that! His proposition simply
came to their liking; so, evidence or no evidence, they‟re not letting go of it,
no matter what!

It is amazing that many Darwinians would say: “If indeed the creator was
good, why then would he create species in such a way that would appear as
though they evolved from one another, and fool so many people into
believing Darwin‟s theory is true?”

Simply put, I would say: What sickness of the mind would drive a man to
make such a conclusion: “Since apes look pretty much like men, and we
have seen many species emerge from genetic changes (mutations or
whatever) and we can see species adapting (not “evolving”) through
successive generations with their locales; then men must have descended
from apes in an evolutionary tree that goes all the way back to a unicellular
organism in a lake where it all started, and hence we conclude that there is
no creator at all”?

The fact that you have seen species ranging in morphological proximity
from pretty much “looking like man”, to not looking anything like him,
coupled with the fact that within a certain species mutations take place and
gradual changes may occur and new strands of a species may emerge; this
does not give you any rational right to take that as proof for the claim that
they all “descended” from a common ancestry, and without any willful
creator! Darwin came out from the study of fossils and specimens of birds
and mammals that he interbred, with the striking conclusion that all species
descended from a single organism! What kind of a rational conclusion is
this? If this is not pure fiction; I don‟t know what fiction is!

I do realize that adaptation and gradual changes of the genetic makeup of
certain species for adaptive purposes is indeed a fact of science! But this is
not evolution! We have indeed seen changes for better adaptation, but we

73


never saw “evolution”, in the sense of one species turning into another, or
failing due to lack of sufficient organs and getting a random mutation “add”
this organ to it by chance to save the species, or any of the scandalous details
of the Darwinian myth of how all life forms emerged! By what right or
reason does an honest scientist come out from those given facts that we
actually observe, with the conclusion that all living species descended from
a single source in a process that started by pure accident and continued to
flow miraculously, one major act of chance after another through billions of
years, without a creator / sustainer agent?

The story of the ancestry tree is no better a myth than the belief that some
African god created all species by vomiting them on earth after a fit of
stomach pain!

No the Lord did not create so many morphologically proximal species so
that a sane self-respecting man would make such a corrupt conclusion,
taking an ape for a grandfather and denying his creator altogether! He chose
to create apes that look pretty much like men, and you chose – against all
commonsense and natural reason - to believe that they shared ancestry with
you! He‟s certainly not to blame for that! Only those whose hearts have gone
corrupt, would see evidence in this nonsense, and insist on accepting it
against their very own minds and souls! This is part of the attribute of justice
of the Lord almighty, may His names be praised!

Imagine if Darwin never wrote this Natural selection hypothesis, and
instead, he thought of a totally different explanation for the origin of all
species, one that could also explain the clear similarities in DNA structure
among different species on earth; By what right or reason could you come to
say: “If the creator did exist, then why would He fool us into thinking that
life emerged on earth in this way?” Well, He didn‟t! It‟s you who held a
fundamentally corrupt hypothesis so tight that you gradually turned it into an
almost unquestionable fact, and even made it into a rational necessity that
people should make those horrendous deductions whenever they look at the
way natural life works, the way fossils look and on everything else that you
call „evidence for evolution‟! You chose this nonsense against everything
that your mind and your natural human intuition tells you; so it is you who

74


deliberately challenged what God naturally created in your mind; it was not
He who “fooled” you into thinking that He does not exist! So only you are to
blame for your choices, and you will indeed stand accountant for them!

Arrogant deniers of the clear truth deserve to be fooled by what is actually a
clear sign for His mastery of creation, His unity as a source of the craft of
creation, and His richness in variability. In fact, any fare unbiased eye
should see that the only way to explain this incredibly huge variety of
species on earth, within the clear unity of the general structure, the general
cellular properties, the unimaginably huge DNA database inherent in each
cell, the reproductive tactics and general instincts, and so forth, is to say that
this is nothing less than an act of mastery of creation intended for nothing
by the creator but to demonstrate His mastery and unparalleled, and
unimaginable supremacy, and to show man that the conditions of the planet
that may have easily limited and hindered the creativity of any imperfect
creator, did not limit or challenge Him at all, as He created this
unimaginably huge and colorful palette of life forms, everywhere on earth,
in the skies, in the sea, on the land, in the trees, underground, in your own
body; and everywhere! They all demonstrate His unlimited powers; and His
unity at the same time!

Atheists must understand that this IS indeed an explanation! In fact it is the
ONLY explanation that justifies this dumbfounding magnificence and
dazzling variety on all scales and at all levels, in living species everywhere
on earth! It is the only explanation that gives it its rationally due credit! It is
not an attempt to escape or to “put a god in the gaps” and stop searching!
Escape from what exactly? From the attempt to complete a meaningless and
baseless scientific myth that is unjustifiable, un-falsifiable, and that comes in
conflict with healthy reason and common sense? A myth that not only
poisons a man‟s mind, degrades his dreams and values, demises his purpose
and ravishes his meaning altogether, but even does nothing to help him with
his life the way natural science is supposed to do?! Escape from what
exactly?

From the endorsement of a theory that does nothing more than make
children at school BELIEVE that they were indeed descendants of those

75


fiction images in their science books, of the so called “hominid” ape
ancestors, under the name of “science”? And based on what evidence? On
the fragments of a lower jaw bone and a couple of teeth found in a cave here
or there? Escape from what, really? What do you want to understand about
the way life originated, and how do you really think you could grasp the way
such a grand process must have taken place (regardless of how long it
could‟ve taken), and whatever you claim about it, how on earth do you
expect to ever be capable of proving or validating it?

There is clearly no finding of observation that could be made evidence to
prove anything at all about the way all those species came to exist in the far
past, and coexist so harmonically throughout ages of life, and in such a
perfect equilibrium! An Equilibrium that should – by the way – be a constant
state of total balance on all stages of the history of life on earth, otherwise,
the entire system would have crashed, long before that “historical moment”
where Darwinians claim a fish to have successfully come out of the sea! A
“mechanism” as blind as that of natural selection, how on earth does it
account for the collective balance of the entire system, which is a rational
necessity for the emergence of new generations of life all across those pretty
long centuries? What internally blind force of “struggle” could ever have the
rationally essential knowledge and power to balance life, death, reproduction
rates, breeding rates, migration journeys, life cycle success, food chain
perfect consistency with natural resources abundant, all along the history of
life at every given instant, so the system would continue to progress this way
throughout billions of years, generation to generation throughout, to end in
this perfection? What evolution and what primates?

The very concept of primate evolution, from no order to orderly, and from
crippled and incomplete to complete, is a rational fallacy at the very depth of
what evolution really means! The initial conditions for the emergence of life
to take place, not to mention any step to take place afterwards, even within
their own myth, had to be perfectly prepared, otherwise, no change from one
step to another would‟ve ever taken place!

A primitive inefficient organism that is born imperfect, and that still needs to
evolve as a species; means a failing system; one that lacks the standards and

76


conditions necessary for anything that could be called a species to ever come
into being in the first place! And as such, a generation of inefficient mutated
organisms should never have lasted long enough to even reproduce or
continue to survive at all! The fact that we see adaptation taking place in
generations of living organisms is indeed indicatory of a superior control
agent that is capable of maintaining a strict balance between climatic and
ecological changes on one hand, and the changing biological properties of
those living beings throughout their successive generations on the other! An
agent that is in complete unimpeded, uninterrupted awareness of every slight
change that takes place in nature, and that keeps all universal laws running,
thus authoring any genetic change that may be needed to keep a certain
species in balance and adaptation, and to remain abundant on earth, or
author any deliberately chosen cause that could, on the other hand, and
within a perfectly preserved natural balance, make a certain species become
extinct! But for a species to emerge incomplete or mutated or imperfect, and
then “evolve” through time; this is simply impossible!

The only thing that is genuinely primitive indeed is the way those Darwinian
Ape descendants think of the way life works!

Have they been any more intelligent than the average adult Orangutan, they
would have seen the clear necessity of this ongoing equilibrium being the
result of the ongoing work of an external agent in control of the entire
system of the Earth and the universe at large, not mere blind genes
mutating by chance from within the blind body cells of living species, with
only the fit of them always getting the lucky chance to survive! They would
have seen that if at any point this collective equilibrium was to fail – like the
claimed theoretical hypotheses that caused dinosaurs to become extinct – no
evolution or even new generations were to come to exist at all! Those
species that – for example – had to suffer blindness before evolving an eye,
would have never had what it takes to survive their place in the system, and
would have never managed to even beget a following generation, no matter
how many millions of years this is claimed to have taken! In fact, such a
mythical miserable creature would not have survived more than a couple of
generations as such! So a species should either come to life fully capable and

77


in its right place of the balanced system, with all necessary equipment for
survival working effectively, or it could never even emerge as anything that
could qualify as a species to begin with! A mutation that lacks survival
necessities – like that poor fish “trying” to crawl out of the see – would
never survive in the system long enough to keep reproducing and
multiplying until the working mutation comes „by chance‟! You are literally
talking about a “miracle” every time this is said to have happened!

So no, my respectable reader, the ape mentality behind Darwinism is
certainly not “reason” and if anything at all; it‟s no less worthy of the tag
“pseudoscience” than Astrology! So when they say this is by far “The best”
explanation of the emergence of life that is known to man, and hence, it has
to be true; they are only victims of their vanity, and the blind faith they have
developed in this theory in defense of their atheism, a faith that is by no
means any less powerful than the faith of a Hindu Guru in the seven
“Chakras” or the elephant God (Ganesh)!

It is their vanity and arrogance that blinds them! Had they been humble, true
and honest in their search for the truth, and truly willing to change their
position if it proves to be wrong, and accept the responsibility that comes
along with accepting the existence of the creator, they‟d have easily seen the
clear fallacy of their ways! They‟d have at least taken towards Darwinism
the same position every scientist takes towards any other theory! But there‟s
a thick layer of prejudice and bias wrapping their hearts! It keeps showing us
again and again, and pretty clearly, that Darwinism is not just a theory: It is
indeed a religious doctrine disguised in a cape of science! Atheists and
materialist philosophers of old could not dream of a better refuge for their
faith than this illusion of science put forth by Darwin and his followers!

So no professor, sane searchers for the truth will not be intimidated by such
a theatrical onslaught against reason and common sense! And dare you not
insult the winged-horse, the dragon or the pink unicorn! For after all, with
your methods of science and reasoning, I could easily hand you a fossil bone
that actually proves them to be part of your ancestry!

78


On the Ontological argument!
In the next part professor Dawkins attacks the so-called “ontological
argument” again on the assumption that by refuting the way its author wrote
it, he may succeed in disproving the creator!

And again I say that he must understand that healthy-minded people have
always seen the rational necessity of there being a creator, ever since the
dawn of mankind, long before Aquinas or Anselm, or any other theologian
or philosopher who may exercise some form of mental luxury that is
certainly not required or needed by any sane man to “prove” the ultimately
clear fact that he was created, and that he ought to be humble and show
gratitude to his great creator!

So again I should make it clear, that no matter how many more arguments of
philosophers the professor may yet put forth and attempt to come around and
manipulate or even argue against; none of this is really what moves every
sane man to recognize the power and grace of his maker ever since his mind
starts working! None of it is what really moves every man regardless of his
faith, even an atheist, when in imminent danger of drowning or dying to
raise his face to the heavens and cry out for God! Those are not signs of
blind faith or feebleness of the mind; those are natural components of every
healthy mind, and it‟s only sheer arrogance to view them to be some form of
a delusion!

And those arguments here, ontological, a priori, a posteriori, or whatever,
are no more than some verbal attempts by philosophers to express their own
ways of proving what is actually one of the clearest facts of reason ever
known to man! A fact that really needs no proof!

So no matter how they are written, they are NOT how normal human beings
know that their creator exists! And even though its already enough a waste
of time that one would have to go through reading this attempt by the
professor, we have no choice but to answer to it, lest some weak-minded
reader may be tempted to find it of any value!

First, and before bringing forth the argument, the professor makes this
comment… I quote:

79


An odd aspect of Anselm's argument is that it was originally
addressed not to humans but to God himself, in the form of a prayer
(you'd think that any entity capable of listening to a prayer would
need no convincing of his own existence).
(Dawkins, p. 80)

Well, whatever does this have to do with the validity of the argument‟s
MEANING? The way this priest practices worship and prayer, he and
whoever follows him on that, has nothing to do with the question in hand!
That is, we can prove this man to be an innovator in choosing to use this or
any other statement for a prayer to address the Lord with, however, this is
not what we are examining here, is it? I can argue that not only the way this
priest prays, but the way all Christians pray is indeed innovatory and relies
on no reliable evidence at all that may prove that this is the way the Lord
demands that He be worshipped! But is this what we‟re discussing here?
Does this have anything to do with the rational validity of the argument
itself?

Such comments by the author may indeed not be worthy of a comment, but I
chose to make a commentary anyway because in the mind of a biased reader,
one who is already biased against Christianity per se, or against religion
altogether, such “noise” may indeed affect the way he makes his judgment
and evaluation of what he reads! It‟s not a refuting argument yes, but the
way it relates to the argument in question, “smokes” the mind of the reader
even before the argument itself is presented! And to my mind, that‟s what it
really is: Smoke!

Yes of course, we agree, no entity capable of listening to one‟s prayer
“needs” any convincing of its own existence! But the question of whether or
not He does demand that this particular argument be put in prayer to Him
and that He be addressed with it is one thing and the examination of the
validity of the argument itself is another! You‟d think that as a reasonable
man, the professor would realize this rational distinction! Well, he doesn‟t!
And such is the case with this book (The God Delusion) and with every
other literature ever written for the cause of atheism! Inconsistent arguments,

80


false results and conclusions, and a clearly arbitrary attack against
everything that has anything to do with God!

They repeatedly hold the refutation of a certain religion, as evidence for the
refutation of the existence of the creator Himself and the concept of religion
altogether! On trying to refute the very concept of God itself, you find him
jumping repeatedly on certain objections that he has (regardless of whether
or not they are arguably right) on certain teachings, practices or rulings of
certain religions in particular! You can easily see a desperate man trying to
do anything to “gather” as many pieces as he can of what he wishes could
qualify as a solid argument for his case; anything at all!

Well I say: they may gather as many false scriptures or corrupt rituals or
prayers from as many false religions as they wish, and make fun of them
from now to the end of time; this does NOT disprove the rational fact that
there has to be a single creator that is worthy of all worship!

The author then says:

It is possible to conceive, Anselm said, of a being than which nothing
greater can be conceived. Even an atheist can conceive of such a
superlative being, though he would deny its existence in the real
world…‖

Well, as a matter of fact, I have to argue that the so called “ontological
argument” does NOT prove the existence of the creator, and it is wrong to
think of it as such. It rather demonstrates that a reasonable mind cannot
dismiss the idea of His existence.

I mean; to say that since I can conceive of God, then he exists, makes it – in
this particular form – open for anything else that you can also conceive of,
and yet does not by necessity exist in reality at all! And it is here that
someone like Dr. Dawkins could say: well, why not say then that since I can
conceive of a flying tee-pot orbiting around the earth, then it has to exist?
This is the point! It doesn‟t have to! And this is no proof!

The argument thus may better be written this way: If I could NOT conceive
of the creator (as the greatest entity in existence) then I could not say

81


that He exists! This is sounder because as we demonstrated repeatedly in
this literature, any meaning that is impossible to reason is impossible to exist
in the outside world! A meaning like the trinity for example is the closest
example to my mind right now! All those tricky nonsensical questions like
(can God create another similar god?) or questions as such, fall under this
category of meanings that are simply false and irrational altogether, and thus
cannot be true!

Ergo, all that such an argument would really do is prove that the existence of
the creator as almighty and perfect as He should be, does not in any way
raise any rational objections whatsoever. Yes we CAN think of the existence
of such an entity, and NO we have no rational reason whatsoever to reject
this meaning! We have every reason to conceive of His existence, and
there‟s not – on the other hand - a single reason not to, neither in the
mind, nor in the world as we see it!

As a Muslim I never use such an argument to prove that the Lord exists! I do
not say “since I can think of something that is greater than everything else,
then that thing must exist, for it is too great not to, and thus the Lord exists”!

On further dissecting this meaning: “To exist is greater than not to exist”: I
say, the meaning as such is false, because I could also think of the dullest
and the worst thing ever, and say that for it „not to exist‟ is greater than
otherwise! Does this mean then that it can‟t exist? Am I proving in this
manner that such a thing does not exist? No!

So it turns out that we have to examine what exactly it is that we mean when
we say “the greatest” or “greater”, and on what givens we make that stand.
This of course will, as it turns out, leave this argument meaningless as a
“standalone” proof! We simply know that there has to be a perfect being
because we can see all sorts of signs for that being‟s mastery everywhere,
and the very fact that we exist, and that we do what we do, in addition to the
essential meaningfulness and purposefulness that His existence puts in life,
in death, and in everything else, makes it a must that this being be the perfect
being, capable of all, limited by none! We do not say then, that only since
we can think of it, then it must be there! We can think of many things

82


indeed, but whether or not they really SHOULD exist, is clearly irrelevant!
The existence of the creator is simply a NECESSITY of reason; unlike
anything else a man can think of!

I cannot overlook this interesting comment by the professor: “Even an
atheist can conceive of such a superlative being, though he would deny its
existence in the real world‖

An entity than which nothing is greater, as such, is by necessity something
that does exist, in reality not just in the mind! The “Chain of greatness” has
to end at something than which nothing is greater! Even atheists – admits the
professor - should recognize this meaning! So why would he deny its
existence (whatever it is) in the real world? If we supposed that by “greatest”
we are only talking about size – for example - then for the sake of the
argument, that greatest thing ever, could be – according to an atheist‟s
reasoning - a particular “star” or so, billions of light years away in the
universe, for as far as the professor is concerned! So by what logic does he
deny the existence of this “greatest entity of all” “in reality”? Or is it just
because he doesn‟t like its being called a “being”?! In spite of all that reason
necessitates, he would insist on the creator not being an extra-universal all-
knowing being! And as I may come to demonstrate in another section, he
does indeed believe in a „god‟ that is witless and material (existing within
the universe); even though he does not call it “god”!

Yes, we don‟t prove the existence of the creator by means of this argument,
but he, on the other hand, must understand that he is not making any case for
atheism merely by making fun of it!

In commentary on a quotation by Bertrand Russell, the professor says:

―My own feeling, to the contrary, would have been an automatic,
deep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached such a significant
conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real
world.‖(Dawkins, p. 82)

83


I would say; and that‟s exactly how every reasonable man should feel! We
do not come to the conclusion that the creator exists “without feeding in a
single piece of data from the real world”! On the absolute contrary I say:
every single piece of data we get from the real world “proves” the creator!
We do not use intuition alone, or the material world alone, to come to the
natural conclusion that there has to be a creator, to which all perfectness
should be ascribed!

This is exactly why we declare that the ontological argument is not at all
sufficient and cannot be considered a standalone proof!

The professor then adds:

―Perhaps that indicates no more than that I am a scientist rather than
a philosopher.‖

Well then, professor, you leave me no choice but wonder: if your territory of
expertise is only science and you are not a philosopher, then what on earth
are you doing here? This is philosophy you are discussing in this chapter,
isn‟t it? First order philosophy, and A-priori arguments of philosophers,
theologians, logicians and scholars of religion, not scientists!

Okay, let me remind you that human knowledge relies on both: Perception
and Reasoning! The attempt by some to split the two paradigms “science”
and “philosophy/rational knowledge” apart is to me and to every self
respecting man of science and wisdom: an absolute demise of all human
knowledge!

The process of rationalization, theorization, setting up rules and guidelines
of knowledge, deciding on purposes, objectives and definitions of different
disciplines of human knowledge, such fundamental definitions that tell us
what “Science” itself is, what it is for, which way it should go, and what
methods of research are to be called “science” and what else other methods
should be called, this is not in itself “science” but is generally called
philosophy of science! It is not “science”!

84


However, there is a great bulk of fundamental works that conventionally
carry the name “science”, when they are actually theories of philosophy!
Which means that examining their rationale does not demand laboratory
experimentation; rather it takes a brilliant man who understands what he
reads, understands the logic applied in deduction and the mathematics
derived from it, so he could judge the rational validity of such theories, and
decide on whether or not they are to be called “science” at all! And the
reason why every layman could easily criticize the Darwinian philosophy
and ravish its rationale without needing to acquire any certificate in biology,
is the fact that its rational foundations are too false to demand any certificate
of science or philosophy at all! It‟s really quite enough that it tries to
synthesize an ongoing process (natural selection) from recurring events of
chance (random mutation) that started all by chance, to end up with the
claim that this mastery and perfection was not created at all! This is not a
meaning that is too complicated to be refuted by a layperson!

It is natural that any theory of science should start by a “philosophical”
assumption. But scientists have got to understand that if this basic
philosophy underneath a given theory of science is rationally corrupt; not
even a billion experiments or discoveries in the world could ever suffice to
prove it! No piling up of „evidence‟ could do any good to a theory of science
that is rationally corrupt in its basic philosophical assumptions, because none
of those findings that are claimed to “prove it” qualifies – rationally – to be
called “evidence”! If we are to expect of an experiment or of any form of
observation to validate a meaning that is rationally false by necessity of
reason, then this would result in at least one of two conclusions: (a)
Observation is delusion and cannot be trusted, or (b) Rational and linguistic
necessities are not binding, and thus reason itself is unreliable! Thus we say:
Observation cannot contradict with rational necessities, or be taken for
evidence to prove logical fallacies, and any theory of science that relies on
false reasoning should only be classified as (pseudoscience), no matter how
popular or mainstream it may have become!

However, in the absence of heavenly wisdom, many such theories have
indeed become mainstream science, in a scientific academia that is literally

85


infested with atheists! Those scientists have agreed to make them
mainstream, and they believe that they are somehow progressing in proving
them; but this doesn‟t make them the truth! You find that phenomenon
showing in almost every field of natural sciences! A scientist cannot start his
research without a general framework of convictions – stemming from his
embraced view of nature and the world (basically his belief system!) - that
effectively determines his goals and objectives!

Physicists once moved on the philosophy of Newton and Euclid, today they
are streamed in their sciences by the philosophy of Einstein and Max Plank!
Most biologists before Darwin stemmed from a certain view of life that
differed radically from that adopted by their majority today! The question of
whether or not this stream of theory – and the philosophical doctrine that
hosts it - from which a scientist emerges, and within which he works, is
evidently true and verifiable, is one that may indeed have nothing to do with
empirical testing and laboratory findings!

Many times, debaters with Dawkins would argue with him that his
Darwinism – according to his narrow view of human knowledge – is not an
object for science to prove or disprove, but is rather a stance of philosophy,
or a world view upon which he and all Darwinians construct their scientific
objectives and– ultimately – their faith, one that could easily be criticized by
every reasonable man! Yet he insists that science has proven Darwinism to
be a “better theory than creation”! What science? The problem – as he ought
to understand – is as deep as debating whether or not this proposition he
holds so dearly about „science‟ – as a branch of human knowledge - is
reasonable or rationally valid to begin with!

What we choose to call design, he chooses to call natural selection! What we
view to be perfectness and purposefulness, he chooses to view as dull
randomness! What we claim to be explanatory knowledge that has to do
with both this world and the world beyond, one that we hold to be verifiable
knowledge, he readily claims to be pure myth and would choose to embrace
a totally different explanatory thesis! It is obviously not a debate of science
now, is it?

86


What an atheist fails to see is that, no longer for how many more centuries
both parties may continue to research and pile up observatory knowledge,
fossil findings, genetic discoveries and so forth, the dispute will never be
resolved, because the difference between the two parties is not one that
awaits an observatory evidence from the natural world to settle it down for
good; it is a rational debate that has to do with the “philosophical” - or
rather: logical - foundations of thought and of “scientific deduction” upon
which the two schools stand!

They must understand that the problem is not with the tuning up or the
calibration of the machines in their labs! The problem is far more
fundamental than they think! It is one that has to be dealt with before the
decision to go into the lab!

This is why Dawkins along with almost all atheists of our time are clearly
confused between the two paradigms of human knowledge: the so called
science, and the so called philosophy! They (wishfully) think that science
proves their philosophical nonsense, when in fact it doesn‟t! A claim that is
self evidently irrational cannot be proved (or disproved) by the scientific
method. This is as far as any reasonable man may need to go in arguing with
Darwinians! And the reason why I chose to examine the Darwinian thesis in
some detail in this literature is not because I think this is where the problem
is; the problem is deep at the very bottom of its major tenets! I did this (as
yet to come) only to further demonstrate how rationally incoherent,
inconsistent and self-contradictory the Darwinian myth really is, and to
prove to the reader that had this fundamentally corrupt and incoherent theory
been any other theory in any other discipline of science, with no bearing on
the question of creation; it wouldn‟t have even made it through to this
century without being effectively dismissed by every honest scientist, and
taken for an example of what bad philosophy could do to natural science!
Yet instead, it was taken for the foundation of modern biology!

Dawkins says, in many occasions, that he believes the subject matter here
(dealing with God) is one that has everything to do with science, because he
thinks that science seeks to answer those very same questions that “religion”
is answering, only religion, he says, answers them wrong!

87


Well, who says that “religion” is wrong and “science” is right, in dealing
with those particular questions? And how many more fossils do they still
need to unearth to finally understand that neither Darwinism, nor any other
opposing view can be proved or disproved as answer to this question by this
so called “evidence”?

If by science he means direct observation and mere empirical research, then
he‟s clearly not talking science in this book, for the most part! And if by this
thin and narrow-minded view, he defines science, then he is really
suffocating himself, and it is as though he‟s shouting out loud: “Watch me!
I‟m standing at some place where – as a scientist – I‟m not supposed to be”!
This is why many philosophers do indeed find this position the professor has
gotten himself into; an act of intellectual suicide!

I‟m afraid the professor obviously doesn‟t know under what discipline of
human knowledge this debate he is into really falls, and why!

If by a man of science, again, he means that his craft is taking observations
and attempting to offer explanatory theories for them, then certainly this has
everything to do with religion and with what philosophers do! Because if it
is a rationally corrupt philosophy or religion that he stands upon, and from
which his propositions emerge; then he is simply claiming fallacy, no matter
what he calls it, and no matter what results he gets in his lab! This is simply
because the lab, its experiments and their results, would then all come from
previous convictions that are themselves rationally flawed!

If I believe, in advance, that for example finding traces of “water” on a
certain planet, would stand as sound evidence for the existence of – or the
mere possibility of - “natural life” there, then every process of research that I
may build upon this view, and every process of “science” I may apply in
search for that water, takes by necessity the very same judgment or criticism
that this view itself should take! And the essential question here would then
be: If I did find traces of water there, would this prove that there was or is or
could ever be any form of natural life on that planet? Only a scientist driven
by his academic ambitions and drenched in his personal belief in Darwinian
evolution would argue that it does! But in fact it doesn‟t! Why? Because

88


science or no science, the very idea that life could emerge by accident from
dead matter in a “primordial lake” is fundamentally false!

The philosophical question of whether or not it is necessary that everywhere
in the universe we find water, we can expect to find life, is one that goes
down to the roots of Darwinism, and the “myth” of the so called “primordial
lake”! No matter how much “science” followers of this myth would do, they
will never manage – by means of science – to prove or disprove it! They
have to sit back, break free from the chain they are so rigidly bound to, close
the lab for a while, and start searching somewhere else! Because it is only
reasonable that if your fundamental claim itself is rationally valid and
worthwhile, then so is every tool of science that seeks to serve it by
experimentation, simulation and discovery! But if not, not!

And again I say this is why it is fairly easy for any reasonable educated well-
read man to refute Darwinism without having to hold a PHD in
microbiology, archeology, or paleontology! And it is exactly why – on the
other hand - the professor here is thrusting his head boldly within what is
viewed to be the territory of philosophers and theologians, without feeling
that he needs to carry any particular credentials in philosophy or in theology
to do so! It‟s a very basic level of human reasoning that we‟re discussing
here! Much of it really has to do with this rational “common sense” that the
professor so easily undermines, and describes as “misleading”! 8

8
By the way: I‟m sorry to disappoint him, but it is by this very simple common sense itself that
we can easily prove the Zeno paradox about Achilles and the tortoise to be nothing but nonsense!
Obviously, all that “Achilles” has to do to catch up with the tortoise is to keep running until he
does! Reasonable people did not have to wait until a theory of advanced mathematics comes
along in modern times to help them understand this! And of course – most essentially – they did
not doubt for a minute, because of that childish paradox, that Achilles would easily catch up with
the tortoise! Yes they probably had to wait until a certain form of mathematics was developed to
properly model and simulate this particular mathematical question here; but the fact remains; the
paradox comes only from the way its conclusion is written! The conclusion that “he will never
reach the tortoise” is clearly bogus! He will, clearly, keep running until the difference dissolves to
zero, and there he will reach it! So I‟m amazed at the professor‟s attempt to use such games to
cover the face of the sun! You‟d refuse the existence of a creator and wait until somebody proves
to you, mathematically, something like the fact that Achilles has to be able to catch up with the
tortoise? What a pity! But this is what Darwinism does to people‟s minds!

89


So, as we proceed with this literature, more of the rational distortion and
fundamental corruption of reason upon which Dawkins founds his views and
conclusions, and naturally his “science”, will be exposed.

Now I‟d like to highlight this statement in particular by the professor:

―I mean it as a compliment when I say that you could almost define a
philosopher as someone who won't take common sense for an
answer.‖(Dawkins, p.83)

I have to note here that just as long he does not make a clear definition of
what he calls “common sense” we cannot choose to agree or disagree with
this statement! For, if by common sense he means blind faith, and inherited
norms that have never acquired inspection or arguing against in his
community, then yes, by never taking that for an answer, it is a compliment
for any reasonable man! But if by common sense he means those very basic
axioms of reason that do not even demand to be proven in the eyes of any
healthy mind to begin with; then this is certainly not a compliment! I‟m not
to be called wise, or even sane, if I wrote a complete volume in attempt to
prove that I exist, or that the world exists, am I?!

With indefinite and unparticular statements as such, the professor manages
to create an atmosphere that leaves an uninformed reader compelled to think
of his arguments as reasonable and worthwhile, when obviously they are
not!

Now, still on the mission of debunking the ontological argument, the
professor puts forth an argument by Douglass Gasking, which supposedly
disproves god.

I quote:

―1 The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

90


3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more
formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.‖ (Dawkins, p.83)

Now even though the professor does – thankfully – admit that this argument
doesn‟t work at all in disproving God, I find myself compelled to explain the
precise reason why it doesn‟t, and why it has nothing to do with the question
in hand. After all, if he thinks it‟s fun to bring it forth, then perhaps it‟s even
more fun to destroy it. I hope he finds himself “entertained” as he reads this
(if he ever does)!

Premise (1): true!

Premise (2): Absolutely true!

Premise (3): Now here comes the trick! “more impressive”! Reason denies
the creator of the universe being in any way limited by what man is limited
by! Why? Look around you at the way the universe is running and hopefully
you‟ll see! Try to contemplate in the meaning that the creator of a system is
by necessity not bound to the restrictions and boundaries he created in it, and
you will see! He has to be far beyond universal limitations of any sort! And
since “disability” or “handicap” is only a form of limitation that He created
in this world (the purpose of which is not our topic here!), then it should
follow that He be not attributed to any form of disability! This goes down to
the rational argument of omnipotence and its essential meaning!

91


So no it‟s not “more impressive” that this universe be the work of a
handicap, because it‟s already evidently impossible that it be in any way the
work of even a super human!

Ergo, the entire argument collapses!

However, to further amuse the professor, I would like to add that on premise
(4), the conclusion is clearly false as well! No the most formidable of
handicap is not non-existence! Non-existence is nothingness, not an attribute
to be impressed by! A totally paralyzed and incapable being is one thing,
and a non-being is an entirely different issue! Yes a totally powerless being
is as good as none at all (in terms of physical ability), but rationally, the two
issues are not one and the same! And to prove the existence of a totally
incapable being is not equal to proving a being‟s non-existence!

The professor then proceeds with sheer humor, to make fun of a number of
“Comic” attempts written precisely to make fun of those who see the divine
beyond every order in life, but may fail in expressing it in words. He quotes
Huxley‟s mockery of a man who concludes that since infinity multiplied by
naught equals any positive real number, then God is infinite creating
existence from nothingness! Well this is no argument of course, no question!
However, it doesn‟t mean that the very fact that you can do mathematics
can‟t – in itself - be part of what proves the creator‟s existence to every
reasonable man! But what is “a reasonable man”?

As I hope my reader will eventually conclude on his own after reading this
literature: Atheists are not at all in good terms with basic human reason! Not
that an atheist cannot do mathematics, practice natural sciences and research,
or prove to have a significantly high IQ or earn a Nobel Prize, but because
the magnitude of rational errors and fallacies upon which he founds his
entire being and his entire process of knowledge and reasoning, and – sadly
so – would attempt to prove and even battle for; is really outstandingly
monumental! It‟s a real pity!

They are not at all stupid! In fact a majority of particularly smart scientists in
the west are admittedly atheists! However, it‟s not that they can‟t do science,
and excel at it; it‟s this false “faith” they choose to embrace that really

92


makes them – in terms of rationality - no better than those poor Indians
dancing around a Wooden statue asking it for rain!

The professor brings forth such quotations as though it is only by means of
such „mumbo jumbo‟ that sane people “prove” the existence of the creator!
We do admit the ontological argument to be inadequate and insufficient! In
fact, if I wished, I could quote a number of theologians and scholars from
different faiths, theistic and even polytheistic that actually proved it
inefficient and rephrased it in different ways! So what?! It‟s not making your
case any good, professor, to go to some comic website and quote a number
of jokes by atheists making fun of it!

This does not by any means prove your case!

Here‟s some of those jokes, I quote:

―36 Argument from Incomplete Devastation: A plane crashed
killing 143 passengers and crew. But one child survived
with only third-degree burns. Therefore God exists.
37 Argument from Possible Worlds: If things had been
different, then things would be different. That would be
bad. Therefore God exists.
38 Argument from Sheer Will: I do believe in God! I do
believe in God! I do I do I do. I do believe in God!
Therefore God exists.
39 Argument from Non-belief: The majority of the world's
population are non-believers in Christianity. This is just
what Satan intended. Therefore God exists.
40 Argument from Post-Death Experience: Person X died an
atheist. He now realizes his mistake. Therefore God exists.
41 Argument from Emotional Blackmail: God loves you.
How could you be so heartless as not to believe in him?
Therefore God exists.‖ (Dawkins, p.85)

Okay then, although this is not how a wise man should approach an issue as
dangerous and serious as this, it wouldn‟t hurt to show the professor that we
do have a sense of humor too!

93


So how about a few “funny” atheist arguments against the existence of the
creator?

1 – Argument from spaghetti: Since there is no such a thing as the spaghetti
monster, therefore there is no such a thing as “god” either!

2 – Argument from natural selection: Since someone finally managed to
come up with an „elegant‟ natural explanation, then it is nature that runs the
whole thing, and there is probably no such a thing as God!

3 – Argument from world criminals: Since a great deal of world criminals
belong to religion, and many of them do horrendous crimes in the name of
religion; therefore all religions are nonsense; ergo there is no God!

4 – Argument from Rotten remains: Since we have found many fossils of
teeth and bones that look as though they come from an ape-like man, or a
man-like ape, a fish-like reptile, or a reptile-like bird, therefore Darwin was
right, Chimpanzees are our cousins, and there is no God!

5 – Argument from genetic change: Since genes do change on the course of
generations, therefore they have been evolving themselves starting from a
lake of proteins, controlling every living thing for their own survival; no
place for a “god” there!

6 – Argument from empirical observation: Since nobody has ever seen
“God” in the telescope, anywhere over the moon or around the solar system,
therefore He does not exist!

7 - Argument from inheritance: Since all religions teach little kids to follow
their faith from early childhood „as though‟ it were the truth, therefore all
religions are false and “abusive”, and – or course - there is no God!

8 – Argument from particular false religions: Since it cannot be that God is
both one and three, therefore there is no God at all!

9 – Argument from improbability: Since I think it is very improbable that the
world was created, therefore there is no God!

94


10 – Argument from Sheer ignorance: I do not know why there has to be
suffering in the world! Since there are those many things that I hate in the
world and do not understand, therefore there can‟t be a creator! …..

Shall I continue?

Well I suppose any reasonable reader can see now that although the “Jokes”
the professor puts forth to make fun of arguments for creation, are indeed
too feeble to even consider, this list of “jokes” I just wrote as example of
atheist arguments “against” the creator are really not jokes at all! Those are
indeed the kinds of arguments atheists use to convince themselves that there
is no reason whatsoever to suppose that there is a creator!

On “The Argument from Beauty”

The author then delves into what he calls the argument from beauty.

He starts off his battle sarcastically as usual, talking about how he chose a
disc of „religious music‟ by “Bach” to listen to on some radio show although
he is an anti-religious man! He also draws in the point that Raphael and
Michelangelo would have not been any less talented, had they been atheists,
and brilliantly he states that had Christianity not been the prevailing faith in
their time, who knows what else they might have painted?

The moral? The existence of the creator – or basically: belief therein - has
“nothing” to do with man‟s ability to enjoy “beautiful” things!

Well, there are two separate issues here that cannot be addressed as one!

1 - The position that the existence of the creator is irrelevant to enjoying
beauty,

2 - The position that faith in the creator is irrelevant to enjoying beauty.

Yes, one‟s faith or religion may have nothing to do with his ability to create
“Art” or to enjoy beauty, in the sense that all humans are generally capable
of enjoying beauty, regardless of their faith.

95


However, it is evident that those who believe in a supreme creator who
deserves gratitude for this beauty, and whose attributes fully justify this
beauty, and have faith in a next-life of even a far more glorious and beautiful
nature than this one, are much happier and much more self satisfied and
contented by experiencing beauty, - at the very least rejoicing in the hope
that death will not take this beauty away from them - hence enjoy it far more
immensely on a spiritual level than those who merely see molecules and
chemical reactions underneath!

In many occasions atheists may complain that it means nothing to say that
everything has to have a meaning because it doesn‟t! Well they‟re wrong!
Because this is not some functionless or purposeless property in human
reason; the ability and the need to obtain convenient meanings and purposes
for every phenomenon in this life, not to mention answers to the big
questions of existence that really define who we are and why we are here!
They cannot explain it! It is not a sickness that could be cured by simply
making up any myth and placing it there! It is not a disease that will be
cured by furthering knowledge of science and of nature or “raising one‟s
consciousness”! It‟s the way human reason works, the way we humans make
sense of things! The fact that Darwinism leaves its adherents empty or
desensitized in those areas, does not render them redundant!

The problem with atheists is that they claim they do not need any external
source to guide them to those basic answers! They‟d rather spend their entire
lifetimes searching in vain, in all the wrong places, than search in any book
that claims to have this wisdom sealed by prophet-hood from the creator
Himself! So the question of meaning to them holds no “meaning” or
significance at all! But that‟s not how healthy humans are! That‟s the
outcome of a miserable mind and heart that had been mutilated by
Darwinian nonsense!

Beauty, whether they do realize this fact or not, with meaning and purpose is
far more “beautiful” and “enjoyable” than this grim materialistic blankness
with no end or transcendental value whatsoever! Such is how man is made!
He needs to conceive of meanings that correspond to those things that
impact him deeply, maybe even more than he needs to eat or drink; even an

96


atheist cannot escape this natural need! This property in man is not a
psychological defect or an evolutionary tactic developed in him for the sake
of a miserable „struggle for existence‟, it‟s a self-evident necessity,
proprietary of the way humans think!

Am I claiming this mere fact – in itself - to prove that there has to be a
creator? No! (Although any sane man should view it to point to no other
direction!) I‟m only making the point that the approach adopted by the
author here, in attempt to dissect those endless things that drive – in their
totality - every reasonable man to conceive of a perfect creator, is not doing
him any good on his cause to disprove that creator!

On the other hand, to claim that the existence of the creator is also irrelevant
to the issue of beauty (both in the existence of beauty and in the human
ability to enjoy it) this is so far away from the truth! The concept of beauty
in itself is not one that should be approached by means of mathematical
equations and numbers! It cannot be “gauged” or “weighed” or assigned a
physical dimension to measure it! It is the sensual impact of the perception
of certain physical objects or events on the human spirit (or state of the
mind). Sick people cannot see beauty in a beautiful rose not because the rose
is not in itself beautiful, but because the mechanism within them that enables
them to “feel” and “enjoy” its beauty is malfunctioning.

The question now is, in a world perceived by a Darwinian who believes that
everything exists for the material struggle of genes to survive, and that there
is no such thing as a “spiritual dimension” to human life, where exactly does
the ability to enjoy beauty stand in the “evolutionary ladder”? How can an
evolutionist explain “why” it ever came into being in the human psyche?
Well, he can‟t! We certainly don‟t need to enjoy beauty in order to multiply
for the sake of our genes to survive, do we? He may answer saying: Of
course we do, because without enjoying beauty we would be depressed and
would malfunction, hence fail to reproduce! I would say: “But the question
remains; why is it that without enjoying beauty we would be depressed? I
mean, you still cannot explain the phenomenon itself, why is it that humans
– apart from all other species that walk the Earth, have to feel happy and
satisfied – one way or another – and keep searching for this contentment, in

97


order not to go sick and eventually commit suicide? Why do we never see an
ape – for example - committing suicide?!

We actually do not need – in the light of the Darwinian world-view - to be
any more “advanced” in any aspect of our existence on this earth, than apes
or pigs for that matter! So why are we so advanced, while they are not? They
would only have “chance” to resort to! It is only by chance that this mutation
came to be, they would say, even against what natural selection should be
doing!

Dawkins I suppose would say: “well, I may not have a place for the ability
to enjoy beauty in the evolutionary ladder, with respect to your argument,
but maybe somebody will tomorrow, and this certainly does not make it
proof for the existence of a creator!”

And then I would say: “Again, it is not the theist who is in the position
where he needs to “prove” why he believes there has to be a perfect
supreme creator for a perfectly magnificent “and ultimately beautiful”
system; it is the atheist who carries the unbearable burden of proving
otherwise! It is he who has to offer clear acceptable reasons why he defies
this natural flawless reasoning and believes otherwise! You cannot prove the
obvious by doing anything more than demand the denier to just open his
eyes!

On the Argument from Personal Experience

I do not have to reconfirm the fact that the earth is so full of false religions,
and people who are fooled by following blindly – regardless of excuse or
lack thereof - the faith of their fathers and their communities, into assuming
that their false religion is true, and is self-evident!

So if the professor rejoices in mocking and ridiculing false beliefs of false
doctrines, I have to say that we all share the same sentiment with him! The
only difference is that we know where the truth is; while he insists on
denying it!

98


Whoever makes any fallacious claims about a “relationship” with the creator
that makes him believe in a personal God, is just another follower of myth
and fallacy!

However, my question to the professor is this: By what evidence does he
hold that it is – for example – impossible for a man to get spoken to by the
creator? I mean, accepting the least possibility of the existence of a creator,
if then somebody comes to claim that the creator did indeed talk to him, how
does he, the professor, prove him to be a liar?

He would probably say: it is easy to assume that he or she is delusional or
suffers from hallucinations of some sort, imagining things that are not there!
Well, yes of course it is possible, and dead easy! But it is equally possible
and even easier to claim that he is indeed in contact with a supernatural
being of some sort – whether or not it is indeed the creator is another
question! Isn‟t it?

At this point the atheist would resort to probability, saying, what are the
odds that it really is a supernatural being? I would say even if the odds are
one to ten billion! Isn‟t it possible?

That man claiming to be spoken to by God could he or could he not be that
one in a ten billion? It is amazing how atheists would apply probability as
though it disproves their opponents‟ claims, when in fact it does not! The
claim that it is highly unlikely that this be the case – regardless of where
exactly this position itself comes from and what evidence substantiates it –
does NOT deny the possibility that it is indeed the case! So how do you
know?

They don‟t!

Well I say there is indeed a bulk of knowledge that comes from the creator
Himself, evidently so, that tells us what this “being” encountered by those
poor people really is, - if it is in many cases not some form of hallucination,
which is certainly a possibility that we do recognize - and how to protect
oneself against it. Like I said earlier, having stood at the point where we see
the necessity of a creator, the next logical step is to start examining doctrines

99


of knowledge that are ascribed to Him!9 And on accepting the true religion
to be indeed His word, and His given knowledge to mankind, in that
knowledge we will find the only reliable teachings that tell us what exactly it
is that‟s going on with those people, and whether or not they are delusional!

However, the point is that so long as the atheist continues to deny the
existence of the creator altogether, or admits Him, but refuses to examine
religions that are claimed to be His teaching, in search for knowledge that he
lacks about Him, never will he manage to tell for certain what the truth is in
those cases of people claiming to have spoken to God or to angels or to dead
people or so forth! And his position there will never be one of evident
verifiable knowledge, but rather one of speculation and probabilistic
assumptions! He “feels” like considering those people to be delusional, so
such is how he chooses to judge them! … Their evidence? Well, he‟d say:
“They are more likely to be so than not”! That‟s all he has, nothing more!

I now ask every reasonable reader; is this by any standard of reason to be
called knowledge? And more essentially; are those claims by those people to
be used against the argument of the existence of the creator Himself?

This is the point! You can‟t use them to disprove the creator! Just because
you don‟t feel “comfortable” thinking of a creator who can listen to your
innermost thoughts despite your will, doesn‟t make it “unlikely” or
“improbable” that He CAN! I mean how probable is it – applying your own
conception of probability - , really, that all this perfectness of order that you
see in the universe around you and in your own body, just happened to come
about eventually through a gradual accumulation of unplanned events of
chance? Is it any less probable that those guys really did see something that
is supernatural (regardless of what it really is)? And even if it is less
probable, by what reason do you take it to mean that they are delusional,
much less disprove the existence of the supernatural?

9
How we make that proof is not our point here, and as you proceed reading this literature, my reader,
you will realize that the question of what religion on this earth is the truth, is not in need for any proof at
all!

100


Atheists clearly have nothing to stand upon here! Nothing at all! And they
never will! In denial of the perfectly clear truth, nothing could possibly
qualify for proof!

They rely on wishful thinking just as much as those deluded poor fellows
who may think they have seen Jesus or Mary or some dead saint talking to
them in the Church! I do have evident knowledge that neither Jesus nor
Mary nor Muhammad nor any dead man for that matter could appear to any
living man, much less teach him to further revere that dead person or do
more “Rosaries” or tell him about the future or heal him or so forth! Is this
only because I‟m not a Christian? No! It is because I claim that the
knowledge I have in Islam in this respect is evidently the truth. However,
since Dawkins is only trying to ridicule the entire concept of people
witnessing supernatural sightings or revelations, for the sake of disproving
the divine, I will suffice for now in taking the position of proving him
lacking of any form of evidence to back up his arrogant attitude! And I think
that by far, I have made this point quite clearly!

Just watch how ascertained Sam Harris sounds in the quotation that Dawkins
cites here from his book “The end of faith”:

―And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core
beliefs absolutely are. …‖

Absolutely? What a magnanimous statement!

Excuse me Mr. Harris, I‟m sorry to disappoint you, but not only are you
ignorant, you are extremely arrogant at that!

With the drag of a pencil, this man made it a position of certainty that all
“Religious people” suffer from beliefs that are „mad‟ in the „core‟! Why?
Because he finds the idea of a being that is capable of listening to his
innermost thoughts, as „mad‟ as any claim made by any mentally sick fellow
in a mental health institution, even though he knows it is clearly not
impossible in concept, that there actually be such an entity with such ability,
and that it is in fact a rationally necessary ability in the being that created us!
However, he‟s too proud to even give the concept – at the very least - the
101


benefit of a doubt! Denial is much easier indeed, isn‟t it? Lack of courtesy
and disrespect to everything that spells “religion” is far more self-gratifying
than otherwise, isn‟t it?

It‟s noteworthy that while an atheist dares not make such a blind general
conclusion regarding certain branches of knowledge he knows little about,
he easily dares to put all forms of religious knowledge in one basket and call
it “mad in the core”!

I hope I need not say much more to show my respectable reader how
arrogant and extremely off-limits, such a blind statement is, by all measures
of rational integrity and self-respect!

The professor then goes in an interesting – really interesting - explanation of
some optical illusion that is seen in a hollow mask that he hangs on his
windowsill! He makes the point that the mind works in extremely
sophisticated ways, and comes to this conclusion:

―To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's
play to software of this sophistication.‖

I say yes indeed you‟re right! I – for myself, as a Muslim – do not by any
means deny the possibility that a great deal of those “apparitions” or
“sightings” is actually nothing more than this! So how does this disprove the
supernatural altogether? Shouldn‟t we ask them to offer their evidence? and
more essentially: what evidence does any of this raise against the existence
of the creator?

He states: “Such visions and manifestations are certainly not good
grounds for believing that ghosts or angels, gods or virgins, are
actually there.‖ (Dawkins, p. 91)

And I say; yes indeed they‟re not! And whoever takes them for evidence is
indeed ignorant, feeble-minded, and deserves to be fooled!

I may even mention that unfortunately many ignorant Muslims are often
impressed by such constructs of the brain when they see – for example - a
cloud that reads something like the Arabic word (ALLAH) or something of
102


the sort, and they sometimes call it a miracle! It‟s a psychological
phenomenon of perception known as (Pareidolia) where people tend to see
meanings in images intended for no such meanings! And while a Muslim
may view such an image as an extraordinary sign with the name of “Allah”,
people from other faiths will hardly see it the way he sees it! So from a
sound scholarly position; such “sightings” qualify as nothing in Islam! And
although they may do good work in the hearts of some Muslims and
strengthen their passion for faith, they certainly have nothing to do with
miracles or with the correct Muslim knowledge of what miracles are, and
they are not at all to be encouraged or to be taken seriously!

The professor then comes to a very slippery place when he tries to claim that
in mass sightings, thousands of people could somehow share a common
hallucination, or an experience of “mirage” or so! He says:

―On the face of it mass visions, such as the report that seventy
thousand pilgrims at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 saw the sun 'tear
itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the
multitude',49 are harder to write off. It is not easy to explain how
seventy thousand people could share the same hallucination. But it
is even harder to accept that it really happened without the rest of
the world, outside Fatima, seeing it too - and not just seeing it, but
feeling it as the catastrophic destruction of the solar system, including
acceleration forces sufficient to hurl everybody into space.‖
(Dawkins, p. 91)

Well, first of all, one has to point out that when seventy thousand people are
reported to have all seen something, then you CANNOT dismiss that claim!
And this – by the way – is a form of reliable evidence in granting approval
of narrations and stories of historical events. We accept a story from any
source either because we have no doubt in the honesty and truthfulness of its
narrator, or because we receive it from a huge number of sources, the
quantity of which makes it impossible that they would deliberately lie or
conspire to manipulate the story.

And when you think about it, actually a great deal of what every one of us
knows about the world today comes from documented sources that tell us

103


“stories” about it! I never saw – for instance – the Sydney opera house with
my own two eyes! Had I not been told about it – in concept – by a source
that I trust, I may have never known it existed! Well of course the media,
and the way documentation of knowledge has advanced, made it much
easier to access knowledge of certain events, stories, discoveries and so
forth, everywhere in the world! But the concept itself remains true, that as a
human, you cannot escape the dire need to obtain knowledge from direct
narration from a source that you trust! I would say that at least 90% of the
sum of everything you know, my reader, came to you through other sources
than direct perception and experience.

So in fact, when we speak of evidence for the occurrence of a certain
historical event – which is naturally a crucial necessity for identifying truth
from fallacy regarding claims about prophets of God, and examining the
authenticity of scripture – we are ultimately examining the way the news
reached us!

When somebody comes to tell me: “didn‟t you know? One of your friends
has had a stroke and is now in the hospital!” I‟d either trust this man and
take it for granted and start acting upon it, or I would say in suspicion – for
reasons that should be examined – “Who told you so?” Or “How do you
know?” Naturally if he is likely to lie to me, I should not believe him, I have
to confirm the news beforehand!

Now suppose I‟m walking in the street and every passerby that I know keeps
telling me: “Hurry up, there‟s a friend waiting for you in your place!” …
would I feel the same way about this piece of information, if only one man
that I may not really trust, told me this news? Of course not! And, naturally,
the bigger the number of generally trustworthy sources, the much less likely
they are to be all telling a lie, or to have all miss-perceived the event!

I bring this up here to make it clear that in cases of Mass visions, when so
many people say they all saw something then they MUST have seen
something! There is no room for the claim that the entire story of Fatima (for
example) could be forged by some historian, and that it never happened that
so many people witnessed the event, because the proclaimed event was not

104


that far away back in the past, and people still have their parents,
grandparents and people they trust telling them that they did witness the
event themselves! The continuous sources of the narrative are still plentiful,
and the chain was never broken!

Now, it is of course needless to say that the event they witnessed that day
was not and cannot have been the actual drop down of the sun, for obvious
reasons that are discussed fairly well by the professor! But then, what was
it? What did they really see? It must have been something extra-ordinary
perhaps even supernatural that appeared to them as though the sun had
fallen from its place; not just a “mirage”!

Well, I really couldn‟t care less what it was that they actually saw that day,
because what they – as Christians – claim it to be, is evidently false under
the knowledge of Islam. However, my intent is to point out that although the
professor may find it inevitable to admit that they must have seen something,
he would insist on readily overruling the possibility that it be anything
supernatural, only because he hates to admit that there could be anything
supernatural at all! Yes I agree that it was not what they thought it was – I
know it wasn‟t; but it could still be a supernatural sighting nonetheless; and
it most probably was! The knowledge that I take from Islam is the only way
for a man to understand how they could all be telling the truth when they
claim that they – for example – saw the image of Mary talking to them! An
atheist – on the other hand – will have no choice but to deny it entirely, or
propose some “science fiction” explanation that really only qualifies as
“supernatural”! He‟d say it could be a time traveler with holographic
technologies, an alien from an advanced civilization toying with us, or
perhaps the quantum interference between our universe and a parallel
universe… etc.) But to claim that there is a species of invisible intelligent
beings that live on this Earth amongst us, those we call (Jinn) or (demons),
and they have always enjoyed the ability to play such games; that‟s readily a
ludicrous superstition! No further questions!

Anyway, to get out of all this, I leave you, my reader, with this open
question: In what way does any of this “disprove” the existence of the
creator? And what is it that the professor has really done in this part against

105


what he calls the argument from personal experience: visions, sightings and
so forth? This is the conclusion he comes up with:

―That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences'
of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an
experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was
real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially
if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful
workings.‖

In a word, he means to say: You people may have really seen something
significant indeed; but I do not find any reason to believe you, or to think of
whatever it is that you saw as anything more than hallucination!

On the Argument from scripture!

Well, this is, perhaps, the part where it shows – in the full and to the utmost
clarity – that the professor is seriously ignorant in the knowledge of religion;
the very thing he is waging his war against! You‟d think that as a
“scholarly” man who has eventually come to the conclusion that there‟s not
a single volume of scripture anywhere in the world that is worth taking
seriously, the professor would examine in this part – at least – all major
bodies of scripture venerated by their followers and are ascribed one way or
another to the Lord! (i.e.: The bible, the Talmud, the Quran, the books of
Sunnah, the Avista, the Vedas, … etc.). After all the conclusion he reaches
at the end of this part is clearly that whoever finds any reason to think of his
book of scripture – any holy book at all - as evidence for the existence of the
creator, is seriously deluded!

Clearly he knows very little about any religion other than Christianity! Fact
of the matter is that on examining this part it shows clearly that he knows
very little even about Christianity itself!

Yes, my reader should expect that as a Muslim, I will agree with Dawkins in
a great deal of his objections against Christianity; but he should not expect

106


me to be indifferent with respect to any uninformed fallacy that he speaks
about Christianity or any other religion!

So the clear corruption of reason here on the part of the professor is simply
that he makes the argument that: since the Christian book is contradictory
and inconsistent, then there is no argument for God in all scripture, any
scripture!

Now when at the start of it, he mentions “scriptural evidence for God” one
cannot escape but wonder, what does he view of scriptural evidence? What
is the nature of a scripture that could, if any at all, be called in his view;
scriptural evidence? Well naturally, a mere text where a deity claims to be
the almighty creator is not in itself, by any means; evidence! We still need to
prove that this text is indeed a word of “God”! Now in the eyes of every
rational person, not to mention Muslim scholars, this is achieved through
two basic roots:

1 – Examining the authenticity of the text, all the way back to the followed
apostle of the religion!

2 – Examining the knowledge revealed in the text itself!

Of course it has to be maintained that only as long as a clearly detailed and
reliable record of history of the scripture – especially through the very first
century after the apostle of the faith – is kept and verified for authenticity
and continuity, may the scripture be deemed as an authentic authorship of
the historical author or narrator to which it is originally ascribed.

Among the qualities we should expect to find in a body of scripture that is
rightfully ascribed to the creator is:

1 – Its texts do not contradict with one another, according to the single
unified authority of understanding of those texts, which is: the direct
students of the prophet himself, not later philosophers or theologians.

2 – They include no information that could ever be PROVEN false in any
way.

107


3 – They paint a consistent image of the creator‟s attributes, one that comes
in perfect accordance with what every sane man should expect the attributes
of the Lord of all creation to be. They do not teach irrational or incoherent
meanings about the creator, His deeds, His intent or His attributes. (This is
should actually come as number one, because if the basic tenets of a religion
are rationally corrupt or incoherent; the scripture is certainly corrupt and the
case is settled; no need to proceed!)

4 – They establish a binding moral code for mankind that defines ultimate
justice and morality in no uncertain terms and on all levels: Right and wrong
are definitive criteria of whatever it is that man is created to do on this Earth!

5 – They offer consistent meanings for all aspects of good and bad, pain and
pleasure, purpose and justification in life and death and the afterlife that
cannot be otherwise explained or understood properly!

6 – They are all evidently preserved and are easily accessible in the
verifiably original tongue (language) of their revelation (alongside with
complete knowledge of that tongue itself and the way students of the prophet
understood it as well back in their time); otherwise translations and
manipulations and the natural shortcomings of linguistic rephrasing can
never be avoided, and would eventually leave the scripture valueless!

Those are some of the least characteristics any sane man should expect to
find in a volume of scripture that is said (today) to be the word of “God”! If
it is indeed a book left on Earth by a prophet of the Lord for the guidance of
mankind, then it has to be a book of perfect wisdom, with everything in its
right place and for its correct purpose, and essentially we have to be positive
as we examine that book, that the way we understand its meanings, is the
same way direct students of the Apostle himself understood it; we must be
capable of verifying this, otherwise there can be no limit to the number of
baseless interpretations every text or set of texts could be presumed to have!

Now, speaking of the Christian books of scripture, many Christian scholars
would argue that the multitude of Aramaic and Greek manuscripts that have
been discovered and piled up by far, of both the Old and the New Testament,
increases their confidence in the reliability of the translations they now use,

108


since they prove to be rather identical! Well, this is great! But it still does
not prove the authenticity of the original source from which all those
manuscripts themselves are taking! I mean yes I now believe that the copies
in your hands of those books are identical with the versions adopted in the
fourth century by the church! But I say that even if you one day found the
remains of a manuscript as ancient as the first century; this still doesn‟t
prove that manuscript itself to be authentic in its origins! This is why we
need to speak of the history of scripture in the first century under a well
recorded and reliable authority of the disciples themselves! Christians do not
have such an evidently continuous and undisturbed authority! The first
century to them is admittedly a historical blur! They cannot even verify the
authorship of any of those books to begin with!

I mean if religion X is indeed supposed to be the one religion of God that all
humans should accept and live by till the end of times; is it rationally
possible that the omniscient Lord almighty would make its book the one
code for all generations to come, without leaving anywhere in the legacy of
this religion or in that book itself a single document that could be proven
today without a speck of doubt, and with no room for any scholarly
debate to be the actual words of an actual messenger of His? How then
would He demand that people accept this body of scripture as His own true
word, and to the end of times? More essentially, if religion X was indeed
true, and all humans to the end of times are supposed to accept it; is it
possible that the very basic fundamentals of faith concerning the nature of
the deity itself be left in religion X without a reliably clear, unambiguous
and unquestionably authentic textual reference that stands the challenge of
refutation by any of its opponents? Is it okay with Christians that after a
fierce debate that went on for three centuries between radically different
„religions‟ concerning the very nature of God and Jesus; the faith only
comes to be determined and sanctioned eventually by means of some voting
under the command of an emperor in a religious council?

Christians often argue wishfully that the texts of the bible have always been
at the heart of the Christian nation, so they cannot have been altered or lost!
Well I have then to say: How far back in history can you prove this nation to

109


go? What is the Christian nation in the first place, when and where did it
begin, and how do you define it? What form of a Christian nation – at all -
can you speak of in the first century AD, or even in the first three centuries
after Christ, before the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church in Pagan
Rome? You do not have that “nation” in those early crucial centuries in the
lifetime of your doctrine! Nowhere in history before the time of the Roman
Emperor Constantine, did any “nation” of Christianity really come to
existence, one that could be thought to have put the original authentic
teachings of Christ at its heart as you would easily claim, and worked with
all its power to preserve them; teachings that are indeed authorized by the
true disciples of Jesus himself!

In fact Disciples of Christ were notoriously persecuted by both the Romans
and the Jews in the first century, and most of them had to hide their faith and
pray in their homes! There was no such a thing as “church” back then! So by
what evidence can we accept a particular manuscript - even if it dates back
to the first century – as evidently authentic, and as an authority of direct
followers of Christ? How could there possibly be any continuous line of
narration where we can determine with confidence that X listened to this text
from Y, and Y, from Z, and Z from A, and A from B, all the way up to
whoever it is that is said to be its author? This is nowhere to be found in
Christianity, and the reason is clear! Our explanation for this fact is that the
real religion of Jesus was never meant by the Lord to be the final religion to
all mankind to the end of times, like most Christians believe! Jesus was not
sent to teach the whole world about God, he was sent in a precise mission to
the „lost sheep‟ of Israel! If it were true that his teaching was supposed to be
preached to the whole world, then God would‟ve commanded him to take it
on himself to do that, like Muhammad did; to gather around him an army
and fight for the sake of the truth, or to take his followers and migrate to
another land where he could found a new nation that would really work on
spreading the message as it is - under his own direct authority, and that of
his immediate students after him – to all nations of the world, and keep it
preserved from then on!

110


But this was never the case with Jesus and his students! Jesus was never told
to migrate to a place where he is not persecuted or where he could charge
power and set up a keep for his followers, he was never told to fight the
tyrants of the temple and other sworn enemies of the truth; this was not his
mission! Instead he was told to keep warning the Israelites and preaching the
truth to them until the time came and he was literally picked up; saved by
Allah from his persecutors when they were charging at his doorstep! His true
followers had to flee and hide their faith after he was raised in heaven lest
the Romans or the Jews would kill them! There was no „church‟, no state, no
war, and no religious assignment by Jesus to his students to secure his
teachings in the stronghold of a powerful nation and to spread them to the
world after him, quite simply because that‟s not why Jesus was sent! The
book of God that Jesus taught to the Israelites was never meant by God to be
the final book for all mankind! And by claiming that that book in their hands
today is the final book for all mankind, Christians are indeed offending the
creator because this means that He could not take the necessary measures –
by commandment to His prophet and by preparing the necessary historical
circumstances - for the sake of preserving this book and keeping it unaltered
and untouched since the time of its revelation and for generations to follow!
This mission (delivering a final religion and a universal law to all mankind
and to the end of times, setting up a kingdom under the word of God) was
appointed to Muhammad (sallalah Alihi wa sallam)! And this is precisely
why the history of the first century of the Muslim nation under Muhammad
himself was written in this particular way!

This is the fundamental problem that Christians face whenever they attempt
to prove the authenticity of their books! There is a point in their history
beyond which is nothing but darkness and ambiguity: All sorts of claims by
all sorts of people, relating to Jesus and his followers; none of which is in
the least verifiable or even traceable!

There were those who kept the laws of Moses, kept the Sabbath, as taught by
Jesus himself, and claimed that to be the teaching of Jesus the human
prophet of God, and others who claimed Jesus to be God himself incarnate,
and to have laid off the law after his crucifixion, and to have drawn a totally

111


different path for his followers by his proclaimed resurrection! There were
those who took Saul of Tarsus for an apostle and those who viewed him as
an imposter! He reportedly had his fair share of arguments on faith with
many disciples! So whose witness is to be trusted on those dark uncertain
times? And how can it be obtained, this witness? It is simply: unaccountable;
unverifiable!

It was a time of difference on the very foundations of the faith; a radical
difference of religion that is! So to not be able to prove in a sound and
reliable manner the authorship of those books, in relevance to the immediate
students of Jesus, is to really stand upon nothing but wishful thinking; just
like all followers of false religions do!

Now I‟m not saying this because I‟m a Muslim, for as a Muslim I certainly
believe that Christianity has much more “reason” in it than Atheism, even
with its irrational trinity doctrine! I‟m saying this as a rational human being
examining the Christian claim of validity for its sources of knowledge! I‟m
addressing with it not Christians alone, but every blind follower of an
ancient book that ascribes itself to the creator of the universe!

((Say Bring forth your evidence, if thy are truthful))

A Christian just presumes – “romantically” if I may say - that since this is
the faith that eventually prevailed under the name of Christianity, and under
the power of the great Roman Church, then it must be the truth! Well, it
mustn‟t! They can‟t help but wonder what if Arius really was right? And
what if Constantine chose to favor his view over that of Athanasius rather
than otherwise? Can such a fundamental difference be settled by a mere
voting in a congress? Does the fact that more church leaders voted for X
than those who voted for Y, make X by any kind of reason: the truth?

Scholars of Christianity would argue that the truth had to prevail in that
particular congress because God must have wanted it to! I say you don‟t
know that! First you have to verify the source of knowledge from whence
you make this claim!

112


To claim that the congress there was guided by the Holy Ghost, is to apply
circular logic here, because it is only through those very texts that were
canonized and granted approval by a particular authority of religion, and
interpreted in accordance with its selected faith, do you prove that the holy
ghost had anything at all to do with the decision to canonize the texts! You
still need to present evidence for the authenticity of the text, not to mention
its interpretation! So no you cannot get away with claiming that the
agreement the congress in Nicaea reached was guided by “God”!

So it all goes down to this: Some ancient figures of religion who reportedly
wrote down what they heard, their reflections, their personal letters, maybe
even speculations, about some important events in the life of Christ and his
direct followers, people whose exact relation to the true disciples cannot be
verified, sometimes even their very identity cannot be verified, and yet, the
Church picks and chooses from among those many records, not according to
a verifiable authenticity, but according to a particular creed of faith they had
already chosen to agree upon! And there you go; the canon that‟s currently
in your hand, carrying the presumptuous title: “the word of God”!

Yes indeed it is possible – rationally - that a lot of those events accounted for
in those records be true! And it is no surprise that four or five authors of
different books would take their stories from a common source, and then
write them down, each in his own words. But you still have to know who
those authors are and who that original source really was! The mere fact that
this is what Athanasius – for example - chose to call the holy book of “God”;
is no proof that any of it has anything to do with Jesus‟ true teachings and
the creed of his true followers! I am not accusing the fathers of the church in
any way of bad will or conspiracy against religion! However, with this very
same proclaimed good will, all forms of horrendous crimes have been
committed in the world, and all kinds of fallacious myth have been taken for
granted and embraced as religion as well!

Not only was that canon a work of unverified unauthenticated selection, (on
a model of: “believe first, and then select the text that matches, and burn or
re-interpret all incompatible writings”!) even worse, translators came
afterwards to put layers of their own – mostly unintentional and good willed

113


– manipulations; and yet it still remains to be called “the word of God”
nevertheless!

It is interesting that I‟m writing this lengthy discussion of Christian scripture
in particular in response to a book that claims to be refuting the existence of
God! Had the professor been born and brought up in perhaps a Hindu
culture, this section of his book would have probably been an all-out attack
against the Vedas or the Puranas rather than the Bible, under the same heroic
tag of refuting all forms of scripture and disproving the existence of the
creator, and consequently, this part of my answer to it would have been
discussing the history of Hindu scripture instead!

Thus I say it is supposed to be clear enough that he‟s not scoring anything at
all – with regards to his particular objective – by disproving the Christian
scripture! Because as we pointed out earlier, proving the invalidity of a
particular book of scripture is one thing, and proving the invalidity of all
scripture altogether is another, not to mention of course disproving the
creator, which is the object of this chapter in Dawkins‟ book!

We do agree that there are indeed a whole lot of false and unverifiable
volumes of scripture attributing their origins to the creator, containing all
kinds of myth and legend, everywhere in the world! This doesn‟t in any way
mean – by simple logic - that there isn‟t anywhere on Earth, a system of
“religious knowledge” that actually applies strict rules of scrutiny in dealing
with scriptures and evidence, and that is verifiably the true message of the
creator to mankind!

I‟m almost certain that the professor doesn‟t know – for example – what the
word (Isnad ‫ ) إسٌاد‬means, or that in Islam it is actually “Haram” (forbidden)
for a Muslim to be a blind follower (muqallid ‫ ,) هقلد‬and just copy the faith
and deeds of a religious figure that he venerates, without learning his
evidence! And only under conditions of incapability – for one reason or
another - to learn enough of his religion (the minimum that every Muslim
should learn, plus the ability to examine arguments of Imams of Fiqh on his
own, weigh the evidence and decide what ruling to follow), may a Muslim
be excused to follow a trustworthy Sheikh in Fatwa, just as he may be

114


excused in eating the meat of “Maytah”: a dead un-slaughtered animal, in a
condition of necessity where there is no other choice!

So professor, it wouldn‟t hurt you to just say: I don‟t know! In fact, we
would respect your honesty if you did! But to make such arrogant claims and
generalize them on everything that is religion and scripture in the world; this
is by no means an acceptable scholarly position, neither does it have
anything at all to do with rationality or scholarship!

It‟s quite easy indeed to make the brave unscholarly declaration that “All
followers of all religions of the world are following nonsense, and they
accept it only because they came to the world to find their parents following
it”! Nothing is easier! But can the professor afford the burden of proof that
he places over his head by making this claim, and attempting to prove it
through the examination of “scripture”? Can he be honest enough and
declare – at least – that proving the corruption of Christian scripture does not
prove the corruption of all scripture from all religions in the world?

The scholarly approach to understanding religious scripture.

Okay, since we are discussing scripture; Here‟s a brief explanation of the
proper scholarly methodology of examining people‟s religious beliefs that
I‟m almost certain the professor is not familiar with:

In order to prove a certain group of people wrong about what they believe,
you first have to make sure that this is indeed what they are supposed to
believe according to their religion: Only by making reference to their own
valued authorities of religion! You should examine the way THEY
understand their scriptures, making reference – again – to their most reliable
sources in that (reliable to them of course)! If you happen to find that there
are debates amongst their scholars on understanding a particular text, with
different explanations for it adopted in their scholarly literature, then you
should exhibit a minimal degree of scholar integrity, and mention that there
is indeed a difference amongst scholars of that faith on interpreting that
particular text, and display all scholarly „considerable‟ interpretations, even
if you find that among them is a particular one that you don‟t like because it

115


blows away your objection! I say “considerable” because not every debate
among scholars of a certain religion is tolerable in that religion! And this is
why you will have to examine how they manage to expel certain
interpretations and differences as baseless, and accordingly how they come
to choose the right interpretation!

You will need to examine: By what reference they determine that this is
indeed the intent of the original author of the text, because if they have no
reliable source for knowing this; they have nothing! A text that is open to all
kinds of interpretations that may ever be invented by scholars of that religion
is in the majority of cases as good as no text at all! And by “open” I do not
mean that false interpretations do not take place to that text at all, there is no
such text in human notion, and there will always be ignorance and human
error; I rather mean that the scripture of that religion lacks a rigid reference
of understanding that could be proven by those who know it that this is
indeed the only right way to understand those texts!

Of course if you‟re sufficiently qualified to examine and criticize those
different interpretations and maybe even prove which one of them is
evidently the correct way to understand the text in question (in the original
language of that scripture and its interpretations of course!), then by all
means be our guest, put forth your evidence, and enter this arena of scholarly
criticism from its proper entrance! But to claim that your knowledge of
Zoology or even philosophy qualifies you to mess around freely in any
discipline of human knowledge; this is absolutely intolerable by any self-
respecting scholar in any field of human knowledge!

Yes of course he will find – for example – scholars of Islam differing on the
interpretation of one text or another, this is a natural characteristic of human
beings; but what bearing does this natural phenomenon have on the
reliability, the usefulness, the validity, or even the actual meaning of this or
that scripture, is a question that is obviously way beyond the professor‟s
scholarly qualification!

116


I am telling him clearly that not everything he finds in the works of even the
most highly esteemed scholars of Islam is by necessity correct, in the lights
of Islamic sources from which they are all supposed to be taking!

It has become a common trend by many evangelists as they attempt to
convert ignorant Muslims to Christianity and “spread the word”, to pick
quotations from the works of Muslim innovators, or even errors or
misquotations from the works of eminent Muslim scholars, to support their
outright lies! They intentionally resort to this twisted forgery in order to pass
their false claims about Islam to their audiences! And although I‟m not
accusing the professor of deliberately resorting to false sources on Islam,
I‟m pointing out that his sources on Islam are not any different from theirs;
for after all, the majority of misconceptions currently predominant in the
West about Islam stems – particularly - from the work of evangelists,
missionaries and similarly oriented writers!

One of the most renowned Arabian Christian missionaries specialized in
attacking Islam (a particular bishop who goes by the name Zakareya Butros);
is famously known – through his televised shows aimed at converting
Muslims - to rely for his knowledge of Islam on the “Encyclopedia
Britannica”! I mean, imagine a student of physics referring to “Star wars” or
Spielberg‟s “Back to the future” in preparing a scholarly research on the
theory of relativity that actually aims at refuting it!

There are of course Muslim scholars who follow the correct methodology
(manhaj) and those, on the other hand who follow an innovated
methodology! There are those who have minor mistakes, and those who
have major, methodological innovations! So how do we know that, and how
do we deal with their writings? By readily condemning all those who follow
another “mosque” (as in Church) with another “tradition” different from
ours? No! We simply know it by examining evidence from verifiable
sources!

All estimable scholars of Islam make a clear distinction between the
infallibility of authentic scripture, and the fact that all humans are vulnerable
to making mistakes! So a scholar may indeed go wrong, but an authentic

117


scripture may not! Thus, one of the phenomena that characterize the true
religion is that in Islam you can actually prove those who go wrong –
dealing with indisputable principles of Islam - to have indeed gone wrong,
with solid reference to sound reliable evidence and verifiable interpretation;
it would not be my own theological interpretation versus yours or my own
“Church tradition” versus yours; but the evidently right position, versus the
identifiably wrong!

There is an integral body of scripture – the understanding of which is itself
“scripture” in a way, as it is inherited from the Salaf: Disciples and their
immediate students – that sets the standard by which every scholar of Islam,
and every work of Islamic literature is to be judged! It is a profoundly
different process of knowledge from anything any atheist has ever seen
under a tag of religion; and it has nothing to do with the way a Church
theologian – for example - works to produce “new” interpretations of old
scriptures just for the sake of making them qualify for the new mainstream
of thought in his society!

The text is either authentic, and you do possess an evidently correct way (or
ways) to understand it and work with it, or it isn‟t and you‟re simply
working your own way with philosophy in a pathetic attempt to just pick and
choose, or make the text more appealing and acceptable! Forging new
meanings for an existing text; is as much of a crime against the truth and
against all mankind as forging an entirely new text and attributing it to God!
If you have no clue to knowing the true intention of the original author of a
certain text, and what he exactly meant to say in those texts, then you simply
don‟t know what the text means, and whatever you claim it actually
meant; is nothing but presumption or cold fakery! The fact that it could be
interpreted in a variety of ways, does not make any particular one of those
ways by necessity the true meaning of the text as intended by its author!

It is amazing that when a Muslim scholar holds this position in dealing with
scriptural texts, he is easily accused of narrow-mindedness, “literalism” and
lack of “flexibility”! The same accusation goes against any scholar of any
religion who may claim that any given text of scripture should continue to be
understood in the same traditional way! He is readily labeled a

118


“fundamentalist” as though it were a crime or a moral charge against him!
―You‘re sticking to the old interpretation of scripture? Oh the
backwardness!‖ Atheists would call orthodox scholars of Islam „radical
Zealots‟ because they forcefully reject every innovated understanding of
scripture, but at the very same time, those very same atheists would accuse
other scholars of “picking and choosing” and forging new interpretations to
a text that is rationally supposed to have a single meaning that is indeed the
right intention of its author; so my question to those atheists is: What is it
that you really want then? What kind of scripture and what kind of
scholarly approach to it are you willing to accept as the true revelation from
your creator? Well, we already know the answer to this one, don‟t we?! The
words “creator”, “scripture”, and “holy book” are banished from their
personal dictionaries! It is their personal blind faith that there is no such a
thing as a heavenly revealed scripture on this Earth at all!

It is amazing how the word “fundamentalist” is actually used today to
disdain a religious scholar and bring him down in the eyes of people of his
religion! If you‟re a man who believes that his scripture is the truth, and that
the right way to understand it is the way the direct students of its first teacher
understood it, and you – thus – reject and dismiss every new understanding
that claims to be the true intent of the authors of that scripture in
contradiction with or in deviance from the original understanding; are you –
in the eyes of any self-respecting man of religion – to be viewed as a danger
to followers of that scripture? This is unbelievable! If your scripture was
always understood to deliver the message X, and all followers of this
religion ever since the time of its prophet have taken it to mean X, and then
after many centuries have passed, and out of nowhere somebody comes
along to say that this understanding is not true, or it‟s only true under certain
conditions or that it actually means Y rather than X, claiming an
unprecedented interpretation 10; by what reason is this new understanding to

10
A recent example to this is the sad “historical” incident when some woman in America managed to
convince some ignorant Muslims to have – for the very first time in the history of this religion - a female
Imam lead a mixed congregation in Salat, claiming that it is okay and that this is the right way to
understand the scripture! None of them could possibly present any evidence that this was ever taught, done
or accepted back in the first three centuries of Islam, or any time later for that matter, because the exact
opposite is the case! In fact I believe that only few of them actually know where to look if they were to
search for such evidence at all! Some of them never even heard about something called “Ijma‟” in Islam

119


be given any weight at all against the original one? Are you – perhaps –
claiming that the prophet of your religion failed to teach his immediate
students the true understanding of the revealed texts of their religion, and
people were left blind about the true intent of those texts all until you came
along to fix this problem?

What on earth could be more irrational than a claim that I am free to
understand a certain text in whichever way that suits me best, not in
accordance with what it was truly intended to mean by its author? This is
not poetry or fictional literature here that we could enjoy a mental luxury of
contemplating all the possible ways a man could interpret them and enjoy
them! This is direct teaching and instruction on the way a man has to live, in
order to satisfy the purpose of his existence in this world! So you either
understand its correct meaning or you don‟t!

This is why every time a Muslim “thinker” (like for example, the renowned
lecturer Tariq Ramadan and his great-uncle in Egypt Jamal Al-Banna)
comes along with a proposition to offer us a “new” or” modern”
interpretation of the Quran, he is effectively frowned upon; actually
“hammered” by serious scholars of Islam, because quite simply; he is
committing an act of forgery! He is committing a crime that is only a
slighter version of the one that early apostles of the Church committed,
which resulted in the loss of the true religion of Prophet Jesus and his
followers: Manipulating the religion to bring it to the liking of ignorant
people of the time! This is obviously – whatever it will turn out to be - not
the meaning those texts are meant to deliver! Those who dislike the way the
texts themselves read, and the way they were originally understood, when
they fail to manipulate or dismiss the authority (refute the authenticity) of
those texts themselves, they find no other choice but to manipulate their

‫( إجواع‬consensus) and the authority that is given to it by the scripture itself! And yet in their unfortunate
ignorance, they would find this innovation plausible and in accord with what they call “the true spirit of the
Qur‟an”! What spirit? If we did not have a verifiable body of reference by which we could refute such
ignorant assaults against our religion; then we might as well consider leaving it behind altogether, for it
would be all the same! If it‟s okay for me to interpret it in whatever way I wish, then it should also be okay
for me to obey only what I like, and to even break free from Sharee‟a altogether, by means of some twisted
“new interpretation” that I find to be plausible! And then we might as well wait for our Muslim version of
Paul of Tarsus who invented Christianity and claimed that submitting to the Law of Moses was optional!

120


MEANING and claim that they are open for “social contextualization” and
“re-interpretation”!

And instead of a society of true believers that is willing faithfully to reshape
the community and change their own lives to better observe the teachings of
their Lord (which is what the very meaning of the Arabic word “Islam”
demands), you get a society of ingrates and hypocrites who are seeking to
reshape the religion itself to suit their desires and „moral tastes‟!

So while some proclaimed “Scholars” in the Muslim world may find it a
plausible approach – falsely so - to re-read the texts (practicing what is
dubbed: selective reading), the orthodox: evidently and rationally correct
scholarly position with religious texts is to stick to the way the disciples
themselves understood them! They‟ve got to understand that the difference
between a truly God-given law, and a manmade law, is that the God-given
law in itself, and in the exact way it was revealed, understood and practiced
ever since the time of its revelation, is by necessity of reason applicable to
people of all nations and ages it was revealed to address! And in the case of
the final religion of Islam: To all mankind and to the end of times!

It is a FALSE outcome of ignorance and misconception – even if it comes
out from certain officially authorized scholars in the nation of Islam – to
claim that with the progress of time, people have to change the way they
understand the scripture! The very same rules that were applicable some
fourteen centuries ago MUST be applicable today, and in no contradiction or
conflict with anything that proves in any nation or in any age to be true or to
be in man‟s best interest!

The point is: Only in the true religion of the creator, and with the evidently
proper understanding of its texts, should you expect to find this ongoing
consistency and perfect harmony of religion with everything that is rational
and useful to man, that ever comes to be discovered or invented!

Now true scripture of the Lord – with its only right understanding - could
indeed come in conflict with certain cultural norms, philosophies, beliefs or
preferences that vary from one nation to another and prevail from one
century to another (just as it should come in conflict with all false systems of

121


faith), but this is not indicatory of the least sign of a problem with the
religion or the scripture itself, and it certainly doesn‟t mean that the
understanding of this religion and its scriptures has to be changed!

If you don‟t like a certain commandment of the evidently true teachings of
heaven; or don‟t find it to fit with your current cultural norm or social
behavior, this doesn‟t in any way mean that this commandment is wrong or
inappropriate, or that this particular way of understanding it is no longer to
be observed! It actually means that your society suffers from a serious
problem with its cultural norms and traditions; one that has to be examined
and cured with wisdom, to help this society rebound on a social scale to the
true will of their creator!

If I knew that my scripture is the truth and is the perfect wisdom for all
mankind, I should not be required to search for a way to make it fit your – or
anybody else‟s – cultural and social standards! I should rather address you
with reason and whatever evidence I have, to prove to you that the problem
is actually with the mainstream of thought that is currently prevailing in your
own society, not with those teachings I am propagating and promoting! And
that‟s exactly what I‟m doing in this book!

I know that what I‟m saying here may indeed be disturbing to many western
Muslims, but I urge them to reconsider their ways and examine their true
intentions and motives when they pick this or that scholar and take his
Fatwa! By what standards do they judge him? By the fact that he may be
closer to the way the western people live than another “fundamentalist”
scholar? Is this what it means to be a Muslim (who submits and surrenders)?
To seek every Fatwa that suits me best, not those that come from the more
pious, the furthest away from innovation and the more knowledgeable in
circles of („ulama‟ ‫ ?)العلواء‬Is this the kind of religion you expected your
Lord would demand of you to follow when you testified that He is the only
true authority in your life?

Do not let yourself be intimidated by the accusations of haters, because they
will not stop until they have got you out of your way! Yes people could still
chop off the hand of a thief or stone an adulterer – for example - according

122


to the law of Islam, today in a scientifically advanced society of the twenty
first century and do not find that to be in conflict with any evident facts, or
to hinder the progress of empirical sciences like Medicine or Chemistry – for
example - in any way! In fact, the application of an evidently powerful and
complete system of justice in a nation will certainly pave this nation‟s way
not only for material development and welfare, but for advancement on all
other human levels as well! I know – not out of pride and blind faith, but out
of evidence – that all social and spiritual diseases of the west can be cured
by no other code of wisdom but that of Islam! Not in the way a certain
society wishes it to be practiced, but the way it truly and evidently should be
practiced!

So when an ignorant comes out to speak in the name of Islam and say that
such rulings are outdated, or that the texts where they are taught should not
be taken literally any more, or should be re-read; this is in fact a liar that
should be put to punishment, or an ignorant who should be taught the true
wisdom in his religious scriptures in the only proper way to understand them
and live by them, before he proceeds to spread his own ignorance about the
faith!

We can still do great achievements of industry and technology under a total
submission to the rulings of Islam, the way Muslims of the first centuries of
Islam submitted to them! And indeed it will be guided with wisdom and
purposefulness on all levels! History testifies for this, and we all know that
there once was a time when Europe was indeed crawling in sheer ignorance
and superstition under the authority of the church, while an extremely
prosperous nation in all fields of science and knowledge was enjoying the
rational and intellectual richness of its religion; under the laws of sharee‟a!
So no, we certainly will NOT be living in caves, or criminalizing medicine –
like the Catholic Church notoriously did in the Dark ages! - or banning the
use of anything that is evidently useful to man, if we submitted to all rulings
of Islam, in the exact way that early Muslims (Salaf) did!

This is simply because we know the correct way of understanding texts that
are evidently and verifiably authentic, and are indeed complete and perfect
wisdom! If you don‟t like the way Orthodox Muslims look or dress or talk or

123


practice their rituals, then this is your problem; and it certainly does not
mean that there‟s something wrong with Islam, or with the way those
Muslims understand it and live by it! When some atheist – for example -
whines about or makes fun of what the western society would look like if all
women on the streets of Europe decided one day to cover up in „Burqa‟; this
is by no means an argument against the moral superiority of the „Burqa‟!
He‟s expressing his own frustration with a ruling that would obviously
deprive him from a free pleasure that he had no right to enjoy in the first
place! So fact of the matter is; he is the one that should be fixed here, not the
laws of Sharee‟a!

There will always come a point where you have to say: This is the only
evidently – and rationally - proper way – or ways - to understand those texts;
and that‟s how it is: So take it or leave it! I do have the evidence that I claim
to have, to prove to you that I‟m not telling you to follow an innovation or a
philosophy that I or my ancestors invented, or any man for that matter! So sit
down and listen to it if you are honestly searching for the true will of your
creator!

The claim that any text of scripture is to be understood within the cultural
context of the time and place of its reading, not the context and original
understanding of its revelation, is simply like claiming that if you left a
written will for your children after you, and some of them did not like its
literal meaning, you should have no problem with them taking it
“metaphorically” or making up a clearly different meaning from the one you
specifically intended and sought to express! It‟s simply a claim that the Lord
who revealed this text, had no particular meaning for it, and has no problem
with people claiming whatever meaning they see fit for it!

You have – for example – texts that speak of Holy war in the Quran; but
today many people in the west do not see them fit just because there isn‟t
any such war going on where they live; So how do they justify what they
read in the Quran? They may find no trouble at all in saying: The Lord was
not talking about a physical war, but a spiritual one; or this is only a
metaphor not a literal teaching, etc.! This is a clear lie! He either did mean a
physical war – with historical evidence to support this understanding - or he

124


meant a spiritual war or both! The meaning cannot be changed today to suit
the way those people – or their societies - want it to be! It has to be
understood properly, in its right context, and the way to do that is certainly
not by making up a new “interpretation”!

This manipulation of meaning is exactly what theologians of Christianity do
in their “apologetics” all the time, and find no trouble whatsoever with that;
especially with texts of the Old Testament! Both Christian theologians and
those Muslims who would follow such a method, are to be charged with
clear forgery! The only difference is that while Muslims still have their
evidently preserved understanding of those texts that stand all scholarly
challenges of refutation (as we will demonstrate in Volume 2), Christians do
lack the texts and evident explanations that would justify those stories of war
and violence they find in the Old Testament, in the light of what the New
Testament teaches about God, especially with the particularly vile and
indecent language in which those texts are written; so they know they have
no choice but resort to innovated interpretations!

As for Muslim scholars; and virtually for any sage man of religion who
respects himself, his scripture, and the direct students of his prophet, any
innovated interpretation of a text is – quite rationally - viewed to be
something the prophet himself and his students never knew or heard
anything about; so the question would then be: did the Lord address them
by a text none of them understood properly, or managed to apply as He
willed in their lives?! Or did He lead them astray instead of guiding them to
the proper way (which was only discovered later in history)?

The point my reader - and to not go any further from our subject matter here
- is that the professor is certainly unaware of the depth of the ocean of
knowledge and wisdom, before which he‟s only a child building a sand
castle at the beach! So superficially and so “comically” he addresses the
question of “scripture” here, and makes conclusions that he wishfully thinks
should condemn and criminalize all religions and all scriptures on earth!

So he may keep debating as many more Christian theologians as he wishes,
proving them – as he may think – incoherent and contradictory as he would

125


enjoy to do; this doesn‟t by any means put him even remotely close to the
truth, and doesn‟t change the fact that there is indeed so much that he still
has to learn, before he could come forth with any scholarly criticism against
any religion, not to mention ALL “religion” and “scripture”!

The professor starts off in this section on scripture by saying:

―A common argument, attributed among others to C. S. Lewis (who
should have known better), states that, since Jesus claimed to be the
Son of God, he must have been either right or else insane or a liar:
'Mad, Bad or God'. Or, with artless alliteration, 'Lunatic, Liar or
Lord'.‖

Well, clearly this is wishful thinking! It‟s no argument at all! I do agree with
the professor on that point though: There is clearly another rational
possibility that Lewis forgets here: people may have been telling lies about
Jesus after his time, and calling them the word of God!

When he then mentions that there is no historical evidence to prove that he
ever said anything about his being divine, or made any similar claim, he is
indeed making a sound argument! There clearly isn‟t, and Christians cannot
answer to that! All they have is their own choice of interpretation of certain
texts that could indeed be interpreted in other distinct ways! There is no
proof for an original understanding that could be referred to, and there is
indeed no proof for the authenticity of the texts as we argued earlier!

They usually put forth the argument that so many historians telling this very
same account could not possibly be all mistaken! And I say yes they could!
When a man makes up a story, and people for any sort of reasons find
themselves compelled and motivated to believe it (perhaps because they
trust him when in reality he is not to be trusted), and then it is passed on to
following generations, it becomes a tradition so dominant that it would be no
surprise at all that you find it mentioned as an historical fact in as many
historical accounts as you would find the story of the resurrection of Jesus,
for example! Ask any Buddhist priest about historical evidence for
accounted stories or miracles of any Buddha or Avatar that he believes in (a
126


god incarnate as well, by the way!); he would give you volumes of such
accounts!

So there must be a sound methodology to examine historical claims and
stories and identify what is reliable and what is not, other than the childish
position that anything that suits the Church creed and is authorized by the
fathers has to be the truth! If indeed Christianity was meant to be taught to
the whole world and to the end of times, then its methodology of
authenticating scriptures and tracing narratives all the way back to their
original authors must be superior to all other religions and to any method
any historian ever dreamt of; after all if it is indeed God‟s word to all
generations of man that are yet to follow, then it‟s God‟s intent to have it
preserved for them in a rationally plausible and verifiable manner! After all,
the religion was not revealed to those early fathers in Rome, Greece or
Alexandria, and they certainly never met Jesus Christ in person, did they?!
This perfect methodology I speak of is nowhere to be found in the Christian
tradition, just as it is the case with every other false doctrine!

Thus I agree, wholeheartedly, with this statement:

―The fact that something is written down is persuasive to people
not used to asking questions like: 'Who wrote it, and when?' 'How
did they know what to write?' 'Did they, in their time, really mean
what we, in our time, understand them to be saying?' 'Were they
unbiased observers, or did they have an agenda that coloured their
writing?'‖ (Dawkins p.92)

I am absolutely proud to invite every honest reader, to read about an intricate
scientific methodology of historical verification the likes of which the world
has never seen! A science in Islam that is known as: “Ilmul Hadith”: “The
science of Isnad”, and “ilmul Rijal” “the science of men (narrators)”. When I
speak of a methodology to examine stories, their narrators, the continuity of
lines of narration of every particular story, the exact verifiable status of
honesty and truthfulness of each and every single narrator and the
examination of conditions and circumstances he lived in, I‟m talking about
something that Muslims are obligated to practice and hold for an essential

127


necessity to verify every narrative that is ascribed to their prophet or to his
direct followers! This is not something we now wish we had Muslims of old
take good care of ever since the first century after the prophet, so we could
identify what exactly is evidently the words of prophet Muhammad and what
is not! This indeed has been the job of this nation ever since the death of the
prophet! Under a powerful rule of his direct disciples, the prophet left behind
a nation that has religion at its core, with people not afraid to spill as much
blood as it should take for the defense and protection of every single word
that qualifies as scripture! And as soon as the first signs of people making
mistakes or making up lies about the prophet started to show up in the time
of the first disciple kings (Khalifas) (after the events of “Fitnah”) 11, the
nation was immediately called to arms and Disciple scholars and their
immediate students practiced a very conspicuous process of naming every
narrator and examining his religiosity and his honesty. It has to be made
clear that this oral practice of memorizing the name of the narrator along
with the narrative, and delivering it as such, started at the time of the
disciples themselves, during their lifetimes and under their authority, which
is the reason why we are now followers of the only religion in the world that
rejects any scriptural text that has a broken chain of narration or one that
doesn‟t go all the way back to the disciples and from them to the prophet
himself!

Again we remind the reader that prophet Muhammad did not leave behind
him a number of scattered and persecuted disciples who were in fear for
their own lives, as was the case with Prophet Jesus (praise be upon all
prophets) and his followers! He left behind him strong warriors and kings
who evidently had one and only one cause in their lives: The total
submission of the entire nation to their Lord and the preservation and the
11
The fact the scholars of the first century like Ibn Seereen, senior student of disciples (tabe’ee) – as cited
in sahih Muslim - notoriously decided to ask every narrator to name his men on narration (his sources of
narration that came to be called “rijal’ in chains known as “Isnad”), and to verify the status of those men,
in safeguard against the threat of having innovators mix the lies they forge in their narrations to support
their innovations, with authentic narrations (especially Shi’ites whose innovation appeared as early as
thirty years after the death of the prophet), is by all means a point of pride to all Muslims, and is clear
demonstration of the heavenly wisdom for which this major conflict (Fitnah) had to appear so early in the
history of the Muslim nation! Any honest contemplator would have no choice but to admit that the
history of this nation was actually forged by the creator in this exact way for the sake of preserving this
religion like no other religion ever had a chance to be preserved!

128


powerful propagation of the true religion throughout the world! Those noble
holders of the religion were never weak or scattered, and they were not only
twelve – or even a hundred or more - students, that had to flee for their lives
and thus very little is known – and ambiguously enough - about what
happened to them or how many of them really kept firm grasp on their faith
in their prophet after he left them! NO! We‟re talking about tens of
thousands of students and sincere followers here; with strength of faith and
of will unmatched in the documented history of any other nation! No other
prophet of Allah was given this kind of plentiful, powerful and sincere
following companions!

What we know about this first nation and how fiercely it fought for the faith,
makes us see clearly that historical conditions were actually shaped by the
creator for this nation to rise for one purpose: the preservation of the final
message of truth for the whole world to see, all the way to the end times!

The study and examination of authenticity of which the professor speaks
here is indeed an essential craft for which an entire nation was built here;
with the very blood of its believers I might add! I‟m not going to speak of
the fact that the Quran is the only book on Earth that has survived for
fourteen centuries without a single letter manipulated or altered! Everybody
knows that! I rather urge the reader to open any book of Hadith today and
see for himself how Muslims do not accept any story about their prophet and
his immediate followers unless it has a continuous line of well known and
scrutinized narrators going all the way back to the prophet (Isnad)! The
slightest reason to doubt in any (Isnad) (series of narrators: X took from Y,
and Y from Z and Z from A, and A from B, and so on all the way to the
prophet or the disciple) is enough to undermine the reliability of a text and
render it powerless as evidence in Islam, according to detailed rules and
conditions of scholars of Hadith! I ask: In what other process of historical
documentation in the whole world, do you find a similar methodology of
scholarly verification and authentication of scripture?

The author then comes to this point:

―Robert Gillooly shows how all the essential features of the Jesus
legend, including the star in the east, the virgin birth, the veneration
129


of the baby by kings, the miracles, the execution, the resurrection and
the ascension are borrowed – every last one of them - from other
religions already in existence in the Mediterranean and Near East
region.‖

Now let me explain the problem with this particular reasoning that he
applies here! Regardless of how reliable “Robert Gillooly” is as an authority
to speak of the issue in hand – he might as well refer to a plumber or a comic
book writer for that matter! - , the bold claim that all similarities between
different religions have only one explanation; that they copied from one
another: is blind falsehood! It brings to my mind the kind of reasoning
behind the belief that since so many species look alike, and share similar
biophysical properties, and have the property of genetic re-adaptation, then
they must have all had a common “primitive” ancestor! It‟s no surprise that a
Darwinist would think this way!

However I must state that I agree that much of the Christian tradition is
indeed copied from Pagan religions of old, especially the Roman Catholic
traditions, due to evidence that cannot be discussed in detail in this volume
(it‟s enough to say for now that there is not a single evidence to prove that
Jesus or any of his disciples ever taught these traditions!). I also have to say
that clearly – and evidently so - much of the Christian doctrine was indeed
forged as such to appeal to pagan people of Greece and Rome!

But in all cases: Without evidence, you certainly can‟t jump to the general
conclusion that all similarities between different religions should only mean
that they all “copied” from one another!

Is it not a rational possibility that certain practices of worship were taught by
a true prophet of “God” to an ancient people of old, and were taught again,
many centuries later, to another nation by another prophet? After all it is a
single creator who sends all true messengers and prophets to nations of
mankind, and who has been doing this – as evident in Islamic scripture –
ever since the dawn of mankind! Even Adam himself was a prophet who
taught his offspring about God! The fact that people do have the tendency to
waste knowledge, and get their religions corrupted with time and mutilated
with myth and fallacy (and people do tend to copy those myths and get
130


influences interchanged), and that their innovations do accumulate in layers
and layers with time; is undeniable! However it does not mean that every
similarity in certain religious practices or even in beliefs in particular
miracles between two distinct religions is by necessity due to this corruption
or to mutual influence and copying!

The point is: You cannot make the conclusion that Christianity copied this
particular faith or this particular practice of worship from one or more
previous old religions, on the basis of similarity alone!

Atheists need to be taught that the fact that they do not know about evidence,
any form of evidence in this area of human knowledge, doesn‟t mean that
such evidence does not exist!

Of course for a man with a set of beliefs like that of the professor, it is no
surprise that at the face of it, all people of religion are nothing but blind
followers and copycats for as far as he‟s concerned! This is so easy to claim
… isn‟t it? Yes indeed! Who cares what knowledge or evidence any of those
poor people think they really have? It‟s all nonsense anyway!

Yet they‟d say to whoever asks them: ―This is only my theory any way; I
know that I could be wrong!”

Well, no you don‟t! You wouldn‟t be making your case the way Dawkins
does in his book, if you really had any room for the slightest possibility that
you might indeed be wrong about (religion)! You wouldn‟t even recognize
that there is indeed a whole lot of knowledge that you still have to sit down
and LEARN – free from prejudice - before you could take such an attitude!
So the truth is; professor Dawkins is just as much a man of blind “faith” as
every other „popularizer‟ of a false system of convictions and beliefs!

Bear with me my kind reader and you will see how many more times I will
manage to demonstrate this fact to you.

He then proceeds to state the fact that there is no rational reason or a speck
of evidence that makes us believe the four canonical books of Christianity to
be any more “true” as “word of God” than other books overlooked and
neglected by the ecclesiastic council!
131


It‟s interesting how in a footnote he draws some examples that might
demonstrate how inaccurate many translations of Aramaic words into Greek
could indeed result in devastating manipulations of meaning, and we do
agree to that in general.

However, what I cannot overlook in that footnote is how in the middle of his
argument against manipulative translations, he quotes a particular Indian
(Pakistani) „murtad‘ (a revert from Islam) who nicknames himself (Ibn
Warraq) to raise the argument that Islam, as well, is accused of the same
practices of mistranslation! Ibn Warraq claims, as mentioned by the
professor that the belief that Muslim martyrs are rewarded seventy two
virgins in heaven is based upon the manipulation of a word by translators
which in reality doesn‟t mean “virgin”! I quote:

―The only competitor for the title of champion constructive
mistranslation of all time also concerns virgins. Ibn Warraq has
hilariously argued that in the famous promise of seventy-two virgins
to every Muslim martyr, 'virgins' is a mistranslation of 'white raisins
of crystal clarity‖ (Dawkins, p. 96)

Oh yes it is hilarious indeed! I cannot help but laugh at the use of such a
quotation in this particular context! The man is desperately trying to make
the point that the problems he thinks he has found with Christian scripture
are typically to be found in all other scriptures all the same! It is a real pity!

Well, let alone the fact that this particular Ibn Warraq is an admitted enemy
of Islam (with a book titled: Why I Am NOT a Muslim!), I urge the fair
reasonable reader to answer to this question: What on earth does the
ARABIAN Muslim understanding of the ARABIC Muslim scripture have to
do with the problem that Christians have with mistranslation of scriptures
from Aramaic to Greek to English? By what means of reason could such an
argument be given any scholarly value whatsoever?

Here‟s the hilarious part: This Ibn Warraq is claiming that Muslims all
across the fourteen centuries of their history have misunderstood the clear
Arabic words of their scripture; he actually claims that this is because the

132


Qur‟an was originally “written” in Syriac rather than Arabic! I mean, which
planet did that man really come from? He thinks that Muslims of the world
just found this book one day by accident in a box in some cave, and started
“translating” it like some ancient archeological finding! And this man here,
the respectable professor of biology, is actually quoting him, and using this
bad joke as evidence to prove that Muslims suffer from the problem of
“mistranslation” of scripture as well! What translation and what scripture?
Does this man even know what he‟s talking about?

This is one of the worst examples I have seen in this book of exactly what he
claims to be at war with: Blind faith, false reference, lack of evidence,
unscholarly argumentation and unfounded prejudice! He might as well go as
far as quoting comic book writers to support his position, and guess what;
his followers would accept it all the same!

On the very next page he actually consults a professor of German language
(G. A. Wells) who questions the historical validity of the existence of Jesus
altogether!

Well, I generally have no problem with a professor of language writing
about history or religion! However, a figure of academia as prominent as the
professor is expected to take great care: who exactly he‟s quoting, in what
field of knowledge, on what basis and for what end! If – for example - I‟m
not a scholar of physics, then I shouldn‟t go quote a professor of language on
a claim that destroys the consensus of physicists and actually destroys
physics itself altogether! Suppose a historian one day wrote a book that
refutes a mainstream position in medicine! By what authority could an
uneducated layperson (with respect to the field of Medicine), agree with this
historian and quote his claim despite the consensus of all physicians
throughout history that opposes his claims?

I‟d be very happy to see the professor examine the evidence on both sides in
a scholarly manner, to back up this extreme view he is citing here with
anything even remotely close to a scholarly argument, or at least to show
us why he thinks it may be worth serious consideration! But obviously he‟s
only throwing a smoke bomb! It‟s like saying: “Oh and you know what?

133


There are actually people who think that Jesus was never even born in the
first place!” Well yes of course there are such people! So what? This is
called child-play, my kind reader, not scholarly argumentation!

He knows that such writings that question the very existence of Jesus, are
not at all worthwhile, and account for nothing really, but he would mention
them anyway! He would do anything, anything at all, to attack religion, no
matter how cheap, unscholarly and uninformed his arguments are!

He ends this section with a “Journalist” comment on the famed Novel: The
Da-Vinci Code, pointing out that Christians should not be very upset with it,
because after all, according to him, both the Novel and the scriptures it may
oppose are all fiction from start to end! Now, is such a comment expected to
offer any valuable argument or evidence of any form that supports his
position towards the creator or towards “scripture” and “religion” in general,
not to mention Christianity itself? Not at all! So what is he doing, really?

It‟s clearly not a question of „evidence‟ now, is it?!

On the Argument from Admired Religious Scientists!

This is in fact the most hilarious of all attempts by the professor for an
argument thus far! All it comes down to is the already self-evident fact that
it makes no difference at all how many “intelligent” men believe or don‟t
believe in a certain faith; this doesn‟t make it the truth! You can count as
many revered and honored historical figures in the west or anywhere in the
world, who were atheists, this certainly does not make atheism the truth!
You can bring forth all the statistics in the world that may prove that the
majority of high IQs in the world were atheists, it still proves nothing!

This is the very same argument that every blind follower clings to whenever
something within him starts pushing him towards doubt and disbelief! A
voice speaks within him saying: “Calm down, sleep tight and leave those
thoughts behind! There‟s no way that all those great men who accepted this
religion were mistaken; they must have an answer!”!

134


Atheists, like all holders of false beliefs do play that very same trick! And
that‟s exactly what the professor is doing in this part! No longer is he
searching for evidence as he should be! He is now telling Christians that if
they think the greatest number of smart people in the world were Christians;
they‟re mistaken, they were actually atheists! Well great! So what? Where‟s
the truth? What are you proving?

Nothing!

Just look at this statement:

―What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of
the American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite‖
.. (Dawkins, p. 100)

Remarkable for whom? And what does it prove?

I couldn‟t care less what faith all the elites of the world would choose! I
couldn‟t care less what those scientists who claimed to be Christians really
believed! I couldn‟t care less what Darwin did or did not say on his
deathbed! I couldn‟t care less what Dawkins will do when death eventually
comes to take him! (Although of course I do hope for his sake that he
reconsiders his choices before it‟s too late)!

The point is; any sane respectable man should not hang his faith on the
choices of other men like himself! This blind appeal to intellectual
authorities is only a big issue for those who seriously lack evidence for their
faith, and suffer from deep holes of doubt within their souls! Only those who
chose to believe for the wrong reasons and on false evidence, would be
devastated when they see those reasons crumble before their eyes! They
placed uncertain claims, with no evidence at all, in a place in their hearts
where a man can take no less than certainty! Certainty is a necessity in the
way man understands the answers he seeks to those questions! I have no
problem to die skeptic about – for example – the claims of astronomers
concerning the actual size of the visible universe, or the real function of an
appendix in the human body! But I have every reason to worry and fear if I
do not know with certainty what the universe is all about, and what I came
135


here in this world to do! This is why many stars and prosperous people in the
west are seen to make the choice of committing suicide, after a long
psychological struggle; right there at the very peak of their earthly success!
Why? Because they know it‟s short-lived! All their lives they kept muting
those deep worries and doubts on the hope that perhaps when the day comes
and they get everything they ever dreamed to get in this life, they will find
no need to worry about them at all! But when that day eventually comes, and
they have all the fame, fortune, money and power they ever dreamt of, the
question becomes a load of morbidity in their empty souls! What‟s next?
Now that I‟ve had it all, what am I supposed to do? What am I to expect? I
know I can‟t keep it for myself any longer than anyone who ever had it
before me! I‟ll start growing old like everybody else does, I‟ll start losing
what I‟ve put my blood, my heart and my entire lifetime in gathering,
gradually, maybe even suddenly, and painfully indeed, to go where exactly,
and for what reason? And to what fate? I have done it all now, so what?

Nothing! Just devastation, emptiness, and doubt!

Uncertainty in those matters is indeed a disease that has to be cured before
it‟s too late!

It must be understood that the truth in questions addressed by religion is not
to be known by assumption or hypothesis; it is to be received directly from
its only rightful source! While assumption and hypothesis may be a plausible
path to attempt research for answers to many questions about nature; it is not
the way to acquire answers to questions about what is – by necessity of
reason – beyond all nature! So intelligence and brilliance is really of no
significance in regards to those questions that constitute the basis for a
man‟s faith in purpose, death, afterlife, and the divine! One is either holding
on to the evidently revealed truth, or all that he has is myth or unverifiable
theory made up by himself or by another man like himself! Ergo; the least
intelligent, prosperous or famous man on earth may indeed happen to know
the true answers to those questions that may have led some of the most
brilliant and socially “elite” men ever born to kill themselves of desperation!
It doesn‟t take an „Einstein‟ to know the truth, professor, it only takes a man
who is true to himself and is willing to let go of the bias and just listen!

136


The professor mischievously makes the note that he should take care to keep
a tape recorder installed so that when it‟s time for him to die, he would leave
proof that he didn‟t convert before his death!

This is quite disappointing because he claims that as a “scientist” he is
prepared to accept any evidence even if it proves him to be wrong! I wonder,
if he were indeed honest about that, how could he be so sure that when the
moment comes, he will have no reason whatsoever to even consider
changing his mind? How can he be sure that it is on this particular belief that
he will die, no matter how long he still has to live, and no matter what he
may still come to learn in the rest of his life?

I‟m amazed at how lightly he treats the issue of death as though when it is
time for him to leave, he‟s sure he will have had everything prepared, and
will just lie there in his bed peacefully, and close his eyes with a broad smile
on his face, waiting for his life to end! Is it not possible that this moment
comes today, or tomorrow, when you least expect it; in bed or on board of a
sinking ship or in a tremendous car crash?! Well, regardless of how it will
come to find you professor, rest assured that you will see the absolute truth
for yourself, with your own two eyes, there at the point of no return!

He probably wonders why many people do take the question of a deathbed
confession or conversion seriously! Well, the reason is quite obvious! No
matter what choices a man has come to make in his life, it is at that point in
particular when he knows he‟s waiting for his final moment on this Earth,
that he faces a moment of truth and asks himself more seriously and honestly
than ever before: “Am I on the truth? Have I really made the right choice?
Am I absolutely positive that this faith I lived by in what comes to follow
after death; is indeed the truth? What am I to expect, now that I‟m leaving
this world?” It is right then that every man who has been lying to himself
and to others about the divine and about what‟s there for a man to expect
after death, realizes that this is his very last chance on earth! It is then that he
realizes that he should have listened and acquired certain verifiable
knowledge about what is coming up next for him, and not been so stubborn
about it all!

137


Any man who may have seen the truth with its real evidence, or may – at
least - have seen good reasons to question and doubt his chosen beliefs, and
has been hiding the fact that deep down inside, he knew that he was wrong
to live by that choice he chose for his life, and that he might indeed have
wasted his life and left the truth behind, is very likely at that moment, more
than ever before in his life, to express his fear, or burst out with a confession
or even declare his conversion! This is true of every stubborn follower of a
false questionable faith, no matter what it is! After all, he realizes at that
point, that it‟s either now or never! And that he either knows (with evidence)
or he doesn‟t; he can‟t stand anywhere in between! And that there‟s going to
be no returning from wherever it is that he‟s about to go! This uncertainty,
this doubt that has been hidden deep down in his heart, and has been muted
by all means possible, is confronted honestly and truthfully at that moment,
and for the last time in that man‟s life! He knows and realizes this meaning
far more than ever before! No matter how arrogant a man may have lived in
his life, he is indeed humbled by the seriousness of that moment! This is
why confessions by a figure of fame at that moment are perhaps more
significant than anything he may have ever said or done in his life!

Now I can‟t help commenting on certain surveys and studies the professor
mentions here in attempt to study a relationship between education and
“religiosity”! How can any scientist who respects himself be so “vague”
about defining the variables of his experiment? I mean, what kind of religion
in particular, and what kind of education in specific, are you examining the
relationship in between? If you‟re initially assuming that “the more
educated a man gets, the less religious he becomes”, is the result you
should expect regardless of what the religion is, or what the subject of
education is, and no matter what other variables may have their input in the
relation; you‟re certainly not to be called a scientist!

It is no surprise that if you teach a man a certain content of knowledge,
theory, philosophy or whatever, that opposes, or at least sheds doubt over his
religious beliefs; he will very likely become less religious! No surprise! So
when you teach Christians that man is the descendant of hominids, and that
life came about accidentally in a lake of proteins, and you keep confirming

138


those concepts as though they were absolute unquestionable facts; they are –
naturally – expected to lose their faith! If on the other hand the education
you‟re giving them is not secular, but adopts a religious basis, it is likely that
they become more religious as they proceed with it!

It also should not be neglected that there is a plenty of other social inputs
and variables that may affect a man‟s attitude to his religion, none of which
has anything to do with the education level of the people to be surveyed!

Moreover, not all who carry a tag of Christianity (for example) are initially
equal in everything they believe in Christianity, even within the same sect;
and hence they will not all undergo the same impact of education on their
core beliefs!

So fact of the matter is; such a study is nothing but is a monumental work of
pseudoscience, even if it is performed by Michael Shermer!

Equally pseudoscientific and scholarly valueless is any study that attempts to
define a particular relationship between religion and IQ level! Even though it
is quite arguable that certain false beliefs and negative personal convictions
may indeed affect certain aspects of intelligence negatively one way or
another; there is no particular religion – no matter how mythical and futile
its basic tenets may be – that may be proven statistically to impact the IQ
level! I mean, what is intelligence and how do you define it in the first
place? If we came to agree on the theoretical definition of what intelligence
is, then perhaps we could examine what particular beliefs (religious or even
secular) could impact it directly! And then of course we must not forget
social, financial and psychological factors that have nothing at all to do with
faith! So the assumption that we could isolate the test subject from all other
impacting variables in their lives is clearly false!

This is another desperate attempt by atheists to prove the un-provable, and to
twist the neck of the scientific method in favor of their blind faith, so they
could at least find comfort in claiming that statistical studies support their
baseless position against everything that has anything to do with religion!

139


At this point they may argue that they only use such statistics to draw the
attention to an “indication” that this might be the case, they do not use it for
proof that it actually is! And I say even this objective is valueless, because
just as you have your reasons to believe that it might be an indication, we
have our reasons to believe it‟s not! So at the end of the day, none of these
statistical studies adds anything to the actual debate, and they are by all
means nothing but an unfortunate waste, and a childish attempt to intimidate
people of religion using the illusion of a „scientific proof‟!

On the Pascal Wager!

In this part, it is clear to me that the professor is trying to push away a dark
gloom that comes along every time the idea of death floats up to his mind.
He‟s trying to be humorous about it, probably to hide the way he truly feels
deep within; but if I were him, I would‟ve been far more humble as I address
an issue as big as a potential eternity of doom for my afterlife!

The talk of probability and possibilities is so easy, now that you are still in
this world, and still have a chance, isn‟t it? Even though one of those
possibilities (or probabilities if you may) is an eternity in Hellfire!

So for a man who claims to be searching for the truth, and admits he still
demands evidence to prove what religion is the true religion if any, I cannot
believe how lightly he deals with this extremely serious issue! The very
same arrogance by which he answered that poor girl when she asked him
“what if you‘re wrong?”!

Forget about Pascal professor, and the reason he made this argument of his,
take a moment of truth with yourself, take a piece of paper and write down
all the possible fates that await you after death, and show some humility if
you are really honest in your search for the truth!

You say that on a scale from one to seven, between (total confidence that
“God” exists: 1) and (total confidence that he doesn‟t: 7), you are not at (7)
yet, rather still at (6)! I wonder, what exactly do you expect would move you
to the final level? And do you really expect that something could someday

140


happen that could perhaps move you down to level (4) on the middle of the
scale? And what could that be? The claim that you are not confident with
your position against the existence of (God), professor, is clearly nothing but
an apologetic claim to make your position appear reasonable and scientific!
Otherwise I cannot imagine how you assess your position at (6) not (5) or
perhaps (4)! And I certainly can‟t imagine how different your language and
your attitude would be, if indeed you were at level (7)!

I suppose every fair reader can see by the very way you wrote this book,
what position you are really speaking from! As for me, I declare it in no
uncertain terms that I‟m standing at level one! Absolute confidence that the
creator exists! It is a confidence that comes from deep understanding and
acquisition of ultimately clear, reasonable and verifiable proof, not from
wishful thinking, irrational philosophies under a tag of science, and “comic
book” misconceptions against religion! Certainty about the evidently true
answers to those major questions is a blessing that atheists can only begin to
dream about!

So please do not claim that you‟re still searching! I will not be the first man
to call you a militant atheist or a “fundamental” atheist on a call of arms for
atheism now, will I?!

And after all, professor, an atheist is the one who should worry the most
here; simply because he‟s the only one who believes (and strongly I should
say) – and without a single speck of evidence – that there‟s nothing at all to
expect after death! And that‟s, in a way, the essence of the Pascal wager! Of
course the wager is no argument to prove the existence of God, and that‟s
clearly not what it is about! I do not think that Pascal was trying to tell
people in doubt that they‟d better keep hanging on to what little faith they
have because it‟s better than nothing! And even if indeed that‟s what he was
doing, I do not think of it as an argument or evidence or anything as such!

Just think of it as a warning! An alarm! A reminder of the seriousness of this
passing question that I‟m sure should concern every atheist far more than a
believer in any particular deity and in the afterlife! (Although of course it
should admittedly bring every man, theist or atheist to take the question

141


seriously, and to examine the validity of the evidence upon which he builds
his knowledge about it, before it‟s too late)

Ok, let‟s look at this (wager) from an atheist‟s point of view.

Applying an atheist‟s logic of probability (for the sake of the argument); it is
known that almost all religions on Earth other than atheism (and its
derivative philosophies of course) believe in some sort of continuity for the
consciousness after death! This notion claims a disbeliever in any of these
religions to a quite unfortunate fate (to say the least) according to its own
doctrine! Thus it is clear that if a man chose to believe in a creator under
whose dominion he will be judged after death, and accorded himself with
one of those doctrines as the given path by that creator, he may stand some
chance of making it right and surviving an unpleasant fate after death (very
low probability, but a probability nonetheless)! On the other hand, given the
fact that there‟s no argument whatsoever against the continuity of human
consciousness after death, someone who believes his soul or consciousness
or energy or life force or whatever it may be called will just perish entirely
after death, and that there is no God at all to answer to; obviously does not
stand a chance for securing himself against whatever fate that may await a
blasphemer after death,: Zero probability!

Of course the claim that the truth is blurred and that all religions stand at
different levels of probability of being true is false logic; I only used
probabilistic reasoning here in keeping with the way atheists deal with all
the big questions of life, only for the sake of the argument. What I‟m saying
is that if they were true to their claims about evidence, then they should give
every religion they never studied or examined, at least an equal chance to
Darwinism of being true! But they are not true to themselves, and they know
that their estimates of probability are all grounded in nothing but their
personal preferences, and they know that they have no rational argument
whatsoever against creation and the existence of the creator, not to mention
the overwhelming rational superiority of the Islamic belief – in particular -
in the creator of heaven and Earth! So actually if I were an atheist, I say I
wouldn‟t even sleep at night! And I definitely do not believe him when he
pretends it does not worry him!

142


Of course it does! It has to!

I am amazed at the professor‟s claim that the Pascal Wager implies by
necessity that a man should fake a belief even though he is not true about it
or he‟s not convinced deep inside that it is the truth! Beliefs cannot be faked
professor! You either believe or you don‟t!

Any holder of a false religion should not blame Pascal for this wager if he
was fooled or tempted to say to himself: “Evidence or no evidence, it‟s
better to cling to the faith of our fathers anyway than find ourselves doomed
in the afterlife if what they believed was indeed the truth!” If this is what
Pascal was promoting, then it is certainly unacceptable, and the question
would then be: “How do you know your fathers‟ faith is the truth in the first
place?”!

Pascal, I presume, was comparing the chances of one who believes –
basically in Christianity – to those of one who does not, namely an Atheist,
with no particular regard to the question of evidence on either side!
Comparing a Christian (who may have no evidence for the validity of
Christianity but follows a healthy human reasoning believing in the creator),
to an atheist (who has no evidence against the validity of religion in general
and in addition he goes against healthy human rationality denying the creator
Himself): clearly the odds for the Christian position are higher! This is not to
say that if based on this meaning and on this meaning alone, an atheist chose
to practice religion and fake his belief, it would be acceptable or would even
do him any good on Judgment day! It certainly wouldn‟t! Only true belief
would account on that day, and in none but the true religion!

The professor then argues that the truth of whatever is there after death,
might turn out to be something different from what all religions on earth
believe it to be, and an atheist might as well have a chance of a glorious
afterlife nonetheless! Like for instance the atheist dies to find a „god‟ who –
in spite of the atheist‟s sheer arrogance in denying everything that proves a
creator to exist and to be a god of grace and perfectness – would reward him
for being a good scientist or charity giver or a man with a kind heart or so
forth! Now is this by any chance a rational possibility? This is nothing but

143


wishful thinking! Reward and punishment (by their very definition) only
follow the declaration of commandment! And since there‟s obviously not a
single stance of divine law on earth that demands people to be good atheists
(and there couldn‟t possibly be such a law); no atheist could possibly be
justified before the creator, whoever that creator may be! What creator could
possibly accept such a grieve insult from his creatures on the day of their
judgment? Not a chance!

How arrogant is Bertrand Russell when he says that if he ever comes to meet
with “God” after his death he‟d say: “Not enough evidence, God, not enough
evidence!”! The mere proposition of it is an outrage against reason and
against God! First of all, if He does exist, and He is indeed the creator, then
it is only rational that He has created enough signs in the world and tools in
the natural logic of man and the way he perceives the universe and
everything around and within him, to make him see beyond any reasonable
doubt that His existence is a necessity (which is indeed the case)! So your
problem with your creator is not “lack of evidence”, Mr. Russell!

Every healthy man is indeed born with the natural logic of admitting a
creator and the natural urge to show gratitude to that creator and dependence
on Him; so the question of why you – Mr. Russell - chose to spoil this logic
and mute this urge in you is not to be answered by the claim that you lacked
“evidence”! This is not a meaning that should require “evidence”! You
cannot demand evidence for the natural linguistic logic that any
“composition” must have been “composed” by a “composer”, that any
“perfectly organized system” must have a “perfect organizer”, and every
“law” must‟ve been determined by a “law-giver” and “law-keeper”, and that
any effect must have had a cause! What evidence does any healthy man seek
for the validity of his own natural axiomatic logic and the way the human
mind perceives and cognates? And by what reason does he claim this
meaning to apply only to small things inside the universe and not to the
universe itself, even as he sees that the meaning is the same and its linguistic
necessity is equally unobstructed, and has nothing to do with the analogy of
ways and methods of different forms of creation? Yes of course an analogy
of methods and ways is obviously wrong, but applying a meaning properly

144


and correctly where no other meaning could rationally be applied, is not
analogy! It is basic human semantics! It‟s – simply – how humans think,
speak, and assign the right words to describe what they perceive! There is no
better word in human language to describe this perfect universe and its being
the way we see it than “creation”! The application of this meaning to this
phenomenon is true by virtue of the linguistic meaning itself! It is – in this
sense – self-evident! You see something small that is composed of pieces
and works as a consistent system, you automatically inquire about its maker
and the purpose for which it is made! You see something big that has the
same qualities, you also acknowledge it as a created system; you look at the
entire universe at large and see how perfectly organized and maintained it is,
with all those small things running in perfect balance inside it, you have no
choice but to apply the very same meaning! The question of who the creator
of this magnificent system is or what the nature of the power beyond this
creation is, that‟s another question!

It has to be made clear to every atheist that he has no excuse to refrain from
applying this natural meaning to the universe at large, on the grounds that
before the universe existed, the method by which the universe itself emerged
must be different from any method of creation we can observe or imagine!
This fact does not render the meaning of creation itself inapplicable to the
universe! Rather it proves that the creator of the universe must be un-
analogous to anything in the universe, external to it and to its laws, and
unquantifiable by any created tool we humans possess! If a certain event
does not seem to accord with the laws of nature that we know, this doesn‟t
make it rationally impossible! It doesn‟t even make it defiant to those very
laws of nature by necessity, since we readily admit that we do not fully
understand all there is to understand about nature!

There‟s also no argument against applying the meaning of creation to the
universe on the grounds that it causes “infinite regress”! We have clarified
that all chains of regress are only characteristic of this universe that we
observe as it is, and since we do agree to the fact that the origin of the
universe and the first cause must be beyond it and not part of any of the
chains running within it, then He has to be the transcendent uncaused cause,

145


and the uncreated creator; and we have discussed that it is not at all irrational
for Him not to be created, it is actually a necessity, because He is not some
“complex system” of a “working composition” that we see around us that we
cannot choose any better word to describe Him by but “creation”; He is not
another composition (complexity) within the set of all composed things that
still needs an external composer, He‟s by necessity not part of this chain that
He created; He is beyond it! He is that one, terminal external composer!

I will argue later on in further detail on the linguistic corruption that atheism
brings to the human use of language, but the point I‟m making here is that;
yes of course there is every reason to believe that the way we create what we
create is not analogous to the way we ourselves were created, not to mention
the universe; but this does not affect in any way the rational necessity of
applying the meaning of creation to the universe itself! It‟s again the same
quintessential error of mixing the analogy of an abstract linguistic meaning
of an event or an attribute, with that of the physical ways by which this
event or attribute takes place! This meaning is supposed to be too obvious to
be questioned or to demand “evidence”, regardless of how much we know or
how much we think we can imagine about the way it actually took place!
And yet, here‟s an eminent philosopher who is so disturbed that if you asked
him, he might even fail to prove his very own existence!

Isn‟t this a pity?

So even if by this answer, Russell means to say: I – speaking of himself
alone – failed to see evidence that you, God, exist; he is lying because every
pulse in his veins and heartbeat in his chest tells him he has a creator; and he
certainly has nothing at all to prove otherwise!

And after all, I have to wonder: A man who had read so much, and written
so much in attack of religion, how could he possibly be excused on his
judgment for not having read enough, or for not having come across the
claims that holders of the true religion hold as evidence?

Well, certainly the events that will take place when he faces his creator will
be much different from what he anticipated!

146


The professor comments, I quote:

―Mightn't God respect Russell for his courageous skepticism (let
alone for the courageous pacifism that landed him in prison in the
First World War) far more than he would respect Pascal for his
cowardly bet-hedging?‖ (Dawkins, p.104)

I say: All those who have seen the truth, heard the call to it and have been
subjected to its clear evidence, will have no excuse before the Lord when
they reject it (and actually fight it the way Russell did), no matter what they
choose to believe in its place!

Forget about Russell‟s answer professor, and prepare your own, for every
man will be judged alone! Here are a few questions I‟d make sure not to die
before I have prepared my own reasonable answer to, if I were you:

“By what reason or proof did you choose to deny His existence, when you
know that reason necessitates it, and everything around you and within you
tells you clearly that He must exist?”

“How did you dare take this militant attitude towards all religions and take
that for a cause to fight for, with so little and so feeble knowledge you ever
gathered about any of those religions?”

“How could you judge a religion by the claims and writings of its enemies,
without even caring to consult its own established scholars on how its texts
are properly understood and on what evidence they rely in that
understanding they hold?”

“By what reason could you take the clear contradictions and corruptions in
Christian texts to be evidence for the corruption of all texts on earth that are
also ascribed to Him as scripture?”

“By what reason did you choose to neglect the perfect attributes and the
consistent and coherent faith in the Lord that is described in the message of
Muhammad, based on empty accusations from haters and people who don‟t
know what they‟re talking about?”

147


“On what basis did you choose to judge certain rulings in certain religions
as unfair or unjust, when the very moral code you apply and upon which
your society stands is only a mix of the remains of scattered religious
moralities in addition to some secular theoretical propositions that only came
from the minds of limited humans like yourself? And if you wanted to judge
by instinctual (natural) moralities; whose instincts would you label
“perfectly correct” and on what evidence? By what right then do you allow
yourself to judge what is moral and what is not, on the basis of some
manmade social standards you chose to accept and live by, the origin of
many of which you may not even know? Kant, Bentham, Nietzsche, Marx,
Sartre and others, are all but limited humans like yourself who had their
guesses on what morality means, so by what right did you take their theories
for a standard to judge what is argued to be the Lord‟s own laws, moral
codes and commandments?”

I thereby call unto every stubborn atheist to let go of his arrogance before
it‟s too late, and to desist from making false judgments as though he knows
all there is to know when in fact he doesn‟t; listen and learn and be true to
yourself as you do, and by all means be worried about dying on those
choices you have made! And if the whole issue is no big deal to you, and
you‟re willing to go to your grave with those beliefs and a cold smile on
your face; then by all means do not try to get other people infected by your
senselessness!

The professor then makes a final comment on the wager, attempting an anti-
wager; he says:

―Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God
exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller
life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and
therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him,
sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc.‖ (Dawkins, p. 105)

“Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists”?
Interesting! I thought you already accepted that there is some little
probability that He exists! How come then you ask me now, for the sake of
the argument, to „suppose‟ that there is that small chance? Level (6) or level
148


(7) now, professor? I do urge my respectable reader to pinpoint this clear
inconsistency in the professor‟s position!

Listen to him when he says: “It could be said that you will lead a better,
fuller life if you bet on his not existing…” Well, no it couldn‟t! Not in all
religions anyway! This certainly depends on the kind of religion we‟re
talking about! If indeed it is the evidently true religion that we‟re talking
about, the will of the true creator, the one who made man and knows best
what he can and cannot do, what gives him happiness, fullness and self-
satisfaction and what doesn‟t, then it certainly could not be said that life
without this religion is better! Now regardless of what religion I‟m arguing
for: this is simple reason I‟m applying here, not blind faith!

If indeed you‟re following the true will of your creator, then you‟re on the
right path; by all means a winner, both in this life and in the next one! If not,
then no matter what you do, it‟s bitter waste of a limited lifetime in a limited
mortal world, one that proceeds steadily to an inevitable end, after which is
an eternity that you will have wasted altogether, no matter how much “fun”
you‟ve had in this dark house of mortality! So what “waste” are you talking
about?

Well, that‟s what atheism is really all about now, isn‟t it? Atheists are people
who simply do not wish to „waste their precious time‟ submitting to their
maker, worshipping and abiding by His will whatever it may be! And it will
become clearer as we proceed with this literature, that it‟s not a question of
reason or evidence at all! It‟s a philosophy of denial, brilliantly forged for
the sole purpose of alleviating cognitive dissonance, by justifying the
personal denial of the undeniable, fueled by a deep desire to live free from
any form of commitment to a supreme unquestionable lawgiver that would
judge every man for every little decision that he makes in his life! It‟s
nothing but a psychological defense strategy against the meaning of
submission that the very concept of such a being forces down upon humans!
Liberalism, thus, is the core principle of atheism; the engine of motivation
that blocks out all rational argumentation for the truth in their hearts, no
matter how A-priori or self-evident those arguments may be! They just have
to deny… it‟s the only way!

149


On the Bayesian arguments

All in all, I agree with the professor that this is certainly not an argument!
There is no equation of mathematics that could prove the existence of “God”
– or disprove it for that matter - any more than prove or disprove – for
example – the existence of the human mind itself! And if the professor is
one way or another, waiting on the hope that perhaps one day a Cosmologist
or a physicist or a mathematician could come up with a theorem that “proves
the existence of God”, he‟s fooling himself, and I‟m afraid he‟s going to
wait forever! This is quite simply not what mathematics is “made” for! So I
will not bother examine his refutation of this argument, for he clearly makes
a good point there!

However, I find myself compelled to comment on this statement:

―On the other hand, Unwin thinks the existence of evil, especially
natural catastrophes such as earthquakes and tsunamis, counts
strongly against the likelihood that God exists. Here, Unwin's
judgment is opposite to mine but goes along with many uncomfortable
theologians. 'Theodicy' (the vindication of divine providence in the
face of the existence of evil) keeps theologians awake at night. The
authoritative Oxford Companion to Philosophy gives the problem of
evil as 'the most powerful objection to traditional theism'. But it is an
argument only against the existence of a good God. Goodness is no
part of the definition of the God Hypothesis, merely a desirable add-
on.‖
Again, an argument from ignorance! The problem of “evil” in the world is –
as shall be elaborated in later sections - exclusively a problem in
Christianity! This is simply because among much of the heavenly
knowledge they lost and manipulated, they wasted scripture that could
explain the necessity and purpose of creation of evil in the world! And since
they forged a particular image of “God” that is not true, and they even
forged scripture to support it, (take John 3:16 for a clear example) 12 they

12
Note that when I say “Forged scripture” I‟m not by necessity accusing “John” for example of
writing what he wrote and claiming it unto God! He probably didn‟t! The man just wrote down
his own narrative of stories he heard, in the light of his own beliefs, which were later piled up,
given the seal of divinity and canonized as the “word of God”!

150


can no longer explain evil in a manner that goes consistently with the core of
the Christian Creed (The God of unconditional love)! Hence you get the
famous escape argument: “God works in mysterious ways”! They simply
don‟t know!

The answer to this problem that „keeps theologians awake at night‟ is only to
be found in a complete content of heavenly knowledge and wisdom that is
there to teach a man what exactly he is supposed to do and how to deal with
every impact – positive or negative - of this world on his life! Let it be clear,
my respectable reader, that the question of why there is “evil” in the world
under authority of a perfect creator, is just like the question: Why does there
have to be death in the world; cannot be answered by philosophical
hypothesis, nor can it be answered in a lab! It has to be delivered and
explained in clear scripture that is evidently the Lord‟s own!

Only the creator of the world can tell you why there has to be so many
things in the world that you do not like, and how you are supposed to deal
with them! So if we are to obtain any answer to such questions, we first have
to identify the right authority of knowledge thereof! The right way to seek
those answers is not to make them up as theory of philosophy; the truth on
those issues is not to be invented or hypothesized: it is to be obtained! An
honest seeker of the truth in answer to such questions should only be
searching for a body of scripture that is indeed what it claims to be: the word
of God! Clearly we, humans, need the creator Himself to tell us why He
made us, and why He made the world this way, and what exactly – in fair
detail - we‟re supposed to do with it! The search for the truth thus should
only be the search for what scripture is indeed the message of the creator, the
Supreme Being to which reason necessitates all attributes of perfectness!

So, if a legacy of scripture in any religion lacks this explicit answer, or puts
it in an unclear, irrational, or incomprehensible manner, or a manner that
lacks a perfectly rational consistency with all necessary attributes of the
Lord, then that scripture is evidently not the word of God or of any of His
prophets! The creator of man will not do him injustice by asking him to
comprehend something that is beyond a simple man‟s thinking, as a

151


prerequisite for this man‟s redemption! After all, the majority of students
around Jesus were just simple fishermen and tax collectors, weren‟t they?
They were not Greek philosophers or church theologians!

In the Quran, the purpose of creation of good and bad is explained as simply
and clearly and consistently with all attributes of perfectness of the Lord as
in no other book of scripture that now exists on Earth! Just read this verse
for example:

((Every soul must taste death, and We test you with evil and with good, for
ordeal. And to Us you will be returned.)) (Translation of the Qur‟an verse
(21|35))

Just watch how elegantly, simply and conclusively the purpose of creation of
both good and bad in this world is explained in the clear words of the
creator! All life, with everything in it, good and bad, is but a test for man, so
that he makes choices for which he shall be judged on a day of “return”,
which in turn justifies death! End of story! Pure and simple! The meaning of
„choice‟ and consequentially „evil‟, is problematic only to a theology that
presupposes the belief in a dramatic act that was made by God at a certain
point in history, to bestow unconditional love and forgiveness upon humans,
with no regards whatsoever to their deeds or their choices! This theology is
false, and this is exactly why it keeps them up at night!

In this verse from the Quran, we can see the purpose of life, death, good,
evil, pain, catastrophe, war, disease…. etc., explained in a single eloquent
verse! Of course, this is not the only verse that deals with this issue; I just
put it here as example. I only wish my reader could read it in Arabic, in its
original tongue, to sense the richness, the power and the magnificence of the
way the Lord addresses His creatures in the Quran!

I shall further elaborate in another section on this meaning to answer to some
relevant misconceptions, and to show that there is indeed elaborate teaching
on what exactly man should do with respect to disease, evil, war, and so
forth, to pass the test of life! The reason I quote this verse in this context
here is not to offer the explanation of good and evil in the Qur‟an and the
way it goes in perfect coherence with all Attributes of perfectness of Allah, I

152


only wanted to offer the reader an example of how simply and clearly a book
that is ascribed to the creator and claims to be the word of “God” should
answer to such a fundamental question of meaning and purpose! A sane man
should expect no less of a book that is ascribed to the omniscient all-wise
creator Himself!

So again my kind reader I repeat: Problems with a certain religion and its
scripture are problems only with that religion in particular! They are not to
be stretched out to encompass all scripture and all religion, and ultimately,
they are not to be used as arguments against the existence of the creator! As
I shall elaborate in another part of this literature, the clear spread of
superstition and pseudoscience against all forms of proper rational thinking
in today‟s Western society – or any other society - is not the natural result of
any faith or any religious belief as claimed by the professor; it is particularly
the outcome or influence of any form of false belief system (especially the
pagan (wisdom) of eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism!), atheism
included!

This is no surprise! After all, a false religion or belief system is itself a
highly revered and hallowed structure of myth and fallacy, which stands in
the most part on no reliable evidence whatsoever! The further away a society
gets with its religious beliefs from the truth in the direction of paganism
(“shirk” in Muslim Jargon), the more they are inclined to believing baseless
superstition, branching from their already baseless belief systems! One can
see that for example, a society where the core religion has gone with
paganism to as far as worshipping virtually everything in the universe, and
taking millions of things for gods, would find no problem in grasping every
mystical claim in the metaphysical, without any evidence whatsoever! Just
tell a pagan that there‟s say X energy in this room, and if you contemplate
long enough you will sense it, and there you go: you create a believer in X
energy! This inclination is an extreme, the opposite of which at the other end
is atheism! Both extremes are indeed anti-reason! And as I shall elaborate,
both extremes open a man for myth and nonsense, only under different tags
and of different nature!

153


While pagans are prepared (stemming from irrational tenets of faith) to
believe and readily accept any claim about a spiritual supernatural without
any verifiable evidence, atheists on the other hand – whose core philosophy
was actually nothing but a natural historical reaction to paganism
(spiritualism Vs. materialism) – have chosen to dismiss every metaphysical
claim or belief in the supernatural, assuming that this pagan nonsense they
see around them is the only way humans approach questions of the spiritual
and of what‟s beyond! They were – and understandably so – tempted by the
nature of blind “faith” and false “religion” they saw in their societies, to
dismiss all ancient religions and faith in God altogether and stretch the tag of
superstition and irrational thinking to cover it all! However, this attitude is
every bit as irrational and fundamentally false and extremist, as the pagan
conception of the deity to which it was a natural reaction! There are those
who say everything is god or god is everywhere, and those who say nothing
is god and god is nowhere! Both are irrational extremes, and the truth is to
be found in none of them! Both parties have no evidence to support their
position, both sides create evidence from delusion and irrational thinking,
and they both have gone too far in denying what may be right and true in
what the opposite group may have! The only place where you should expect
to find a perfect rational balance between the material and the spiritual, the
physical and the metaphysical, is in the only true body of wisdom and
knowledge that is delivered from the creator himself! Only in a verifiably
divine body of knowledge is this wisdom to be found!

So while on one hand you have irrational followers of blind faith who
believe in false gods, and even view everything in the world to be “God”,
you have on the other hand irrational followers of blind faith in a world with
no creator at all, and a total denial of everything divine; both “faiths” rely on
pseudoscience and propagate it! A pseudoscience may simply be defined as
a “science” that builds on a radically false philosophy! So just like astrology
and is an example of pagan pseudoscience, abiogenesis– at the other extreme
– is an example of an atheist pseudoscience! Both „sciences‟ stem from false
philosophy.

154


The point is; atheists must understand that we – Muslims - do share their
attitude and sentiment towards every baseless irrational superstition that is
spread around only because it is said to have been a form of ancient wisdom,
or something of the sort, when it is nothing but the work of some arrogant
philosopher or storyteller of old who was made into a god or a false prophet!
In fact, our position against it is much stricter and far more serious than
atheists could ever be! It is part of the wisdom we evidently received from
the creator, to save humanity from all forms of superstition and falsehood!
And while atheists would never observe a law to keep such fallacies from
damaging the knowledge and beliefs of commoners and laypeople, Islamic
Sharee‟a law on the other hand places the purification and safekeeping of
people‟s knowledge among its basic ideals. It‟s our noble mission! It is
exactly why the concept of the Muslim nation and the work to spread Islam,
is a core concept in the Muslim thinking! Because the way this nation is
built, and the way it is assigned to spread the Lordly wisdom over the face of
the earth, is indeed part of what this final message of mercy to humanity is
all about!

So as much as I sympathize and join forces with intellectual leaders of
science in the west in their war against superstition and irrationality, I
absolutely detest their blind generalizations and assumptions that all religion
is superstition and that all faith is blind! There is somewhere in the middle
where true wisdom and the only truly rational position is expected to be
found, and this is where you will find Islam! Only in the words of the ONE
source of both, nature and reason; material and the wisdom behind it, the
here, the beyond, and the hereafter, is the correct human position towards the
whole thing to be found! Not in the teachings of a priest or a Guru or a
philosopher that bears nothing unto evidence; and not in the speculations and
desperate irrational attempts of a scientist who has overestimated his
methods and was deluded to see evidence where there‟s none at all, but in
the evidently true teachings of the creator Himself!

Those people of science, who wage intellectual wars for the sake of reason
and rationality, would admit repeatedly that there are indeed questions that
cannot be answered by “science”! So where on earth do they expect to find

155


their answer? Very often you‟d hear professor Dawkins say: „I know that
science cannot answer those questions but I don‟t think there‟s any reason to
believe that religion can either!‟ And thus I find myself compelled to
comment: „Well then, will you please do us the courtesy of proving the
validity of this ultimate generalization that you so easily declare about all
„religion‟, professor? Or should we just take your word for it, because you‟re
an oxford professor of Zoology?‟! And now what do you atheists suggest?
That we just make up any answer and go to our graves with it, to somehow
mute that urge deep within? Or simply throw it all behind and proceed with
eating, drinking, reproducing, in total abandon, in submission to our flesh,
and use science to have as much fun as we can, and burn out a meaningless
lifetime like the intelligent “apes” you believe us to be?

In their campaign against irrationality and pseudoscience, people like
Dawkins, Shermer, Randi, and others do indeed hit quite a lot of truth and
expose a great deal of fakery and fallacy for what it really is, and they are to
be credited for that! But when they take a position in testing people‟s claims
that is much like looking in a telescope and saying: “since I can‟t see any
God out there; then there can‟t be any!”; this is where they are certainly, and
by all means of reason and rationality: wrong! And whatever method they
apply at that; is every bit a form of pseudoscience!

Silly objections to creation

Here‟s a few silly objections that may commonly be used by atheists in their
literature against God‟s existence and His creation of the universe.

Why not earlier? Why not later?

―If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe
did. That‘s okay with us, but why then did God create the universe at
the time He did? Why not earlier, or later?‖

And the answer from any decent self-respecting man who understands his
limits and the grandeur of the eternal creator we are talking about here
should be nothing other than this: “It‟s none of your bloody business”! The

156


question comes from the pagan imagery they hold of the creator which
insists on limiting Him to the likeness of a human being! They insist on
thinking of Him as part of the chain of regress of causes! They need to get it
into their heads that we are talking about an ETERNAL creator that had no
beginning, and has no end! If you could imagine a single point of reference
in the scope of existence of such a being to which you could relate this or
that event and thus wonder why He didn‟t do it any earlier, then your
question may make some sense! But there is no such a reference of time to
which He is to be bound like we are! We only understand time through our
created universe! And when He tells us in His book about events that took
place fifty thousand years before the creation of the universe – for example –
this is the creator of our understanding of time, giving us a measure of time
that we can understand through the only frame of reference that we can think
of when we measure time! God is not some old man who is to be asked – for
example: “why did you create this universe at this point of your “life” not
when you were younger or older” for example! Praised be His almighty self!

It needs to be established that certain questions are not to be asked! Not only
because they could not be answered by any knowledge we could possibly
afford, and not only because the question itself may not make any sense at
all (like this silly question here), but because it is simply wrong to ask them!
It is irrelevant to what we are here to do! We should observe humility with
our creator and only ask about what we really need to know; and we should
expect that only in His complete revelation would we find such an answer if
indeed we needed it for the purpose of our creation! Wisdom is to know the
right question to ask, and what to do with its answer!

We only know about Him what He tells us, and we need not be told why He
chose to create the world and test us within it in the first place! Questions
like: Why did God choose to create anything at all, why not leave us in
nothingness? Why did He choose to create us as tested beings in the world,
not in any other way? Why did He choose to tell us to worship Him in this
way not in another? Why does He demand anything or anybody to worship
Him at all? We just shouldn‟t be asking such questions! We have no right to
ask them, and we obviously have no purpose in their answers!

157


I mean what would you make of this question: “Why did God create the
universe in six days rather than six hours, or six years?”? To me this is
nothing but the insolence of a blind heart! I mean suppose God did choose to
create the universe in six years, would that make you more satisfied with
creation and more willing to accept the truth? No! You would then ask: “But
why not in six days?”! And you would keep posing all sorts of silly
objections! This is because in reality you do not wish to accept the idea of a
creator choosing to create anything at all, in the first place!

What difference does it make to you, six days or six weeks or six minutes?
What difference does it make to you, the limited creature, why He chose to
do X rather than Y when He could choose to do Y if He so willed? If He –
the only source of knowledge for why He did this and that, rather than
anything else – doesn‟t teach us in His revelation the reason why He made a
certain choice; then it‟s not something that we need to know, and if this is
the case, then we should dismiss such a question altogether! Never forget
your place in this universe, and who exactly it is that you are talking about
here!

Translation of the Qur‟an (21|23): ((He will not (and is not to) be
questioned as to that which He does, but they (humans) will be
questioned.))

As limited creatures we came to find ourselves restricted to this world, and
thus we needed to inquire about the reason why we are here and what we are
supposed to do, and that‟s exactly what the creator tells us in His revealed
messages! If it was of any significance for us to know what exactly He may
have created before the universe (which is a timescale that stretches all the
way back to eternity!), when and why, or what He may create after the
universe, He would tell us about that! It‟s absolutely presumptuous to claim
that since we cannot know on our own or from His teaching what exactly He
may have been doing a billion years before He created the universe – for
example; then the answer that He created us is not logically sufficient!

158


Some atheists would say: “The problem of what caused God to create the
Universe pretty much means that there were other things going on before
God created the universe and this is a contradiction!”

What contradiction? We never said that it is rationally necessary that this
universe came to be from nothing! We never said that it is rationally
necessary that God never created anything before the Universe! It‟s not! And
in fact there are narratives of authentic Hadith that tell us that there was
indeed a different form of creation before the universe! You wish to learn
about that, there‟s only one way to obtain this knowledge: The teachings of a
true messenger of God!

The act of creation of the universe is so unique and un-analogous to any
event that may take place within it (which is what makes all the difference to
our human tool of analogy), not because the universe was created from
nothing, but because it was created the way it is, period! Whatever was there
before its creation and whatever the initial substance from which it was
created; it is by all means unimaginable by any means of human analogy!
We have no rational problem with that! We also have no rational problem
with the fact that God should be able to create from nothingness, because
otherwise, the essential meaning of the first cause would obviously fail!
Creation by re-composition (creating something from something else) is a
restriction that is forced upon humans‟ crafts in this universe; it is not to be
proposed that such restriction applies to the creator of all creation, because if
it did, then He would not be the creator of all creation, would he?

Following the track of this objection is this argument:

―If God is all-knowing, then the instant God was conscious it would
have known all the pros and cons of creating a Universe and knew
that it was going to do it. Therefore there is no reason for God to
wait. If God chooses to wait then what is the reason?... there must be
a reason. This reason, to cause God to wait, would be a limit on his
omnipotence.‖

I cannot dignify this nonsense with a response!

159


Here‟s another silly objection:

―God cannot have created Time! In order for time to be created it
must be finite, which of course it can't be, because the creation of time
must have occurred before time, which is not possible.‖

Now hold it right there! What is your definition of time in the first place? If
by time you mean the measure of sequential events that are done by the
creator relative to one another, then this is certainly not finite and it is not
something that was ever created! It‟s external to our human notion of time!
Because by time we commonly mean the measure of created events within
this universe in reference to a standard constant motion of celestial bodies
around us (i.e. the sun and the moon)! This is what God created, and this is
what anybody may mean when he says that God created time and that time
is finite! But this created time does not confine the creator, and in reality,
outside this closed system of the universe through which we understand
time; God‟s time has no start and no end and is not created!

―Everything must have a cause therefore God exists.

This statement is sometimes used as argument that there must be a
god. But, it doesn't work. Because if god was not created by
something, then god exists without a cause. And therefore the
argument is "Everything except god must have a cause". If this
argument is valid then it must also be valid to say "Everything except
the Universe must have a cause".

The same “infinite regress” objection but in a silly costume! The right
argument to put is this: Everything that follows the rules of the Universe as
we observe it; must have a cause! Those rules are – by necessity - caused
and enforced by an external agent. This agent may itself be governed and
restricted by the rules of another agent; but this only makes the first another
part of the system that had to be created and run (caused) by the latter! This
regress of causes has to end at one transcendent being that is not created or
restricted by any superior power; and thus God must be uncaused; not the
universe! The regress has – as a necessity of reason - to end at a being that is
beyond the chain!

160


Now listen to this one:

―There are fewer unanswered questions if we discard the idea of God.
―

Oh so this makes it reasonable that we do discard it? Who said that any
answer that poses more questions should not be accepted as the truth? What
have you people ever learnt from science itself anyway? Quantum physics
raises more questions than answers, doesn‟t it? So perhaps you should not
bother studying it at all then!

Here‟s a common objection:

―If God was really there and His evidence is irrefutable, then why are
we debating about Him now? Why doesn‘t He show us with direct
observation that He exists, like say He opens up the sky and lets us see
Him directly?‖

Well, first of all the fact that we are debating about Him doesn‟t by any
means make the evidence for His existence “refutable”! Many philosophers
find it a privilege to question absolutely everything even reality itself, even
their own existence! Does this make such debates “rational” or in any way
“plausible” to any sensible man? Does the fact that some people debate the
meaning of the truth – for example – undermine this meaning in any way? If
it does then what is the purpose of that debate itself anyway? I mean even
that shining ball in the middle of the sky that we all call the sun, is indeed
questionable to many deranged philosophers, and you may easily find a
debate running somewhere in the world between somebody who believes the
sun – among the rest of what we observe around us – to be a real tangible
object that exists in (the outside world) apart from our consciousness on one
hand, and somebody who thinks that there is no such a thing as reality, and
that it‟s all just the illusion created in our minds by effect of sensory brain
signals, on the other (an idealist philosopher)! I mean who knows, after all
we might all be slaves living in a virtual reality world that fools us into
believing that there is a world around us, or we‟re sleeping motionless right
now in a “Matrix” that feeds “reality” to our brains so we would continue to
live in oblivion, unaware of the Machines that are sucking energy from our

161


bodies (talk to the Wachowski brothers and they may actually have you
convinced!)!13 This monumental nonsense is indeed in debate among
humans who are very proud of their minds and of their rationality! So it is
obvious that the way the world is made, and the way that we are made
allows for humans to go – in stubborn belief in their fallacies – to as far as
denying the input of their very own senses! Why? Because that‟s what the
world is created for: The ongoing conflict and debate between truth and
fallacy in different choices that people make! We are here to be tested by
one another, and the test is a test of faith! The choice of faith and the life you
choose to live by that faith is what this whole world is all about!

This is precisely why Allah wouldn‟t end this debate in this silly way that
atheists may desire so that they would finally admit what their innate reason
tells them is the truth! He‟s not going to reveal Himself finally for the whole
world to see in some universal event that leaves no choice for any human
being but to bow in total submission and fear; never before the end times!
Why? Because there would be no point at all in continuing to live in a mortal
world that works in this particular way, if the Lord would do something like
that! It would be the universal end of the test; the very thing that justifies its
continuing to be the way that it is!

The way this question is put, it is obviously one that should only be
addressed to God Himself, isn‟t it? I mean it is He who tells us why we are
here, and accordingly why the world has to be the way that it is, including
the essential question of why He doesn‟t give us some universally fearful

13
Some particular sects of Sufism and mysticism really believe that the world that we observe around us is
not at all real, and that the only real thing in existence is God! This is a branch of pantheistic and pagan
idealistic philosophies that unfortunately had its dominion over many deranged people who were observed
by their ignorant followers as great scholars of Islam, even though they actually suffered profound
ignorance and deviation from Islam, like (Ibn-„Arabi) and others! This is the kind of nonsense no sane man
should even need to refute! Because if I‟m really going to question the input that my very senses give me;
then not only should I have any reason to believe in God Himself, or His prophets or any miracles of any
kind, I will have no reason to believe that I myself exist! I mean the easiest argument to put against this
nonsense is this: If everything around you is nothing but an illusion, then it follows that your prophet is an
illusion, your holy book is an illusion, and God himself is an illusion; otherwise how could you make any
distinction whatsoever between what is real and what is not? An Angel is talking to you? How do you trust
that this is not in itself an illusion? It is most unfortunate indeed that this pantheistic blasphemy (Wahdatul
Wujud ‫ )وحدج الىجىد‬especially in the teachings of Ibn „Arabi enjoys wide popularity as Islamic faith in the
West in our times!

162


sign to end all debate and settle all conflict about this crucial issue, and get
all humans to submit once and for all!

And when you consult the one true book of the creator about this matter, and
ask Him why He doesn‟t reveal Himself or a mighty angel and give us this
one universal sign that would end all debate; you get this answer:

Translation of the Qur‟an (6|8): ((They say: Why has not an angel been sent
down unto him? If We sent down an angel, then the matter would be
judged; no further time would be given them.)) (i.e. Why do we not see a
great universal sign with Muhammad that gets the whole world to drop to
their knees in belief?)

Translation (26|4) ((If We so will, We can send down on them from the sky
a portent so that their necks would remain bowed before it.))

But that‟s not His will! That‟s not why we all have to continue to live in this
world until we leave it in our appointed times! The test still continues and
the world still has more time to go! And in all cases they are indeed lying to
themselves when they demand such a sign from the sky that would scare
them all into immanent submission, because a sane and honest man really
needs not do anything more than just take a look at the sky as it is, to see the
grandeur of the creator, if indeed he was true to himself!

If God willed to have all humans down on their knees instantly he would
indeed do it, but mortal life on this Earth was not created for this purpose! It
was created to have people choose freely what to believe and to take full
responsibility for their informed choices! So if a man insists on denying God
when everything around him and inside him tells him that His existence is a
necessity and that submission to Him is a rational consequence; then nothing
would make him let go of this stubborn denial he has chosen in this life,
unless he really saw the angels splitting the sky apart forcing him to bow
down, and the world was taken over by such universal events; and this my
kind reader, because of the very wisdom and purpose for which the world
was creator, is not to take place before the End Times, the appointed time for
the end of the test! Because when it does happen, and the sky does spilt
asunder, the very purpose of faith in God would be terminated, since then

163


nobody would have any more choice to deny and argue freely for his
position as he wishes, or to accept the truth after its arguments had been
made clear; and it would be too late to regret a lifetime of stubborn denial
and disbelief! So either the atheist lets go of his arrogance and accepts the
clear truth and quits making silly objections and demanding things that
would terminate the very reason for which we are here; or he just waits like
all humans have to wait, for the time when the Angel of Death eventually
comes to take him and he sees with his own eyes what he spent his entire
lifetime denying fervently and challenging despite all necessities of human
reason!

Well; enough of this childish whining for now! I think my reader has got the
picture of what is really going on in those people‟s hearts! It‟s a real
humiliation that one would even bother to carry on arguing with such
nonsense!

(I came across those “entertaining arguments” – except for the last one - on
the webpage of some poor “satanic” guy, I quoted them here only to show
you how pathetically insolent and vacuous objections to creation and to the
existence of God could get:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/universe.html#Possible)

164


165


Chapter Two
Answering Chapter four of the delusion:
Why there almost certainly is no God

In this chapter, Dawkins goes way too far in his desperate campaign against
the existence of the creator! But for someone who defies human reason itself
and battles to turn it upside-down; nowhere is too far! It is no surprise then
how he applies rules of mathematical probability in attempt to achieve
proof, and actually feels comfortable with calling that attempt ―near
certainty‖! So what is probability, and what kind of knowledge do we obtain
from probabilistic reasoning?‖

166


The delusion of improbability!

In this section of the “Delusion”, Dawkins attempts to refute what he calls
the argument from improbability! It‟s sad actually because there is no such a
thing as “argument” from improbability in the first place! This is a typical
case of (attacking straw men), because it is obviously not by means of
probability that we prove the existence of God! And those who applied
probability and improbability in either sides of the debate, were apparently
unaware of the true meaning and rationale of probability and what it really
means, as we shall elaborate here.

Dawkins says:

‗Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no
greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a
scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. Others
have borrowed the metaphor to refer to the later evolution of complex
living bodies, where it has a spurious plausibility. The odds against
assembling a fully functioning horse, beetle or ostrich by randomly
shuffling its parts are up there in 747 territory.‘

Now the first problem I observe with many scientists in their discourse when
dealing with the question of probability is that they very often mix it up in
meaning and value with “possibility”! Something may be extremely
unlikely, and improbable, but is nonetheless possible! The distinction
between those two meanings has to be made very clear!

Furthermore; when I say it is improbable that event X takes place, what this
statement really means is that due to my experience with many similar
cases to this particular case, and due to my observation that in the greatest
majority of those cases, event X did not take place, I conclude that the
chance that event X would take place this time, is very little! Still, what does
this really mean? Does it mean that X could not possibly take place? Does it
mean that it is impossible? No! It simply means that I – only a limited
observer who doesn‟t know, and who is simply trying to figure out a certain
pattern in those similar events by which we could acquire a common rule –

167


do not know, but I have some reason not to expect that event X will take
place!

Probability really means no more than that!

It is the statement of an inherently limited human observer who analogizes
similar cases, and tries to make an expectation of what may happen in a
certain case, considering a review of similar previous cases! This
uninformed guessing, in concept, is not wrong; it‟s in fact very useful to us,
but only when applied in its right place and for the right purpose! Had this
observer acquired an inclusive formula or rule, validated by examining all
variables and causes related to the case in question, he would not have
resorted to probability! He would‟ve made a statement of fact! When I add
an amount of acid to an amount of alkali, I do not say it‟s probable that the
outcome will be salt and water! I do not use probability here (even though
anomalies are rationally possible in principle)! The phenomenon is
thoroughly studied, all variables are known and the resultant is not subject to
probabilistic estimates! When a fish is thrown out of the water, I know it will
die! I do not say „it is improbable or highly improbable that it may live‟! I
know it will not live! But when on the other hand, I have a man who has
cancer, in a very deteriorated state, and the majority of cases that I saw who
came to that condition, died in a few months time or so, I can only say that it
is improbable that he may live! I cannot say in certainty or near certainty
that he will die! Why? Because I do not know all the variables and causes in
action here; I cannot determine a rule or law that says this man will certainly
die within a particular span of time! Nobody can!

This is why when he does survive eventually, at odds of one to a hundred
thousand or a million; people tend to call this a Miracle! Because that‟s
exactly what a miracle is! It‟s an event - not by necessity supernatural
(whichever way you define this term) - that defies expectations and betrays
most common observations known to man! If a group of people are well
established in practice of a certain craft (say carpentry), and have never seen
a carpenter capable of finishing the construction of a wooden cupboard in
less than two days, are met with a man who can do the job in only two
minutes or even two hours; they call that a miracle! This is why the Arabic

168


word for Miracle is (Mu‟jiza ‫ )هعجزج‬which translates: Something that
challenges people‟s power and knowledge (leaving them incapable of
mimicking it)! Scholars define it as (the breaching of the common case ‫خرق‬
‫ !)العادج‬It does not mean an impossible event! That is, it is not something that
the mind finds impossible! It‟s simply the occurrence of something that the
mind fails to explain by means of any currently known analogy!

Perhaps among the reasons for this ambiguity in dealing with high
improbabilities as compared to impossibilities, is the lack of clarity in
common scientific thought in the distinction between physical (statistical)
impossibility, and rational impossibility! For example, when we say that it is
impossible for a ball to free-fall upwards rather than downwards (according
to the laws of gravity), we are talking about physical impossibility, which
may in fact be described as an extreme case of improbability (a figure with
so many zeroes it can hardly be conceived of)! So it is treated as
impossibility, just as it is the case in mathematics in general when extremely
small quantities are rendered (negligible). Another example of this is the
known fact of physics that it is impossible for a man to walk through a wall
(as a definitive property of the solid state). This is physical impossibility, but
it‟s not a rational impossibility such that we couldn‟t possibly believe it if it
was said to happen one day! We now know that atoms in any solid matter
are vastly interspaced in a manner that makes it clear that what keeps us
from merging with a wall when we touch it, or from sinking in solid ground,
is actually an interplay of forces and energies that bind those atoms, forces
that could – at least in the realm of rational possibility – be manipulated!
Now as unbelievably improbable this phenomenon really is, it is not
rationally impossible!

However, when we say on the other hand that one object cannot exist in two
places at the same time, or one object cannot be three objects at the same
time; we are stating a rational impossibility! It cannot be expressed in terms
of probabilistic estimation, because such a thing just cannot possibly
happen! And thus we can see that if something is statistically impossible, it‟s
not by necessity rationally impossible, whereas rational impossibilities are
senseless from the very onset of linguistic expression itself; they do not

169


stand a chance of moving into the realm of physical, statistical and
probabilistic assessment! It may indeed happen – against all odds – that I
witness a ball falling upwards rather than downwards one day, or that I
actually walk through a wall; it‟s not rationally impossible! But there‟s no
way on Earth that I could ever expect to one day meet with another (me) (for
example), or take a journey to (nonexistence), or go back in time to change
history!

This is why we say that when we fail to find a “scientific explanation” to a
certain event, we do not conclude that it has no rational explanation! A
rational explanation is not by necessity “scientific”, statistical or
mathematical! Only materialists (who believe that what they can see is all
there can be) suffer this sickness of the mind! By “scientific” they mean an
explanation that comes only from the very little that we currently know from
observation (empirically) - or can attempt to understand by means of
analogy to the empirically observed or experimented - about the laws of the
universe and the way things work in it! This materialistic rule on what
explanation is to be called rational and what is not - and hence what event is
to be described as rationally possible and what is not - is in itself irrational
and by all means anti-knowledge! By scientific explanation they only mean
an explanation that is bound to our current tool of examination and
theorization (the scientific method); and quite obviously, only very little of
the way the world itself runs as we see it – in its ordinary state – do we
really possess any form of „scientific‟ knowledge about! The very meaning
of what is ordinary about the world and what is extraordinary, what is
natural and what is supernatural, is a statement of limited human
knowledge! When we describe something as “natural” we simply mean that
we are used to seeing it this way in nature!

So if you can‟t explain it today, this doesn‟t make it unexplainable
tomorrow, and if no man will ever be capable of explaining it at all in
the future, this doesn‟t make it rationally impossible!

We must admit that there should always be things beyond our human ability
to understand, even in this universe itself as we see it. This is not to tell man
to quit learning about the universe, of course not; but to learn how to put his

170


mind in its proper size, to learn how to be humble in his personal faith, and
to recognize the natural limits of his tools! Just as we can observe the
existence of the mathematical infinity in numbers, and understand that no
matter how much we could count, there is no approaching that value; we can
also understand that it is only rational that no matter how much about the
universe we learn, it will always be very little! There will always be events
and phenomena that do not fall within the range of any humanly achievable
knowledge! This is by no means an appeal to ignorance, but to self-respect
and humility! It is not ignorance as long as we know – with reliable evidence
– where to draw the line.

Among those things that we understand, accept and even find it rationally
necessary that there is no way we could understand or imagine; is of course
the way the creator Himself is, and the way He does what He does! This is
not the infinity value; this is what is there beyond the infinity value!
Something we know is there by necessity of reason, but not only do we
recognize it as unreachable for our knowledge; we actually recognize the
rational necessity of its being this way: out of any line of analogy or
knowledge our minds can possibly contain!

There were cases in history when the creator intended to make people see an
event that leaves them unable to give it any causal explanation other than
recognizing it as the exceptional work of the creator Himself, for the purpose
of supporting the cause of His messengers and prophets.

So if we argue that among those miracles were events that are not only
external to the knowledge of the people of the time, but to all human
knowledge and comprehension, does this mean that such an event must have
been in the sense that the order of the universe was interrupted by it? No!
The universe is one big system ordered and controlled entirely by its creator!
So no matter how exceptional an event is made by the Lord to be observed
by the very limited human mind; it is not external to the overall universal
order itself as run by the creator! He must have created the world in such a
way that those things would happen when He wills, the way He wills, and
for the sake of perfectness of the concept of miracle, we are made such that
no matter how far we go with our material knowledge, we cannot even

171


approach the way many documented miracles were made to take place!
Miracles thus do not destroy causality; they only take place outside the circle
of the physically or statistically possible, but not outside the circle of rational
possibility! They simply happen through causes that are out of our human
ability to understand or follow (at a very far level in the chain of causes).
There is no way we could know how the dead was brought back to life on
the hands of prophet Jesus – for example – or how Mary gave birth to him
without a father! But we do understand that there are causes and effects, and
that the Earth, the visible universe, the heavens above, and all creatures
therein, are created such that miracles go in exactly the way we are told they
did; there‟s nothing irrational about it; nothing “rationally impossible”! As
for scientific explanations; we will always know too little, and we should
learn how far the tool of “science” could go!

This is why the great Muslim scholar Ibn Taymeyah stated that Islam (the
Qur‟an and the Sunnah) may tell us about things or events that are beyond
our ability to explain (unexplainable) (like something too grand for our
minds to grasp) but it never tells us about things that are rationally
impossible! Things that make us wonder how they happened, but never
things that our minds find impossible to happen!

This sharp distinction is a very important meaning that I believe is seriously
lacking in the western philosophy of science today, and in the discourse of
people like Dawkins who claim a Miracle according to all religions to be a
“violation of natural laws”! What laws? It‟s only a violation of what we
could currently – or ever – explain according to our current theoretical
model of the world; a violation of the way we – according to our limited
knowledge - expect things to happen! It‟s a violation of what we are used to
see and expect! But to speak as though we currently have the universe all
figured out like an open book, and we know all we need to know to explain
anything we may ever observe, and that therefore we know for a fact that
“the laws of the universe” should allow for this or that and not allow for this
or that; this is sheer blindness and arrogance, and is in fact a demolition of
the very motive that should keep the process of scientific research itself in
progress! It is only because we do realize that we know too little about the

172


world around us, that we are always eager to learn more about it, and we
never stop researching and re-adjusting our theories, models, equations and
laws!

This discussion urges us to establish a clear definition of what exactly we
mean every time we use the term: (natural laws) or (natural law)! If by
natural laws we mean our limited understanding of the way the universe
works, and our currently mainstream theorization and mathematical
formulation of the very little that we know about it; then yes by all means
miracles do – by this definition – defy those laws and break them! It is only
true if by “law” we mean our humanly limited model of the universe! But if
we mean the way the universe works in reality, the way it is kept in perfect
equilibrium with all those diverse events taking place everywhere within it,
those we know and are aware of some of their causes, those we know
nothing about, and even those we will never have the ability to know or
understand; then we cannot claim miracles to be exceptional to that law or to
break it! This will only be speaking of something we have no authority of
knowledge upon! Moreover it would be an irrational claim to make because
obviously, no matter what happens in the universe; it is always in perfect
balance, always progressing in anthropic perfection; and it has been going
on as such ever since documented history can recall!

Those natural laws that we currently know are only the latest of our humble
human efforts to describe and explain what we see in the commonly
observable world! No matter how many variables and causes we manage to
incorporate with our chosen formulation of a certain law of nature, it will
never be final or complete!

So when an atheist insists on explaining everything by means of what he
calls “natural causes” he is being dogmatically irrational and narrow-
minded, more so – in fact - than any follower of any other incoherent belief
system! This is because by “natural” he does not mean causes that are
rationally plausible, and could be verified by the scientific method or any
other reasonable method; he rather means causes that are empirically
examinable and/or statistically probable; ones that should analogize one
way or another to something he currently knows, understands and could

173


quantify, and can only be verified through the scientific method alone!
Cannot think of a mind any narrower than this! The scientific method itself
cannot be validated – as a method of acquiring knowledge – by means of the
scientific method, so how does a man with such a feeble mentality argue for
his method, and for its basic theoretical foundations? And if he insists, then
how does he know that those metaphysical causes, said to be found
somewhere on the chain of causes or beyond, and currently out of reach of
the scientific method, will not one day become observable, or if not; will
never come to be proven true by other means of proof and plausible
argumentation than direct observation and empirical testing?

That‟s the point here! Every atheist claims he is ready and prepared to accept
that when it happens, and that he‟s open to the possibility, when practically
he is not! He chooses to readily deny everything that comes from any source
other than his labs and experiments; or to be accurate, anything that comes
from the department of religion and scripture in particular! But what if
something does exist, but cannot be proven to exist by means of direct
observation, not now or ever in the future of our existence in this world?
Does this mean it cannot be proven true at all? Do those revered scientists
claim that man can only obtain evident knowledge by means of direct
observation? If that were true, then they should not bother at all to examine
works of philosophers or logicians or even practice any form of rational
deduction whatsoever (even under the scientific method itself), and at that,
no observation they ever make would ever lead them to any knowledge other
than the fact that those things they observe do exist as they are!

I hope this insight is clear enough to my respectable reader!

You‟ll find that an atheist scientist would attempt everything he can do to
explain any strange or anomalous phenomenon within his current knowledge
of physics (and this would be very plausible of him indeed, as long as he
sees no plausible, valid reason that suggests anything else to his mind or
directs him to take any other root in his investigation)! But when he fails, he
will readily take a leap of faith and cut the way against what he calls
“supernatural causes” only because he does not believe in the possibility of

174


there being anything supernatural in existence, or to be more precise;
because he insists on rejecting the existence of God!

He would say that if one day he could see the “supernatural” and inspect it
scientifically, then it will be natural, and only then would he accept such an
explanation! But what if we offered him evidence – not by necessity from
observation - that proves the existence of some “supernatural” entity with
“supernatural causes” that are indeed parts of the way the world works, and
are indeed active parts of the universe, ones that we simply cannot observe!
Would he accept that evidence? Or would he still insist on using (highly
improbable) as a synonym to (rationally impossible)?

Even Gravity, the most famous of all standard laws of nature that we
currently know, may one day be seen to halt, or to reverse its effect, by
means of other “natural” causes! Let‟s reflect further on the freefalling ball
example. Imagine what would happen if one day you threw an apple to the
ground and instead of accelerating down, you noticed that it decelerated,
until it actually froze in the middle of the distance between your hand and
the ground! You would automatically be shocked, and questioning your
eyesight you‟d utter the words: “this is impossible! It‟s a violation of the
laws of nature!” well, in fact it‟s not! It‟s only a violation of what you know
and expect to see, due to a lifetime of experience with gravity on Earth! It
may very well be an anomaly, one that happened perhaps due to some
electromagnetic field, or even an advanced invention that may affect gravity
and is being tested somewhere nearby, or something of the sort, something
you simply do not know how to explain! It might as well be due to the work
of some unseen creature to us that has the power to affect things in our world
in such a visible way! Both possibilities are not to be excluded to the
onlooker as “irrational”! All evidence is to be examined and only the most
plausible explanatory argument should be accepted, regardless of what
discipline of knowledge it may come from!

If I said: Beyond that direct cause that you currently do not know, is a series
of other observable causes that you do not yet know either, which ends at
some unobservable entities that are only the unseen beings that what
Muslims call (Angels), could you accuse me of speaking an irrational

175


meaning?! Of course not! This is not rationally impossible! It has nothing to
do with probability because obviously we never saw anything of the sort; we
simply have no grounds for probabilistic reasoning here! This is a claim that
goes beyond the scope of this particular method of argumentation!

So the fact that we Muslims did not know about Angels through the tool of
science, and cannot validate their existence by means of this tool; does not
make it superstition! And while you may one day come to learn and explain
such a phenomenon if you ever saw it, by means of visible and observable
causes, you cannot deny the fact that causes do regress to the point where
you must admit factors that are beyond human power to observe or imagine,
beyond which is the creator Himself! So there will always be another cause
beyond the last one that you know, and another one beyond that, all the way
up to that End! There will always be a greater value than the greatest value
you could currently count, all the way up to the point of infinity. And right
now; you may not know even the closest and most direct of observable
causes!

In the Heavenly revealed knowledge of Islam, we are told that there are
Angels responsible for the rain, others responsible for the growth of plants,
others responsible for the progress of a fetus in the womb of its mother,
others responsible for recording every word that every man speaks, and so
forth. Those “agents” are intelligent beings that act by the command of their
Lord, with no choice or option – by creation – to disobey or revolt. They are
willful, powerful, obedient creatures, part of the system, working far at the
end of the chain of created causes! The question now is, am I to be called
superstitious or mythical only because I believe this to be true? This
accusation is really nothing but the position of a man who insists on not
knowing! A denial so eloquently described in the Quran in this verse: ((Nay,
but they denied that the knowledge whereof they could not compass, and
whereof the interpretation (in events) hath not yet come unto them. Even
so did those before them deny. Then see what the consequence was for the
wrongdoers!)) Translation of the Quran (10|39)

My argument for the validity of this claim is the authenticity of the texts
where those miracles are mentioned, as true revelation to a man who is

176


already verified as a true messenger of the creator (who is in turn, known to
exist by rational necessity)! So there is indeed a sound and rationally
consistent sequence of proof and verification here that no atheist could
possibly argue against by simply saying: “This is highly improbable” or
“this is not scientifically verifiable”! So what I‟m out to do with this book is
to first cure the mental problem – and I do believe it to be a psychological
problem - that leaves an atheist inclined to deny his own maker, then I tell
him that I can prove to him that this man (my proclaimed prophet) was
indeed contacted by the creator and that he spoke His words by His
authority, and then comes the quest of examining what scripture was indeed
spoken by that prophet, and what was not!

So yes I never saw any of those Angels, but I can prove to you that the texts
where those Angels are mentioned are authentic and are evidently part of
none but the words of the creator Himself and his true messenger! If I could
do that, then you should have no rational reason whatsoever to deny the
existence of Angels and the role those texts claim them to be doing in the
universe, no matter how unimaginable it may be to you, because clearly this
does not in any way contradict with reason or with any observational facts
that we ever made or will ever come to make! We never claimed – for
example – that they drop the rain from some big bucket in their hands while
hiding somewhere behind the clouds! This naïve, cartoonish image is not
even remotely suggested by any text that we possess! In fact we Muslims
condemn and reject the fallacious depictions of Angels as painted by
renaissance artists in Christian Churches (those naked winged children), and
we do not take such an issue lightly! But this is no bigger a crime than the
way Michelangelo dared to actually depict the Lord almighty Himself
(praise be) as an old half-naked fellow with a white beard, resting on a
cloud, is it?! This is sheer paganism and blasphemy by all means! It is the
influence of the Greek imagery of Zeus, not the influence of any evidently
prophetic or heavenly teachings about God!

We certainly do not claim Angels to look like human children with two
wings! We never said they are visible to us, or that we know how they do
their jobs! In fact we know from scripture that they are gigantic creatures

177


made from light, and that they are invisible to man, and unimaginably
powerful; hence they are not to be analogized to man in any way! It is
mentioned that they do have wings (up to six hundred wings!), ears and
shoulders, but apart from that, we‟re not told much about their actual looks
(they do have the power to take human form after the command of Allah)
Now my question: Does any of this sound irrational or impossible to you?
No, it doesn‟t! Neither do you have any grounds to dismiss them as
“improbable”!

I will not resort to the Quantum ambiguity to argue for the existence of
Angels like some people would do! I will not propose any relation between
the work of Angels and what is observed on the Quantum subatomic level,
like many ignorant or less-informed Muslims may be tempted to do! I do not
hang my faith in the validity of what scripture tells me, on this mystery or on
any other mystery! This is not the way I acquired my knowledge about those
beings in the first place, and I do not ask for more than I‟ve been told about
them, because I know that if the Lord had known that we humans needed to
learn more on that level, or to know how Angels do what they do, He would
have taught us! But we simply don‟t!

Those Muslims who passed before us, they never failed to do what they
were supposed to do with their lives, because of lacking this knowledge,
neither did they suffer any inconvenience with the way they lived because of
that! This is what wisdom means after all! Putting everything in its right
place, with its right quantity and quality, not a single bit more or less! Not all
that can be known, should be known for a man to do what he is supposed to
do with his life! I – personally - do not need to learn – for example – to
speak Chinese, to live a prosperous life the way that fulfills the purpose of
my creation on Earth, any more than I or any other man needs to learn how
Angels do what we are told they do! It simply does not concern any of us,
human beings! The wisdom of a wise teacher is known not by how much he
teaches, but by the purpose and effectiveness of what he teaches (The
„ILO‟). If you don‟t need to learn X for the fulfillment of the purpose of
your education, then your teacher would only be doing you wrong to teach X
to you! Life is not without a purpose, and time is not without a cost!

178


So my faith in Angels - a soundly verified faith – does not hinder my process
of inquiry about natural causes in any way, or cause me to say every time I
meet something I do not understand: (Oh It must be the work of an Angel or
just the work of God)! Yes it is so, but I‟m supposed to do my best to learn
whatever I need to learn to fulfill and facilitate the purpose of my life on this
planet! I am commanded to make use of every resource in this planet for
this end, in the very same book that teaches me about those Angels and what
they do in the unseen! In Islam, the scientific enterprise is not a blind inquiry
that seeks to build the entire structure of human knowledge on its own, we
do not resort to the scientific method to demand answers that cannot be
afforded by natural science, and we do not waste our lives chasing
worthless, not to mention unobtainable knowledge!

In a created system, of which I am only a small part, made for a particular
purpose, I should expect my ability to obtain knowledge of the universe to
be limited – by creation – by the kind of knowledge humans need, to fulfill
the purpose for which they were created. We humans are here to be tested by
all the givens of this life, including knowledge itself, to make the right
choices; to use everything we are given for what our creator tells us to do.
This statement is not a statement of science, and by no means could it be
obtained or verified by the scientific method!

One of the reasons why evolutionists enjoy the idea of their claim to have
descended from primates is the fictional dream that the evolution of man
will continue to progress until one day – perhaps in another million years or
so - he becomes an immortal, Supreme Being, free from any boundaries or
limits of any sort! This is why they would often contradict themselves in
their view of man and his place in the universe! While they would often
claim that man is indeed an extremely tiny being in a vast universe that
should not – according to their materialistic philosophy – be viewed to be
made exclusively for him, they would at the same time claim that one day
man will be a transcendent being unbound by its laws and limits and able to
take over it entirely in a manner that makes him an actual god, in every
sense of the word! No wonder they dream of time travel and invading the
galaxy!

179


The struggle in this system is only among those elements created precisely
for the struggle! Angels are NOT parts of that struggle! It is a competitive
struggle between good and bad, for man to be tested by it; it is what the
system is made for! It cannot rise – this struggle – to a universal level that
endangers the stability or the continuity of the system itself! It has to be
limited – on creation - by the limitation of man, limitations from which he
can never break free.

Man has to be limited in knowledge and power, or else the system will fail!
We are not smarter now – collectively - than our grandfathers were! We just
happen to enjoy a bigger accumulation of knowledge and experience than
they used to have! So when we invent we start from a point that is more
advanced – by accumulation, not by intelligence - than where they started!
We learn from their mistakes and experiments, and because of our access to
their efforts, we need not start from scratch! A man living in a civilization of
Bamboo huts in some tribe in the Amazons, when he faces the problem of
cutting down a tree, he is not expected to invent a chainsaw for the purpose,
no matter how intelligent he may be! He will only create a handsaw of some
sort! Is this because he is less intelligent or less “evolved” mentally than we
are? No! It is simply because he started from a much smaller content of
previous knowledge than that from which we would start today, in
addressing every need and problem that he faces!

So, I‟m sorry to disappoint you, but the human power and mental capacity,
is today just as limited as it was yesterday, if not even more so! The human
mind is not evolving! It‟s the accumulative content of knowledge that we
currently have that makes us more advanced in our grasp of natural causes,
than those who came before us on our local line of progression, each
civilization according to its own determinants! Once we lose that, we‟ll go
all the way back to where they were! There is a limit to human knowledge,
and we cannot afford to exceed that limit! The more solutions and ideas we
come up with, the greater problems we create, side by side with the
solutions! The higher up you go, the bigger the damage you will take when
you fall! The more questions we answer, the more the questions that would
arise! This property is inherent in the way we approach the universe, in the

180


way we are built! We are limited by our nature as individuals, and our
properties as a group of interacting beings! So yes we will always keep
pushing it, but there will have to come a point where the tower will collapse
no matter how high it rises! Decomposition is just as essential a process in
the way this universe works, as composition! It‟s a perfect balance in a
system that is perfectly designed for its purpose!

It is thus extremely pompous and presumptuous to call such an event – the
suspension of a falling ball in midair - a violation of natural law, or to claim
that it is impossible! No matter how little you currently know, and how
much you may ever come to learn about it; it is indeed possible, as a
phenomenon of nature! You can – on the other hand – call it highly
improbable (as a phenomenon) because you never saw something like that
before! This is an argument that builds on observation and accumulated
knowledge of previous cases. Now I can argue that every time a ball falls to
the ground; Angels determine the way it will behave, and that they are
responsible – in ways I do not know - for keeping the system consistent with
all laws of gravitation running on Earth the way we observe them, but this
would not be an argument that comes from observation and empirical
science, and thus it cannot be approached by probabilistic reasoning!

So to sum it up, if the phenomenon in question here is X, you may say
(based on observation and previous experience): “It is improbable that
X will take place today”. But you may not say: “It is unlikely or
improbable that any unseen beings had anything to do with it”!

The problem thus is with the atheist‟s conviction that all causes must be
limited to what is observable to man, and that the end of the chain of causes
must be something perceptually and cognitively viable to us as humans! This
is where an atheist‟s problem really is! It is the reason why his logic in
approaching the subject matter is so spurious!

Now my question to every honest and free reader is this: Do I appear, in any
way, by this reasoning here, to encourage superstitious assumptions and
explanations that “fill the gaps” with fairy tales and myths or with the
irrational, the un-provable, or the impossible? Absolutely not! I‟m urging

181


every sane reader to be open to possibilities that could be proven true by
other means than direct observation, and are not bound to our limited human
abilities to observe! I‟m asking him to break free from this corrupt
philosophy that controls the way atheists view the world, the process of
science and the human mind itself!

This example I just gave is an example of an event that is rationally not
impossible, but at the same time, extremely improbable! How likely is it that
when you let go of a little ball from your hand, it will behave this way in
apparently normal conditions? Very unlikely! However, your mind as a
human cannot allow calling it impossible! Yes it certainly will leave you
dazzled, incapable of explaining it or analogizing it to anything you have
ever seen! So when a man you trust, and you know is an honest man who
would never tell a lie, comes to you with a claim that he did witness such a
strange phenomenon, you would perhaps question his mental fitness on the
outset of it, and you may have him tested for it, but when all reasons that
may have you question his honesty and his awareness of what he had seen
are positively invalidated, what will you do then? At that point you will have
to admit the occurrence of such a phenomenon, despite its extremely high
improbability, and the fact that you cannot think of any possible explanation
for it that fits it within your personal knowledge!

This is why while for example the event of Moses (peace be upon him)
splitting the sea is by definition a highly improbable event (it‟s not
something we see every day, or we would normally expect to see) for a man
do to the sea with his cane, it cannot be dismissed as impossible! Our minds
do not know of any reason to deny its possibility! There‟s a long chain of
unseen and unknown causes beyond it, ending at the will of the creator
beyond the system itself, just as it is the case with every natural event that
takes place in the universe and that we see around us every day! The only
difference is we never saw this particular event caused this way before!

One thus has to clearly define what he means when he says: I seek a
scientific explanation for a given event. If by explanation, he means the
direct observable causes that can be utilized by man for his benefit on this
planet then we do agree with him entirely, and we are certainly following the

182


same process of natural science and empirical experimentation that leads to
such knowledge (if of course we think we need to obtain this knowledge)!
We do that, because we are given those tools for a purpose that we know
from its only right source. We know we have to make full use of all
resources on Earth for that purpose. So if this is what they mean by
explanation, then we have no dispute; and this is plausible, purposeful and
useful science! But if by explanation they mean the materialist denial of the
unseen, unobservable, that is - by necessity of reason - there at the end of the
chain, and they only aim at the blind denial of what they do not know; then
we certainly do not agree to that, and it is by no means to be called “good
science”!

When I explain a hurricane – for example – as the effect of certain
conditions of wind, humidity, temperature, and other variables I have learnt
to describe such phenomena in terms of, I‟m trying to understand as much as
I can of the chain of causes that leads to such a phenomenon! At that, no
contradiction or rational conflict of any form would happen when at the
same time I say: “It was Allah who commanded that this hurricane take
place”! Because by that I clearly mean that it was by His command and
power that all causes (those we currently observe, those we do not yet
observe, and those we may never come to observe at all) came all in order
for this exact event to take place in this exact way that it did! There‟s no
“gap” here that we‟re just trying to fill with God!

Atheists would repeatedly accuse all people of religion of having to push the
“god” factor further away every time a new discovery comes to argue a
“natural phenomenon” to be an explanatory cause! Well, I have to ask here:
Who on earth ever said that Muslims view the Lord almighty to be “hiding”
somewhere in the world, acting within any chain of causes, sending thunder
bolts like spears in his hand from atop a mountain, as it is the common
imagery that infiltrates every pagan faith, or any „Abrahamic‟ religion that
was originally monotheistic but was stained by paganism (as it is the case
especially with Catholicism)? The correct and rational position to think of
the Lord is that He is external to the system and to the entire chain, as we
explained earlier!

183


Atheists would also raise the objection that what is called “Divine
intervention” is totally improbable and maybe even impossible, because it is
likely to destroy the system‟s balance and consistency! Well, this objection
indicates clearly how little those people think – or rather how little they
choose to believe - of the creator of the system! It‟s as though they have cut
Him away from it, and are now objecting to the ways “theists” are trying to
put Him back in (may His names be praised)! The creator is not a limited
being in the system who does not know the consequences of his actions! He
is – by necessity - in lordly control and dominion upon every single thing
that takes place in the universe, no matter how little or mundane!

So while you, the limited human mind, may take centuries to imagine in
what way a certain action could affect a natural process that is in direct
proximity to that action, He, the creator, is the only being that possesses
complete knowledge of the way every single thing in this universe is linked
in effect to everything else, throughout space and time! The way a hurricane
in America in one season affects a flock of migrating birds flying
somewhere over Siberia in another season, is something you, the limited
man may never manage to figure out! We know by necessity of reason that
He not only knows that, He intends it (creates it) precisely and perfectly,
and all its simultaneous effects taking place everywhere else, for purpose! A
hurricane may only be seen by our limited eye to have taken down homes
and killed hundreds of people; but we cannot claim that only this is what the
Lord intended by it! Each and everything that this hurricane caused,
everywhere in the universe, all the way to the end of time; is intended by the
creator of the universe for a purpose that is previously determined in perfect
wisdom! A sane man who respects his own mind cannot expect anything
less of the creator of the universe. A hurricane may destroy an evil group of
people, and hence do mercy to many by terminating those people‟s evil; it
may at the same time bring punishment to those who deserve it, hence do
justice upon those who deserve it, here before the afterlife! It may at the
same time, cause many natural and ecological benefits, little of which is
what we could really follow at our current level of scientific knowledge! All
catastrophes of nature do nature good, and have a positive effect on it! So

184


often do we find ourselves saying: “if it wasn‟t for this disaster, I wouldn‟t
have had this good that came to me!”

The point is, all events that take place in the universe are by definition
“divinely controlled”, and there is no such a thing as “divine intervention”
because the Lord in reality does not Intervene, He never let go of it, so that
his actions when they take place would be deemed exceptional or
“interventional” to it! He runs it all continuously in seamless perfection!
Everything is only as He chose and willed!

It seems to me that it is Western Christians – not pagans - that should be
blamed for the spread of this pathetic notion of what they call “divine
intervention” in western cultures of today.

A clear example of certain events that many Christians would falsely call
divine intervention is when you survive a sinking ship and come out alive!
Or when you get lost in the desert and somebody manages to rescue you! Or
when you – for example – book a ticket on a flight, and you get delayed for
some reason, so you miss it, and the next morning you learn in the News that
it crashed and no one survived! At that moment you‟d feel “thankful” that
you were delayed! Thankful to whom exactly, that‟s what the whole thing is
about! The Lord did not “intervene” to save you like Christians may believe!
He was running the whole thing from A to Z, and His choice to save you did
not come as an intervention! He did not do a miracle to save you! He did not
have to break the progress of life for your sake! He simply had all events in
the universe progressing in the only way that would lead – inexorably – to
this event of yours, and to all other events that took place in the universe at
the same time that yours was taking place! It may be – to you – extremely
unlikely that this may ever happen to you again in your life! This is why you
could say it is highly improbable, but it happened anyway! And because it is
that improbable, and your life was obviously “spared” from imminent death,
it impacts you deeply, and makes you think of the proper way to feel and the
right thing to do in reaction to that! Yes indeed He had mercy on you, and
yes He answered your prayer, and you ought to be grateful to Him for that,
but the point is that what He did was not an “intervention”!

185


When we say it was the creator who saved you, do not imagine Him as some
invisible figure tampering – for example – with the engines of some cars to
cause a traffic jam in your way to the airport so that you would be delayed!
This is what you, the limited human would do if you learnt that it is certainly
going to crash! The Lord, on the other hand, holding the fates of all humans
in His hands, and the paths of all causes and events in the universe, causes
this traffic jam with all ordinary causes, just like He causes every similar
event everywhere, because just like every other traffic jam, it was planned –
so to speak - to take place in this exact place, at this exact time; for countless
purposes, and not for your sake alone, or to impact your life alone!

It is meant not only for you to be kept from reaching the flight that may have
taken you to your death, but also for a business man to miss a business
meeting that would have doubled his fortune, and for another man to have
enough time to reconsider alone in his car a fight he just had with his wife,
and decide to turn around in the next turn and apologize to her, and for
another man to read an article he may have never had the chance to read
anywhere else, and for another man to miss a conversation that would have
destroyed his career if he were to be part of it …. Etc.! All those storylines,
and hundreds, even millions of others, have this little traffic jam placed in
their path in this particular point in space and time for a certain purpose,
impacting their lives in ways very few of them could anticipate, ways by
which they are all tested, whether they know it or not! Would this man be
thankful and reconsider his evil choices? Would this woman bored to death
waiting as she is, put her mind and heart in something that is good for her, or
would she curse the “luck”, the traffic, and perhaps start a fight with another
driver; and so forth?

This is how unimaginably complicated and intertwined the system is, with
all its long chains of purposeful causes and events; ultimately controlled and
mastered all simultaneously by none but the creator Himself! Yes God saved
your life and you should be grateful because if He so willed He could‟ve let
you die; but He did not „intervene‟ in the chain of events to do it, in the
sense that is usually implied by the common use of the term „intervention‟!
“Intervention” in this meaning is nothing but a pagan conception of the way

186


God runs the universe! And it is from there that the atheist objection to the
concept came to arise!

So it should be reasonably clear that no matter how many “natural” causes
we may ever come to discover, the fact still remains that the First cause at
the very far end, beyond the system, is the Almighty Creator and there‟s not
a single rational reason to believe otherwise, and clearly, there never will be!
We do not put the creator in any “gaps” within the system that we do not
understand! In fact whoever does that is a Pagan – or influenced by
paganism - who is easily to be proven false by texts of the true religion
maybe even many centuries before the discovery of any fact of nature that
could debunk him comes to pass! Knowledge, again, is not only obtained by
direct observation! It is not exclusively, fundamentally, or even mostly; a
scientific endeavor!

Reiterating to the issue of probabilistic logic in atheistic argumentation, and
after this long – but necessary – discussion, I repeat that things that may be
labeled (improbable) simply because we never saw anything like them,
cannot by any right or reason be labeled “impossible”! It should be fairly
clear now to every reasonable man of science that things that are by
necessity or by definition external to our scope of materialistic
observation or experience cannot be submitted to probabilistic logic!

Yet, we can see the professor - and many of his Christian denigrators
actually, not just his atheist fans - lay too much weight upon statistical
probability as though it determines with certainty - the kind of certainty that
is demanded when dealing with the question of whether or not “creatures”
where “created”! - the possibility or impossibility of a certain event taking
place! As though this relatively primitive “guessing game” (that‟s all it‟s
really is! Just guessing) qualifies as rational evidence to prove or disprove
the possibility of a certain event, not to mention refute a rational necessity!

It is clear to me now, that this conceptual confusion is somehow due to the
original definition of probability by mathematicians as a Real number
ranging between 0 and 1, so that the value (0) represents “impossibility”,
while level (1) represents “certainty”!

187


If we pondered on the way by which we determine the degree of probability,
we will see that no matter how many cases we study, even if they all proved
to be in favor of X, (hence giving a P value of (1)) this still does not mean by
necessity, that X should happen every time, or that the next time we study a
similar case, we could be certain that X will take place! If I examined ten
cases, I may conclude that P(X) = 1! But if I examined a hundred cases, how
do I guarantee that P(X) should still be (1) all the same? Even if it was, how
can I dare claim that this means the next time I witness a similar case; I
should be certain to expect nothing but X? This is a fundamental problem
with the way probability is applied and the nature of conclusion many
scientists may feel tempted to draw from it! No, (P(X) = 0), does not in any
way mean that X is impossible! Neither does (P(X) = 1) mean that X is
certain!

However it must be said that mathematicians are not to blame for this
misconception! The theory of probability does indeed make a clear
distinction between “certain” and “almost sure”! Although, it still needs to
be confirmed and made clear that the meaning “almost sure” does not at all
mean certain! However, the problem is with the way scientists view this
terminology and apply it in their research!

When a man rolls a die, he knows that whatever he does, he will always
come up with one out of six possible outcomes. This is because his
definition of the sample space is based on a strictly determined set of
possibilities that he decided by his own design. So unless something
anomalous or totally unexpected comes to take place, he knows with near
certainty that the dice would never give him a result of (7) for example! He
designed it so it has only six faces with six values from 1 to 6. And since he
does not possess any reliable knowledge of the exact way that the laws of
nature will affect this die as it rolls on the ground, he does not know which
of the six faces will be facing up when it comes to rest; he only knows it has
to be one of the six faces. Now applying probabilistic reasoning here, we
know that there is a (1/6) chance that he gets the result (2) for example in a
particular roll. But what does this value mean? What good does it do this
man in such a game? How is it helping him get the value he desires in any

188


given roll? Well, in reality it does nothing at all! He only knows a set of
possibilities, but not the particular element of this set that he should expect
in every roll that he makes. Now suppose this man kept rolling the same die
for tens of times in a row, and every time he got only one of two values: say
(3) and (6) for example; he doesn‟t seem to get any other value, could he
make the prediction that it is improbable that the next time he rolls, he gets
any value other than those two values? No he couldn‟t, even if statistical
calculations suggest it! To say that the number (6) for example shows up
very rarely in the rolls of this man no matter how many times he rolls, this
doesn‟t give us any rule to make a reliable prediction about the occurrence
of the number (6)! One that would make him feel safe to bet his money on
it! So to say that it is 1:1000 probability that the next roll gives the value of
(6), based on the observation of previous rolls on the hands of that man
(frequency view), this is a meaningless application of probability and it is
indeed misleading! We cannot know the rule by which any sequential
incidence of values may be taking place in the sequence of rolls by this man,
and we cannot even postulate it theoretically; so what‟s the meaning or the
use of such an application of statistical probability? Perhaps in another
experiment with other conditions this frequency of occurrence will have a
different meaning or significance, but in a dice roll it clearly means nothing
at all!

Now what I did here was to utilize a commonly used example in probability
literature to demonstrate that it is not always plausible to rely upon
probabilistic reasoning for inference of future predictions even when the
subject matter is open to natural observation and comparison! That is to say,
even though probability may apply here, it is wrong to actually apply it! No
matter how many times it turns out to be in your favor, you could still lose
your money in the game! Which is exactly why gambling is prohibited in
Islam!

The problem is clearly a problem of philosophy: How exactly a scientist
interprets his observations in probabilistic terms, and what conclusions he
builds upon this terminology or interpretation! This philosophical
misinterpretation has indeed affected the minds of laypeople and even

189


intellectuals in the West today, under the influence of atheistic philosophies
of science.

It may be highly unlikely that disease X will kill you, but it still could! So
learning about this probabilistic estimate concerning your condition should
not – by any means - change the way you view your position as a humble
creature always seeking the mercy of his creator! Yes there are measures
you can and you should take against highly probable dangers and risk
factors; but even the most improbable of all dangers are equally possible,
and can befall you any time even when you least expect them! So if X and Z
are two opposite events; the meanings of high probability of X, and high
improbability of Z are not the same, and should not have the same impact on
your conception of either of them, and the difference between the two
meanings varies a lot from one certain case to another! There are indeed
cases where probability estimates should mean nothing at all, and have no
impact whatsoever on your decision!

Now the problem with applying probabilistic logic in this issue in hand here,
the issue of creation, is indeed much deeper than this! It is absolutely
meaningless, and makes no sense at all, either for the argument or against it!
It goes without saying, that we have never witnessed any process of
origination of life from inanimate matter before, not to mention the
origination of inanimate matter itself from nothingness or from another
form of physical material the likes of which we have never seen! So by
what human reason can we possibly attempt to describe creation – or the
Darwinian proposition – in terms of probability? To say X is probable is to
say: “Out of my previous experience with similar cases I think it is very
likely that X will happen, or X is the right explanation”! But when we speak
of the origin of the universe itself; what experience could there be, and
where is the set of events that could be examined in such a way to begin
with? There is no empirical basis for observation of frequency! And even if
we had one, how many cases do you think you need to have observed before
coming up with the claim that it is highly improbable that the event took
place by a single act of creation or by whatever it is that you propose in its
stead?

190


Some Christian apologetics may argue earnestly that since every physical
variable that we know of in the universe could have taken any other value,
and yet it was fixed within the only range that allows for our existence, then
it is exponentially improbable that all those values were fixed this way
without a willful and determinate creator! (The Anthropic principle) Well, I
say the fact that all those “variables” were indeed “fixed” and determined by
none but the creator Himself is too obvious to be denied! But to insert the
probabilistic reasoning in this argument is to commit the very same crime
that atheists commit against mathematical probability and the philosophy of
natural science! The event of creation (or the origination of the universe) is a
singular event that happened only once; there are no other universes with
other values for those variables that do not permit for life; we never saw any,
and we never will; so what on Earth would bring mathematical probability to
such an argument? Those apologists - I dare to say – are following blindly
on the logical footsteps of atheist philosophers of science!

There is not a single event in the universe as we now observe it that could be
analogized to such a unique event (by necessity of reason) to begin with! So
it‟s bogus to apply probabilistic reasoning here!

Probability does not apply to the origin of the universe or natural life for the
reasons we explained. But as for the example of the Boeing 747, and the
monkey typist, it may, under specific conditions and controls, apply to them,
such that we may say that though it is highly improbable that some billion
hurricanes may end up assembling the craft, or a billion hits on the
typewriter may produce a meaningful paragraph or even a single phrase; it is
not impossible in principle under certain conditions and controls.

Let me explain.

In the Christmas lectures (Growing up in the Universe) by Dawkins, in the
third lecture: „Climbing mount improbable‟ he mentioned the Boeing 747
example, and stated that for a hurricane to assemble it in one shot by chance;
that‟s impossible! But if that was to take place gradually on a very long span
of time, in gradual „steps‟ of chance; then it will not be impossible, and the
improbability will drop considerably! Perhaps if a couple of million

191


hurricanes succeeded in randomly moving those same pieces around, placing
those pieces in place one random step at a time, then eventually, we may
come to see a complete Boeing after all!

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak&ap=%2526fmt%3D18
&feature=PlayList&p=ED4BA3683D0273ED&index=2)

This, I should say; is sheer and utter nonsense!

Let us first speak of the Boeing and the hurricanes in further detail. Imagine
that the pieces of the Boeing were scattered in an open desert, and the first
hurricane passed over those pieces, what do you expect would happen?
Well, I suppose that the hurricane would most likely throw those pieces
much farther apart from each other, and get them scattered over vast
distances in the desert! This means that we are speaking of near
impossibility that any two pieces would even as much as come close to the
place where they should both fit in the design of the Boeing, because of the
first hurricane alone!

Now, what do you expect, my kind reader, the next hurricane would do?
Well, I suppose that if the spacing between the pieces was greater than the
width of the hurricane (which is what we should expect under the
devastating effect of the previous one), then it is only likely that the second
hurricane would pass over a limited number of the pieces, not on all of them!
And in doing so, it will carry those pieces along and get them thrown away
even farther than before, from the rest of the already messed up lot! So we
can see that the introduction of more hurricanes would actually make it far
more hopeless for any two pieces to even get anywhere close to each other
as they fly through the air, not to mention get attached to one another by
chance! Now the important question here is: am I speaking of an
improbability that is growing exponentially greater with each hurricane in
this example? No! You wish! It was already as good as impossible from
square one! The initial conditions being laid out as such, make for no chance
that any fruitful assembly would ever happen, not in a billion billion years!
This is also true of a case where we get a monkey, and place it to a
typewriter, and ask it to keep hitting the buttons merrily as it wishes! Not in

192


a Billion years could you expect to get any composition of letters that makes
any sense!

So what experimental measures could we take to shift the problem from the
area of near impossibility to high improbability? (Mark the word: Measures)
Ok, let‟s broaden our imagination and design certain restrictions and
conditions. Should we perhaps get the pieces of the Boeing tied up to one
another and to the ground with some loose ropes, so that we would avoid the
problem of the hurricane causing them to scatter and get thrown miles apart
beyond any hope of return? Should we perhaps add some strong fences
around the area where the pieces were initially scattered? Should we fix
some magnets in the pieces so that whenever – or if ever - it happens that
they fly near one another, they may get drawn to each other and the
probability of their getting attached in the right spot would elevate? I‟m
pretty sure that Dawkins would find these ideas interesting, and would even
think that they could make it imaginable that a multitude of hurricanes could
somehow get this poor craft assembled after all! He may then estimate it to
take place in only a few Billion years rather than a billion billion years! He
may propose something similar to this in the typewriter for the monkey! If
perhaps some device was added to it that would only get a letter typed if it
hits its right place in the sentence, then perhaps given a sufficient span of
time, and a very patient monkey, we would eventually get ourselves an
intelligible sentence! The sentence that was already determined and was
controlled by this new device in the typewriter! Such a previously
determined rule would make it possible in theory, and perhaps boost the
probability to the level of „highly improbable‟!

But wait a minute! I thought you were making an example for the origin of
life in the absence of any previously “designed”, “determined”,
“controlled” or conditioned medium for any particular purpose
whatsoever! After all, the particles involved in the first reaction of origins
were – according to your faith – not previously „manufactured‟ as “pieces”
according to any previous blueprint, were they? There is supposed to be no
previously determined design or rule that tells every two organic compounds
where to go in a previously “designed” scheme for the structure of a cell, not

193


to mention those additional rules and algorithms of control for the „random
progress‟ that we had to add to the Boeing and the monkey‟s typewriter!
There is no initial condition and no control rule whatsoever, because there is
supposed to be no previous purpose of assembling an aircraft or typing a
precise paragraph in the first place!

So obviously we are not talking about an improbability, but rather initial
impossibility, no matter how many billions of years may pass! You have
only established that in order for any chance event to have any constructive
effect, there must be a previously determined rule for what has to go where,
or what is to be “selected” and to remain in place! Without that rule; there
are no “pieces of a Boeing” to begin with! No reasonable definition of the
word “piece” can be claimed at all! So even by your false application of
probability to the event of origins, you have no choice but to acknowledge
that in order for the origination of anything at all to be as much as “highly
improbable”; some initial condition has to be defined in advance, in addition
to some previously determined rule of assembly according to which only the
“right” random addition is selected and kept in place!

Now if this – in meaning- is not DESIGN (purposeful creation and
programming), I wonder what other word the professor finds for it in his
dictionary!

This is the problem that Darwinians refuse to admit! In order for a random
factor (like mutation) to work constructively with the previously determined
code (like natural selection) the way they claim it did; this does indeed
demand a previously determined plan, one that would – at least – define
what piece, organ, cell, or organism works and what doesn‟t!

Anyway, I do not find this example worthy of any further commentary.

I hope I have made my point clear that probability is irrelevant here, and is
not properly applied; neither by evolutionists, nor by many of their
opponents!

As for the irrational idea of (gradual accumulation of events of chance
“accumulating the luck”; or as often propagated metaphorically by Dawkins:

194


climbing up mount improbable); this idea is fundamentally flawed,
rationally and linguistically, and is by no means any more rational than the
(1*1*1 = 1) parable for justifying the trinity, as we shall come to elaborate
later on! Just as it is the case that (1*1*1) will never give us (3), (0+0+0)
will never result in (1)! (0+0+0 = 0)!

“You do not know the first thing about Natural Selection!”

The position that most evolutionists would easily take against “creationists”
or against anybody who challenges evolutionism and Darwinism, is the
famous response: “You do not understand evolution”!

Well, obviously, no matter what anybody would ever come to argue; there‟s
no way he‟s going to change the professor‟s mind or make him have a
second thought about the concept of creation (unless of course Allah wills
otherwise)! So no matter what arguments you raise against him; it‟s settled
for him! No matter what rational evidence you could offer him: you‟re
wrong and you don‘t understand the first thing about evolution or Natural
Selection! It‟s done for him!

The point I‟m making with this is that; while Dawkins so easily dismisses
the meaning of faith altogether as a disease that mutes reason and rational
thinking, without making any distinction whatsoever between having faith in
something that is evidently true and valid, and faith in something that stands
no evidence whatsoever, while he takes his assault on all faith to extreme
measures, he fails to realize that his position is indeed a position of blind
faith, and that he is no different from any follower of a false system of
beliefs, except in the fact that those beliefs were made in the mind of a
bunch of materialist atheist scientists, rather than philosophers of
metaphysics or priests of a temple or theologians of church!

Faith does not mean – as atheists would often repeat – belief without
evidence! This sick extrapolation of fallacy on all faith is a fanatic reaction
to the false faith someone like Dawkins may have been brought up on as a
child or surrounded with in his society! The man simply does not know what
it‟s like to be on a true faith which qualifies to be the valid truth in perfect

195


accord with reason and evidence! So he must understand that his personal
ignorance is no argument against all “faith”! Faith in the truth and fulfilling
a life of wisdom accordingly is by all mean the head of all virtues ever
known to man!

Yes I‟m afraid you‟d find that definition he propagates of faith in many
dictionaries (probably adopted originally by an atheist like himself!) but you
must have noticed – if you have ever looked it up in a dictionary before –
that there are indeed other meanings, and that the most famous and
conventional meaning (taken from its etymology) is this:

“Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.‖
“Origin:
1200–50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit < L fidem, acc. of fidēs trust, akin
to fīdere to trust.”
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)

So he is indeed a man of faith, no matter how he evades or denies it! And by
examining his arguments and objections against the creator and all religion,
he is revealed not only as a man of “faith” but of “false religion” and “false
doctrine”; “blind faith” that is! A faith he‟s working so hard to put in the
place of all other religions regarding the origins and the metaphysical! This
is “religion” even if he denies the terminology, and it is faith no matter what
he says to deny it! He says people should let go of religion! But this belief is
in fact his own personal religion! Religion is defined in the dictionary as

“a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed
upon by a number of persons or sects”

("religion." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 01 Sep. 2009.
<Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion>.)

So it makes no difference whether you observe certain rituals or you don‟t,
you are a preacher of religion all the same! Every human being has a
religion by this definition, one that defines his personal beliefs about the
metaphysical, the purpose of life, and the code of morality that is implied by
this belief, regardless of what that belief is and where exactly he gets it from.
196


The bias and sheer prejudice exhibited here by the professor, is the same
you‟d expect of all preachers of false religion, except it goes under a cloak
of “science” here! He easily dismisses and even makes fun of every other
explanatory “theory” that comes in contrast to Darwinism, accuses every
holder of any suggestion of an „intelligent designer‟ of ignorance, and
ridicules, even insults creation as a concept that is not even worth
consideration on a table of science; none of that is any different from what
you would expect from say a Hindu Guru or a Zoroastrian priest when his
faith and vision of the world is questioned! And if this attitude and behavior
does not exhibit a phenomenon of strong faith and a total commitment to it,
with a clear readiness to maybe even go to as far as wage intellectual and
political wars for its sake (like his calling American atheists to arms?); then I
wonder, what is faith?

As for me, as a man who admits his faith and is proud to argue for it, and to
even fight for it if he had to, I speak in this book not from the position of a
scientist whose subject matter is probabilistic by nature, one who insists on
appealing to scientific evidence, struggling with rational and linguistic
necessities as he goes, for the sake of setting up his personal fundamental
beliefs the way he likes them to be! I speak from the position of a man who
is certain that he does have all the evidence that a sane man needs to see the
truth for what it is! So when I accuse an offender of my faith of ignorance, I
can easily prove to him that he is indeed ignorant and that he does not know
the first thing about the book that he‟s refuting! But when an atheist charges
all people of religion with ignorance, he knows pretty well there‟s nothing
on his hands by which he can prove them all wrong at any level of
indisputable argumentation!

Now, let‟s proceed with our response to this „religious‟ campaign against
reason and knowledge.

I quote:

“Some observed phenomenon - often a living creature or one of its
more complex organs, but it could be anything from a molecule up to
the universe itself - is correctly extolled as statistically improbable‖
(Dawkins, p. 113)

197


Absolutely wrong! Statistical improbability does not apply to this problem! I
do not look at a complex creature and say: how “probable” is it that
something like this could come into being from nothingness, or from
inanimate particles? It does exist indeed, (hence it is not impossible!) and it
obviously cannot be anything but the outcome of a perfect process of
informed and purposeful creation! I never saw anything come into being
from nothingness, or inanimate matter turn into a living being (and the actual
difference between a living being and a dead being is obviously not a
question of chemistry!), so obviously the very first event that brought that
thing into being, whatever it was, is something we‟ve seen nothing like; and
hence there‟s no place at all for applying statistical probability here as we
explained earlier!

False application and conceptualization of mathematical tools always results
in nothing but bad science!

I quote:

―In fact, as I shall show in this chapter, Darwinian natural selection
is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable riddle of
where the information comes from‖ (Dawkins, p. 114)

In fact, as I hope my reader will be able to judge by the end of this literature;
Darwinian natural selection is by no means a solution to anything, and the
least it could ever do – in fact - is explain where all the information comes
from!

―However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by
invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as
improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747‖

Again we say: Our Lord Almighty is not a created creator! If we‟re talking
about a “Created designer” that is bound (by the very meaning of being
created) to the same laws that restrict all creation, then yes of course, it only
makes sense that this creator be more improbable (too complex to have any
similar match that may have ever come under the reach of human
experience). But this is obviously not The creator we speak of, because

198


obviously it does not end the regress in the only rationally plausible way! So
it is not “probable” or “improbable” that The Creator exists; it is rationally
necessary that He Does!

―The argument from improbability states that complex things could
not have come about by chance.‖

It seems that I will not be able to proceed with my reading in (The God
Delusion) without making a stop at almost every single statement! Now this
statement is a trick of terminology! When I say that complex things could
not have come around by chance, I‟m not talking probability! I‟m clearly
saying that it‟s impossible for complex things to come about by chance. 14
It‟s impossible, not improbable, that any system would ever emerge into
being as the outcome of an unplanned, unguided, unconditioned and
purposeless event, not to mention a countless number of such events!

14
Chance and purposelessness are only in the eye of the limited human beholder! They only
describe our current model of things, not the way they really are. A process that had no doer
(agent) and no purpose does not exist! It simply cannot be! Many things may appear in nature to
be “functionless”, but this doesn‟t make nature un-designed, and it doesn‟t mean it came about
“randomly” or by chance! That‟s only a statement of current knowledge of a particular set of
natural phenomena! Nature is a grand system that keeps unfolding its secrets to the limited reach
of man‟s hand, and if there‟s any lesson that a scientist should learn from this gradual growth of
human knowledge; this is it!

There are a countless number of things that scientists once used to think had no function in nature
and had no guiding rule; and only further observation, examination and advancement at that,
proved them wrong! What else did they expect anyway? In a perfectly purposeful and functional
universe like the one we clearly live in, it‟s impossible that there be anything that is missing, or
that is excess or functionless, or was not made for a particular purpose, regardless of how much
we currently know about that function or purpose!

It really amazes me how a scientist could so easily challenge his own eyes and insist on nullifying
the necessary perfectness of what can only be – rationally - the other end of a clearly perfect
system! I mean if it is this perfect at one end, then how could it possibly be chaotic or unruly at
the other? This makes no sense at all! It‟s basic reason and language here! This a dynamic system
where every element has a track of different functions that it assumes through the course of time
according to a perfect code of balanced progression! At any point of this progression, if anything
is lacking then this only means failure! Even if a tiny grain of sand may appear now to do nothing
but work as part of a soft walking carpet on the beach, tomorrow, some of its molecules may
actually be part of the body of a whale, or even the body of one of your own grandchildren! This
is a complete, closed (conserved) and perfectly balanced system where nothing is excess or has
no function! Nothing could be more obvious and yet they insist on denying it!

199


Fundamental semantic corruption and Wordplay!

Quote:

But many people define 'come about by chance' as a synonym for
'come about in the absence of deliberate design'. Not surprisingly,
therefore, they think improbability is evidence of design.

Clearly, the way those “many people” define “chance” has nothing to do
with any mistake of reason that they or anybody may make applying
improbability or probability where it does not rationally apply! Anybody
who thinks “improbability” proves or means anything at all in our query, is
delusional, and does not properly understand what mathematical probability
really means!

As for what chance is; that‟s another issue! However, to the author it is
obviously the same issue! This is because he is making an extremely
senseless case here, in trying to prove that what people may put in the
claimed absence of a purposeful, knowing, willing creator, is not what they
would have no choice but to call: “chance”! Well this is by all means a
contradiction! It means that Order = chaos, because if order can emerge from
chaos without a purposeful external originator (and organizer) that initiates
and enforces the organizing rule that we would then recognize as order, then
there really is no difference in meaning between “order” and “Chaos” at all,
because what is chaos – linguistically - if not a state where nothing happens
in any organized manner or for any plausible reason we can think of? I mean
this is simple linguistic reasoning here! It‟s the necessary distinction
between the very meaning of order and the meaning of chaos in any human
language! This rational distinction is ultimately destroyed by Darwinian
logic!

This is why Dawkins is uncomfortable with the only reasonable and sensible
way to explain the word “chance”!

But let‟s consult a dictionary, shall we?

200


Chance:

―The absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or
controlled…‖

 “ The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems
to have no assignable cause.
 A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or
controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.‖
(Middle English, unexpected event, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *cadentia, from Latin
cadēns, cadent-, present participle of cadere, to fall, befall; see kad- in Indo-European
roots.)

(Source: chance. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition. Retrieved February 03, 2009, from Dictionary.com website:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chance)

Thus we can see that chance is actually a relative meaning! That is to say,
something may appear to have happened by chance in the eyes of one man,
while another would know that it is all planned, like when X thinks he met
Y by chance when in fact the meeting was all arranged by Y or by someone
that neither X nor Y expects to have anything to do with it! It‟s all but a
stance of relative human knowledge!

Thus, one should point out that man‟s current incapability of comprehending
or predicting the cause beyond a given event in nature, does not by any
means of reason, make that particular event or element without any cause or
purpose or order! The problem is fundamentally epistemic not ontological as
we can see! Absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence! It is
amazing how people who are supposed to have been exposed to all so many
wonders of order and functionality in the way systems of nature work, and
have been trained with rigorous scientific argumentation and theorization,
would find it plausible to claim that within such a perfectly ordered system
and such a delicate dynamic equilibrium; there could be elements that follow
no rule, or have no particular purpose or function within this system! After
all, it was only through our humble observation of this system itself that we
learned to know what purpose and function are! Our minds work the way

201


they work, because nature is the way it is! It is the very reason there is such
a thing in our knowledge that we call “natural law”!

Thus we say that the claim that there is intrinsic “lawlessness” somewhere in
– not to mention at the very roots and origins of – this perfect system that
cradles us; is fundamentally false! The words (chance) and (random) cannot
afford these meanings they have given them; it is wrong language and anti-
science position as we shall come to elaborate throughout this literature. It
comes only from the shortsightedness of a stubborn atheist who insists on
denying the undeniable, and placing disorder at the bottom of what is
obviously a seamless fabric of perfect order!

The system is clearly made to accommodate and allow for such things that
we cannot yet understand or explain, to take place the way they do, because
if not; then it should‟ve crashed and failed long ago! You cannot imagine
what may happen in the universe if – say – the number of grains of sand
existing in it was only a handful less or more than it is! We have only little
knowledge of the infinitely complicated processes running in the universe of
which this sand is – was and will be - a key element! Even the most
“hazardous” and “unexplainable” events in nature, are parts of the way it is
made and the way it runs! By creation it is made to – functionally and
purposefully - allow for them the way we see them!

This is the frame of rational intuition than every healthy mind should work
within, in seeking to model and explain the way this magnificent system
works! This has always been the way with mankind and the way humans do
science until at some late point in the history of the west, certain
philosophers started to rebel against reason and knowledge itself! It was
there that the positive became negative, and axioms of reason and language
started to be put to the guillotine! And today, scientists can easily insert
corruption and failure in the very system that gave them the meaning of
order, beauty, function, time, and law, and not only get away with it; they
even find themselves justified! Certain meanings that were only – rationally
- used to describe the characteristically limited way by which we humans
understand and explain nature; are now assigned to nature itself! This is a
problem far more fundamental – in terms of philosophy – than most of

202


today‟s militant atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and others)
could possibly realize! It is the reason why they think they stand justified in
their counter-intuitive position! It is the reason why someone like Dawkins
actually thinks – ironically enough – that he is raising people‟s
“consciousness” with such a book!

The very fact that nature continues to run in perfect equilibrium with no
crash or collapse, as perfectly suited for human life as it is, proves that
nothing takes place or exists within it without a function, and a code of
balance that when examined closely would tell us that it actually had to take
place precisely the way it did, or exist precisely where it did when it did! A
natural scientist who doesn‟t exhibit humility towards this amazing system
that we call the universe; and instead he would seek to plant chaos and
chance in the middle – even at the bottom - of it; is a man who is in
deliberate rejection of what he knows he cannot deny! This is what we call
in Islam (Juhood ‫ جحىد‬defiance)!

When mathematicians first pondered on what they now call (Chaos
mathematics) they were motivated by the need to reconsider the way they
viewed many phenomena as “disorder” or just “noise” that followed no
particular rule or pattern, and could not be fit within the linear code of
mathematical expression. They came up with a model that is more of a
conjectural attempt to plot or model the way a system “looks” or “behaves”,
in an expression that is deterministic, but yet leaves room for the
unpredictability that characterizes many parts of that system (in the view of
man). They simply developed a mathematical model (a set of rules) that
simulates in its unpredictable outcome, the way we observe many complex
systems in nature.

And even though they cannot afford to deny the rationally necessary – and
clearly evident – determinism and consistency within any system in study
(like climatic and weather systems for example) and in the way it relates to
all other determinate systems in nature, you would still find them confused
about the philosophical meaning of (Chaos) in this context of theory
nonetheless! Chaos in this context is only an expression of unpredictability
and nonlinearity in the way we seek to model such unimaginably complex

203


systems; it doesn‟t mean that the system lacks any masterfully determined
rules! It wouldn‟t work if it did! As unpredictable to man as those
phenomena may be; the system is clearly organized in perfect accordance
and equilibrium with such phenomena nonetheless! There are forces that we
know we cannot comprehend or predict in our current state of knowledge –
as fundamental components of the system as they actually are -, yet
scientists would so easily dismiss them as random and just plain “noise”, in
the sense that there is no determinate law in nature to control them! It is here
that the atheistic philosophy of science goes wrong! And while we hold that
every single part of this magnificent system must be perfectly created for a
purpose, regardless of how much of that we may currently or may ever come
to know, atheists on the other hand would easily put chaos „in the gaps‟; the
very antonym of system and natural law itself!

So the problem is indeed a radical problem of epistemology! It manifests in
this line the distinguishes between the way man comprehends and models
nature by his limited human tools of knowledge on one hand, and the way it
really is, on the other! It is often neglected – this line - or even erased by the
pompous and arrogant approach of atheists to the understanding of nature.
And thus we can‟t help wondering: If whatever we don‟t see is not there, and
whatever we cannot comprehend is just “chance” or “chaos” in its very
nature, then why are we still doing science at all? The very progress of
science itself from one age of man to the other refutes this corrupt approach,
and exposes it as an actual escape from the „bigger questions‟!

So this is how it works for an atheist: Those parts of nature the orderliness of
which serves his belief about the reason he‟s here; are orderly and perfectly
systematic, whereas those parts the perfectness of which suggests the fallacy
of his belief in the reason why he‟s here, and thus endangers his fate after
death because of his choice of belief regarding it; have to be chaotic and
unorganized by nature! And thus, God has to be a delusion! Let him then be
reminded that what was yesterday chaotic and functionless, is today known
for a fact to be a necessary functional part of more than one system and
subsystem in nature! Let him be reminded of his limits as a human who is

204


only beginning to learn a little part of a little part of the very little that he can
currently see of this magnificent system that we call the universe!

In our blindness and shortsightedness we humans have been bombing,
cutting, exterminating, polluting the seas, damaging the atmosphere, causing
the extinction of many species for so long, and yet the system continues to
be perfectly fit for our miserable kind to live and to do what they are here to
do! It is made in such a way as to absorb the “stupidity”, arrogance, and
sheer blindness of humans, and balance those relatively limited damages and
add them to the negative side of its continually balanced scale! Many
atheists would look at certain events of natural catastrophe and claim them
to demonstrate the lack of order and control in the system! They are blind to
the bigger picture, and they forget that in order to make such a judgment
they have to build upon verifiable knowledge of the exact detailed purpose
or function for which those elements of life exist the way they do! The very
notions of system, subsystem and functional composition did not come to us
from anywhere but the careful observation and examination of this world
around us! So by what wisdom do they seek to project our human ignorance
unto this system itself, its purpose and the necessary functionality of its
every part? If I don‟t know what a Watch is made for, by what reason do I
give myself the right to judge it as purposeless or defective?

Atheists just need to sit down, and realize that we humans are only ants
dancing on the tip of the tail of a huge elephant! And while every reasonable
and sensible man would find this overwhelming magnificence and vast
richness of the universe an unmistakable sign to the grandeur and mastery of
its maker, atheists on the other hand would claim it to indicate that contrary
to what the three religions teach, man is too small to be of any significance
in the vast universe! And instead of fueling fear and humility in their hearts
as it naturally does; they take it to indicate that life on this tiny earth must
have came about by chance! They‟d look to the sky and claim in arrogance
that if the world was indeed specifically suited for man‟s life, then the
creator couldn‟t possibly have any purpose in making the universe so
unimaginably vast, with so many cosmic events happening in places so far
away that we humans will never get any chance to observe them!

205


The point is; atheists have taken it for a faith to steadily and forcefully deny
that the picture is far too big and too perfect for any man to dare call any part
of it “chaotic” or “purposeless”!

And again; chaos is only a relative expression of something that we humans
have no knowledge of a similar pattern of order in our minds to analogize it
to! You enter your kid‟s room and see things thrown around randomly and
you say: This is chaos! Yes it is, but in that, you are making a reference of
analogy to a particular notion or image that you have of what “order” you
expect to see! This comes from your previous knowledge of the way your
kid normally places things in the room, or the way he is supposed to do that
anyway! Those books should not be on the bed, that shirt should not be
hanging on the back of the chair, the chair itself should not block the door,
the pillow should be aligned with the edge of the bed, the sheet should not
be wrinkled, but should be stretched to cover the bed evenly … etc!
Whenever you miss any of those patterns of what you call order (relative
human notion), you see chaos and disorder instead! You know (according to
a previous plan and purpose that defines this particular system) that this is
not the way it should be! But is this the case with natural phenomena? When
you see certain phenomena that do not fit by analogy to any model that you
previously knew or expected to see; do you have the right to call it
“disorder” or “chaos” in the sense that it cannot be intended just as it is by
its creator? No of course you don‟t! Because quite clearly, the overarching
system where this phenomenon is observed to take place, is far more
consistent and determinate in the way it is ordered and run than what your
kid does to his room! And obviously enough, you do not possess a frame of
reference of previous knowledge about the exact purpose of creation of those
phenomena and thus the exact way they have to be in order for the system to
work as it should!

The system is perfect and complete in itself; only we are too limited to grasp
it! Yes we are growing more knowledgeable with time, but we must admit
our limits!

In their arrogance, atheists would look at earlier ages of man – within the
documented history of mankind – and view the current advancement of

206


sciences that they now possess, as evidence to the mental primitiveness of
humans in those earlier ages! They would even use it as additional evidence
to further support Darwinian “evolution”! This is sheer blindness that builds
upon the very same fundamental problem, because even the most intelligent
human being in our current time will probably come up with no bigger
solutions, inventions or discoveries than the smartest of them could, if he
were to start from the exact same point where they started! A genius
tribesman living in some “secluded” tribe in the Amazons today – not by
necessity in the past – is not expected, as I gave this example earlier in this
literature, to come up with the invention of a chainsaw – much less a laser
cutting device – when he is faced with the problem of cutting down a tree! I
mean it would be a “miracle” if he did, wouldn‟t it? He does not have even
one tenth of the input of knowledge and technology that the Chainsaw
inventor had! So his solution to the problem will naturally be much simpler!

It must be clear that this gradual advancement of civilization is the well
expected outcome of a gradual accumulation of knowledge from “simple to
complex”, not of a gradual “evolution” in human organic or mental capacity
from “primitive” to “evolved”! This confusion so easily encourages those
who believe in their „hominid‟ ancestry, and who are blinded by the
“glories” of our time, to look down on earlier times and ages of humanity as
times of lesser minds in less evolved primates!

What some of those minds (only the atheists among them) may have once
thought to have no governing order; is now known to have its laws and
rules! And it is likely that this is exactly the same thing that our
grandchildren will say about us, and about the way our scientists look today
at many phenomena of nature! “Oh! They called this „chaos‟?!”

Physicists are now working in attempt to come up with what they call: “the
theory of everything” or the “final theory” 15! One has to wonder then, is this
not a contradiction that you would call certain patterns in nature “chaotic”,
and “random” and yet you still recognize the necessity of there being a
single unified law or order that runs it all? I‟m not examining the particular

15
The idea that man could one day come up with anything that could qualify as “final” in terms of
theorization in natural sciences is by all means a childish dream!

207


types of phenomena that physicists address when they speak of a theory of
“everything”, or the way they think this theory could be expressed or used,
I‟m examining the underlying reason there; the common sense that no matter
how random anything in this world may appear to be in the limited
(relativistic) uninformed human eye; nothing in nature is at random, and
nothing is free from a necessary binding law or code of control that runs the
entire system!

Thus we can now see what a grave assault on nature (not to mention its
creator) it really is to assign the meaning of “chance” or “Chaos” not to our
limited understanding of certain elements of it, but to the way those elements
are in reality! Darwinian reasoning moves it from being a statement of a
relative lack of human knowledge of the governing rule and the exact
function or purpose of a phenomenon (which is its actual linguistic
meaning), to a statement of random purposelessness that is characteristic of
the phenomenon itself!

AS Darwinian, Dawkins is claiming life to have emerged without any
previously determined course “plan”, purpose, or intent! By pure accident!
Initially random and chaotic! It is utterly ridiculous how he makes a
distinction between “a series of chance events” and a single act of chance, as
we shall elaborate; and based on nothing but “probability”! We will show
him that even when we apply his probabilistic conception, this “mount
improbable” story could be good for nothing but a fairy tale!

Even if we accepted this “series of chance events” that he claims, he still has
to answer to how and why any form of governing order at all could possibly
emerge in a chaotic unguided uncontrolled medium! He still has to explain
how any act of “chance” – according to his terminology – could possibly
produce any form of self-maintained order or anything that could even be
called “process”, order, or rule at all, without any initial preparation or any
previously determined target and purpose!

My point here is that, not only is Darwinism an abuse of mathematical and
scientific terminology, it is an abuse of language itself! Just as it is the case

208


with any false system of faith! It relies upon false meanings and profound
semantic errors, all the way down to the core!

It is really astonishing how they keep using the words “designed”,
“planned”, “selected”, “controlled” and so forth, - like all healthy humans do
- in explaining what natural selection “does” (according to Darwinism), and
yet insist on the claim that this is nothing but a linguistic confusion that all
humans are suffering from! A natural norm and basis of human reasoning
and linguistic expression, is so boldly rendered as a mere common mistake
or delusion that man is supposed to cure himself from! We all – all humans
other than Darwinians of course - suffer from the “irrational inclination” to
call nature “designed” (created) when in reality it is – in a term so
ridiculously coined by Dawkins – only “designoid”!16 When you say
“selected” then you naturally, and in all proper linguistic usages, and by
all means of reason, mean to say “by someone” or “by a selector”; don‟t
you?! There‟s no “selected by no selector” or “done by no doer”! Human
reason (not intuition or gut feeling as they would often maintain) rejects this
meaning as a fallacy, a contradiction! Now they would say: “we do not mean
16
I must point out that even the very use of the word “design” as ascribed to the work of the Lord
Almighty is – In Islam – improper! This is because the first meaning that comes to the mind of
the listener when he hears the word “design” is: “to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans
for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge”!

(Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved May 01, 2009, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design)

This is the first meaning in a list of four or five meanings in the dictionary! All five of those
meanings when applied, give the sense of a work of previous preparation and study that man has
to do before he creates anything! This particular kind of “preparation” is actually NOT to be
attributed to the Lord! It is – in man – a feature of his human limitedness. The Lord on the other
hand, never needed to study, test, or try and err (natural components of what we call: human
design) before He commenced with creation (omniscience)! Thus, the word design in this human
sense is not to be attributed to the Lord almighty! However, if all we mean by it is the previous
determination, intent, will, and knowledge of creation by a willful and capable creator prior to the
act of creation, then it may be attributed to Him only in this context of discussion. This is why I
must draw the reader‟s attention to the fact that only within this context may I make use of such
terms (design, plan … etc.) in describing the Lord‟s work, because as a rule, Allah is only to be
described by attributes revealed in authentic scripture! I must also make sure that the reader
understands that whatever deeds we attribute to the Lord, they are – by default in our faith – to be
taken as un-analogous, and incomparable in how they are, in any way, to human attributes and
human deeds. It‟s our rule of thumb in dealing with God‟s attributes.

209


that something did any “selection”, we call it natural because if a certain set
of genes just happens to work well, then it will survive, while others that
don‟t will fail and perish! It is “selected” only in this sense!” One can easily
reply to that saying: “But this is selection and it implies – by necessity –
determinism: a previous plan and a „selection algorithm‟! It necessitates a
previously determined rule that defines what works (fits) and what doesn‟t!
Because if only certain individuals with particular qualities and genetic traits
are to survive in this world while all others would perish: this has no other
meaning in language but “selection” according to a previously determined
rule! Darwin could not afford to call it anything else! If atheists could escape
the use of this language they certainly would, but they just couldn‟t! It‟s the
way our minds are hardwired! Whether they like it or not, this meaning
necessitates the action of a selector, a doer of the selection, whose informed
and previously determined code is the rule by which something is to be
“selected”!

When they use the parable of the key and the lock, they would suggest that
different keys kept coming out (at random), incapable of opening the lock,
until finally, and all by pure chance, a particular key appeared that worked:
This is when we say it was naturally selected! Now I will simply say: But
what about the lock itself, and the conditions and features that should
characterize its only working key? What about the factory that branded those
keys, not to mention the one that designed the lock? Did the lock come to be
without a maker who defines its function and the only way it could be
unlocked? Did all that – too – come about by natural selection? What is the
source of those codes: the key-lock code, and the random generator of keys?
The system of nature itself in which what fits is selected and what doesn‟t is
not, where did it come from in the first place; and where did its codes and
laws (without which evolution couldn‟t possibly start) come from?

This is why no matter how hard you try, my atheist reader, you cannot
escape using the word “design” or the word “selected”, the very use of
which necessitates to a willful agent that performs this selection according to
its purpose and its rules!

210


I was amazed, actually overwhelmed by the sheer wonders of creation,
richness and perfectness that Dawkins displayed to the audience in one of
his Royal institute Christmas lectures (the second lecture in the series titled:
Growing up in the universe!), in his outrageous attempt to argue that none of
those wonders is created (designed) at all! In fact, I say if I were to search
for some of the most exquisite and sublime examples of how perfect this
creator really is, I couldn‟t have thought of any more dazzling examples than
those he displayed to the audience in that particular lecture, calling them all
nothing but “designoid objects”! Actually, I can think of no better
presentation to destroy Darwinism itself! With very little commentary, it
may be very well used for this purpose! It‟s amazing how a man could be so
blindly stubborn in his false position that he would gather some of the most
overwhelming signs of perfect creation; to actually present them in argument
against creation! This is why it is true that debating an atheist is never
fruitful, and there‟s always very little hope that he would listen; because his
position is really not a conviction based on rational evidence; it‟s a stubborn
denial of the validity of the very way healthy reason works, and a challenge
to the very way we humans use language!

He admits in this lecture and in many other occasions that he finds sheer
difficulty in keeping his tongue (having to bite it!) from using this word,
“design”, when he speaks of such wonders! Well, he can‟t escape it no
matter what! Yet, it doesn‟t even draw the slightest hint in the minds of his
followers that perhaps he is the one who‟s being delusional here, trying to
deny one of the most undeniable meanings a man is actually built to see and
express! I really wonder; how can they even sleep at night?

In that lecture he says:

―What do they all have in common those designed objects? They are
all good for some purpose, and they couldn‘t have come to be the way
they are by luck!‖

(―Design and Designoid objects‖:

211


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGyh1Qsw-
Ak&ap=%2526fmt%3D18&feature=PlayList&p=ED4BA3683D0273
ED&index=1)

I say; then by what reason do you dare call a crystal “simple” or “un-
designed”, simply because you don‟t know why it is the way it is?

If we‟re talking about a manmade artifact, then certainly we KNOW its
purpose! We designed it for that purpose! So we can easily judge it! But
when it comes to living things, organs, natural systems, and so forth, we are
only seeking to learn about the function and the purpose for which they are
made; we do not define that purpose on our own, it doesn‟t come from us;
we only seek to obtain knowledge of it, to fit it in its right place in the big
picture, so to speak!

So when you state that only those things that are good for a purpose could
qualify as “designed”, one has to ask, what about a natural system the
purpose of which you still do not know? Does this make it qualify as un-
designed? That crystal, if you could discover the role it plays (as unfamiliar
or un-analogous its shape may look in its natural context) and you could see
how distinct it is in nature from many other equally purposeful and
functional compositions of other inanimate forms of matter in the universe,
and the impact they have on the way life progresses on earth; would you still
find it reasonable to deny the fact that it must be “designed”, for a purpose
that it serves in perfectness?

You may think you “know” the origin of life on Earth, but what about the
origin of the Earth itself? Those rocks, that huge variety of types of
inanimate matter (metals, nonmetals, lanthanides, silicates, minerals, inert
gases; etc.), where did all that variety come from, and what is it for? All are
parts of an extremely complicated and perfectly balanced system that we call
the universe, a system that progresses through time changing the immediate
function of every element within it in a long series of compositions and
decompositions that serve the very purpose for which the whole thing was
created. And while we – healthy humans - never fail to be overwhelmed and

212


humbled by the way nature works, some people insist on attributing this
mastery to billions of years of chaos!

Darwinians are indeed so shortsighted that they cannot see that if inanimate
matter is the substance from which all living beings are built; then at the
very least, this should be part of the purpose for which this variety in matter
itself exists! Part of the purpose why a particle identified as a carbon atom
has to exist in the way it does, in distinction from a hydrogen atom for
example! If without water there could be no life; then this must be part of the
function of water itself, of the reason why there is water in the world! So
why speak of gills – for example - as a purposeful and functional organ in
fish, but think no more of water – that mysterious life-blood liquid – than a
purposeless or functionless liquid that is just “there because it‟s there”?

What about a piece of rock? What‟s the function of that? Well, imagine if I
cut off the brains of some beast, and put it in front of you, when you have no
idea what that thing was before it was chopped off! Would you dare say it
has no function? Regardless of whether or not you may afterwards use it for
some new purpose of your own, maybe even cook it and eat it; the fact
remains that it was indeed part of another system and had its own function
there, one that was not given to it by you! So that crystal rock in your hands,
was – in its natural ecosystem – part of a bigger system where crystal
compositions, with those amounts in particular, with that crystalline pattern
in particular, even with those shapes and formations in specific, had their
specific function and place in the system! Once you chop them off, the
function changes! So speaking of purpose; your ignorance does not make
this piece of rock purposeless as it was or even as it is! 17 I couldn‟t help
17
Learning from the knowledge of Islam we know that the Lord has created everything on earth
for the purpose of testing man; we can understand that the function of a rock and its place in the
system may change when you cut it and start adapting it for your own use, but this does not
change its purpose of creation! It is only a part of the detailed purpose of its creation. It is made
as such to do a certain job before it is cut, and to be subject to your intent and do another job after
it is cut, and another after it breaks, and so on! Somewhere in your body, there is a molecule of
carbon that may have one day been part of the body of an elephant or a fly, or even a tree trunk! It
is now part of a different system, doing a different immediate function! Both functions were not
assigned to it by you; but by the creator and sustainer of the system and all its parts, the very one
who determines your function in the world as a human being; praised be!

213


laughing when he pointed in that lecture at a piece of rock that was shaped
“by accident” in such a way that it looks like a pot; he actually measured its
efficiency for the job of a pot, and made the conclusion that since it‟s not
designed then it‟s natural that its efficiency as a pot should be very low! The
man says it himself: Though it looks like a pot, it is not made as such for the
purpose of working as a pot! So how possibly could it be called un-designed,
only because it‟s not working properly as a pot? It‟s certainly not designed
to be a pot, that‟s clear! But does this mean that it is not designed at all? You
did not make it in this way for your own purpose; does this mean that it was
not made for any purpose at all? Well, let me disappoint you professor and
tell you that in fact, this particular rock was made by its creator to look this
way for the particular purpose – among other purposes - that one day some
atheist would take it for an example in a public lecture to show that nothing
in nature has any purpose or is designed at all!

When he pointed to the microscope on his desk in that lecture he said:

―Most certainly it couldn‘t have come about by luck! If you take a lot
of atoms and shake them up at random, then you may get a crystal,
but you will not in a billion billion billion years get a microscope!‖

I say: no you may not! Not in a billion billion billion years could you get a
crystal if you did that! Not unless you make certain settings, preparations
and adjustments of conditions all for the specific end of making a crystal! In
fact, even the scandalously silly image of you shaking atoms in a box – for
example – is itself the previous preparation of some form of a closed
medium prepared deliberately for a specific purpose: a plan, a goal!: The
plan of obtaining something, whatever it is as an output from the input of
those atoms! There always has to be a well conditioned force, posed
beforehand, that would – at least – keep binding those atoms to continue
bombarding one another (at random), long enough for anything at all to start
taking place!

It is thus amazing how he finds it impossible to end up with a microscope in
a billion billion billion years of shaking atoms in a closed controlled
medium, but on the other hand, he claims that only in less than four billion

214


years of time, could living beings that are billions of times more complicated
than a microscope (like a snake), emerge starting off from no purpose, no
conditioned or prepared medium, and nothing at all, and progress by
successive unplanned acts of chance! Is this not a contradiction?

If I applied simple proportion here, then I should actually expect something
as compound as a microscope, to come out of some “process” similar to
natural selection in its “chance steps”, in relatively no time at all! If a snake
is one billion times more complicated than a microscope – according to
Dawkins‟ rhetoric in the lecture – and it evolved within some hundred and
twenty billion years, then something as compound as a microscope may very
well “evolve” on its own in little over a century! Just do the Math!
Furthermore, in the microscope example, there will be two hands governing
the medium for “chaotic mechanisms” to take place (the hands shaking the
atoms I mean); but in nature, no such medium was governed or
deterministically maintained (according to Darwinism)! So perhaps it will
take just a few decades or something! I mean, assuming the rational validity
of natural selection, why not presume the possibility of emergence of some
similar chance mechanism to it that may end up “selecting” that microscope
in a few decades?!

―Not in a billion billion billion years‖ he says!

Why? Because you know the purpose of the microscope, but you think the
snake has none at all? Is this the difference?

Well, it is obviously not just irrational; it is a billion billion billion times
worse than irrational that he would still insist on calling a snake: “designoid”
and bite his tongue every time he calls it design, or even whenever he calls it
a “creature” for that matter!

This is indeed an assault on language itself!

Imagine somebody who tells you: when people speak of the sky, they should
not say it‟s blue, it only appears as though it were blue in color when in fact
it is not: It is only “blueoid”! What would you say to that? Well, I say, this is
nothing but “reasonoid”! “Languageoid” also comes to mind!

215


Now what do you expect would be the consequences of proving to people
that their natural understanding of language and their natural reasoning of
different meanings is so fundamentally corrupt? What would it sound like if
somebody argued – for example - that all English Grammar in all English
books is false, or that half of the words we commonly use in our everyday
language mean exactly the opposite to what we all take them to mean? It is
indeed an offense, and should be treated as such!

Thus I say it is amazing indeed – and truly disappointing I should say - that
this author here is examining some arguments by philosophers thinking that
by destroying them, he will have disproven the rational inevitability of a
perfect creator! They would so arrogantly say: “prove to me that there is a
creator”! Well, I can say no more in reply than: “Prove to me that you are
human or that you are intelligent, not to mention that you have a mind at
all”!

The burden of proof is not on a man who applies straight axiomatic
reasoning and natural linguistic expression on one of the clearest meanings
ever known to man! It is on those who deny it, defy their very own tongues
to fight it, and seek to render it as nothing but a “delusion”! And oh what a
burden that is!

They are attempting to block the natural process of human identification of
meanings to take place on what is actually the most worthy observable thing
in existence of being called “designed” or “planned” or “created”! This is by
all means one of the greatest assaults on language and linguistic reason man
has ever known! I have seen many cults of religion playing games with
words (as all preachers of false religions actually do), twisting their
meanings against what every reasonable man should understand, but I have
never to this day, seen a “cult” as bold in defying their very own tongues as
the Darwinians!

Just look at the title of Dawkins‟ book “The blind watchmaker”: How
possibly could a watchmaker be blind? This is exactly what Darwinism is all
about! This is what its preachers are trying so hard to have you believe: That
a watch could indeed be made by a blind watchmaker! That Nature is

216


perfectly ordered and perfectly contained and controlled, but do not be
fooled: This is not done by any knowledgeable or capable willful power as a
human mind is so “tempted” to deduce! It‟s made by no willful maker! It‟s
made but not made! It‟s designed but not designed! It‟s controlled but not
controlled! There is a maker (or a governing agent) but he (it) is blind,
purposeless, plan-less, and so pathetically incapable that he – or it – does not
know what it‟s doing, does not know anything at all, does not have any plan,
and yet it‟s “doing” it anyway; and perfectly well to say the least!

Designing …

Selecting …

Controlling …

Governing …

But all this is just “semantic” delusion; because in reality nobody and
nothing is doing anything at all!

What is this?!

By what standards of reason could we even begin to debate with such a
rational and linguistic outrage? We can‟t! There‟s no point trying to
convince a man to open his eyes if he wishes to see properly! No point at all!

I can find some common grounds of reason when I debate with a man who
believes in God and His prophets, but thinks of Him as both one and three at
the same time; I mean, after all, at least he admits the undeniable: That he
himself was created! But what can I do with a man who actually thinks that
his very own tongue and his very own mind; are tricking him? To him, I am
– and so is the rest of mankind - delusional no matter what I say!

Look at other titles of Dawkins‟ publications!

The book “The selfish genes” for example is written to actually convince
people that genes created all life, and have been “working” as though they
are “selfish” but in fact they‟re not! They have no intent or will or plan or
anything at all! They work for the sake of preserving their phenotypes, have

217


been doing so for billions of years, yet there is no plan or purpose of any
kind anywhere and nothing is actually “doing” anything! They are in full
control of the system running all life for their own favor and survival, when
in fact they are not! They control but they don‟t; we‟re only tempted to think
so! They plan, but they don‟t; they only appear as though they do! They
“come up with perfect solutions” by means of a process called natural
selection, when in fact they‟re nothing but blind, dead matter! How do those
people really believe themselves?!

In a book with such a title, it‟s no surprise to find statements as such:

―We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to
preserve the selfish molecules known as genes…‖ (Preface of the
1976 edition)

Programmed? By what? “Selfish” molecules? Oh Bite your tongue atheist!
You do not mean that!

―The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are
machines created by our genes…‖ (The Selfish Gene, p. 13)

How could X create Y when X is only a small component of Y; one that
cannot be anything at all but dead matter without Y? X cannot have come
into being as an X, without a Y that defines its function, so how could X be
the creator of Y?

But then again, he should bite his tongue here as well… maybe “created” is
not the right word?! What then? What‟s the right word?

―This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes.‖ (ibid, p. 13)

How about; “attributes”? Well, they are indeed attributes … look at this:

―I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a
successful gene is ruthless selfishness….‖(ibid, p. 14)

―However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which
a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited
form of altruism at the level of individual animals….‖(ibid, p. 14)

218


“Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we
may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something
that no other species has ever aspired to….” (ibid, p. 14)

But if we did upset their “designs”; then all natural life would perish,
wouldn‟t it? I mean if those designs where good for anything at all, then
upsetting them is not a very wise thing to do, is it? So I wonder how that
“epic rebellious struggle” he dreams of between man and his own “evil”
genes would end! Extinction and Doom, obviously, not for man alone, but
for all natural life! (The atheistic version of the “End Times” and doomsday,
perhaps?) It then turns out that it may have been much better if those
“foolish genes” never “gave” man a mind at all, and that man – because of
nothing but his very mind itself - is the most stupid species of all! I wonder,
how those genes “could” survive those “billions of years” so masterfully,
facing all challenges, natural hazards and risks, and end up making such a
stupid mistake: giving a particular species the very tool to blast the whole
thing off! How many similar mistakes and “unexpected anomalies” such
“unwise, unintelligent” designers should be very likely to have faced along
such an extremely long span of time that should be sufficient to blast the
whole thing away! Yet it persists, and lives all the way to meet its final
chapter on the hands of this “lucky” species: The species that finally grew up
to become a challenge!

Please my kind reader, revise these quotations and tell me that the professor
doesn‟t actually mean any of this, and that those meanings do not give a
reasonable man the model of an intelligent being (genes) that has those
particular attributes in doing what it does! And then tell me if this is not
what he means (and he will certainly argue that he doesn‟t mean it literally):
then what on Earth does he mean? And what kind of cheap wordplay is this?

I recall now what Christopher Hitchens once said about all religions having
a built-in code of global destruction and a longing to eternity, and to what is
there beyond this life! I ask him then, do you not long yourself to see this
system challenged; those genes tamed and controlled by man; and a new era
of human mastery above the entire universe where eternity is made here in
this world where people have finally vanquished death and decay, and it all

219


becomes a “paradise” once and for good, free from that “evil plan” that
Genes have plotted for their own favor? You know this is impossible
because the system is clearly built on decay and decomposition, on mortality
and death, yet you dream it nonetheless! Are you dreaming of the final
demise of mankind?

The myth – in this way –is too upsetting even for Dawkins‟ own ambitions!
He says the truth doesn‟t have to be “happy”! Well, I say if “the truth” to
him and his followers is all but a theory of biology in the end, and this
miserable fiction here is it; then why not make it a “happy” theory?

Even Greek mythology sounds far more convenient indeed; at least there‟s
some meaning into it! Can‟t you think of any more “hopeful” ending? Like
for examples, the coming of a “half-man, half-gene” mutation (a man who
can control genes?) that leads Earth to salvation from this “selfish” plan that
runs it? Or maybe a good alien society comes to take over Earth, and rid
mankind from those evil genes by means of some fancy super technology,
and turn our planet into a utopia? Or perhaps, the genes themselves would
quarrel, and some of them would turn into “good genes” and start favoring
man in his struggle against the “selfish”” ones? Wouldn‟t that be something?
How about that for a happy ending? Nothing is easier than writing fiction,
indeed!

Man cannot escape the necessity of answering the question: “Why”, “what‟s
the meaning of life?” “What is it for?” “Who brought me into it and why?”
Obviously man cannot avoid the recognition of his being so privileged in
this world for something, for some job, some correspondingly privileged
purpose that does indeed demand the wise use of this mind, and of those
skills that no other species on Earth possesses! However, as a materialist
atheist, he finds himself incapable of explaining this fact! So for a Darwinist,
who believes not in a deity or in the afterlife, Dawkins here is trying –
blindly - to assume the position of a priest and fill the gap that only religious
knowledge (be it true or false) – or manmade philosophy – is naturally used
to fill! He‟s writing his own “scripture” now; his own prophecy; yet he – so
easily – calls it “science”! You now have some alternate “deity” (Genes),
attributes to it (selfishness, ruthlessness, evil … etc.), a prophet (Darwin), a

220


holy book (“Origin of species”, along with “the selfish genes” maybe?), a
purpose (upsetting the Genes‟ plans, and rebelling against their blind
control), and a system of morals (self indulgence and self-fulfillment by
doing instinctively good deeds)! What more of a religion do you want? So
let go of whatever faith you ever had, and take this one instead, if you wish
to join the league of the elites of “science”!

―Our genes may instruct us to be selfish, but we are not necessarily
compelled to obey them all our lives.‖ (ibid, p. 15)

Well we certainly should not build them a temple (or use some Darwinian
labs!) like some worshippers of “Genes” may yearn to do, and rank you high
priest there! However, whatever you do, be warned, people… Do not upset
the almighty “Genes” or they will give you mutated disfigured children! Or
maybe not! It appears they created us only to rebel against them! It‟s much
more self-gratifying this way, isn‟t it?! After all, what “fun” would there be
in blind submission to blind genes?

They made us only to reproduce for their favor, and we enjoy the ability to
choose not to! They designed us to be limited by their own selfish will for
their own progress, and we are working on challenging them and
manipulating the human genome at our free will! They limited us by aging
and decay, but we are on our way to upset the “death” phenomenon itself
once and for all!

How glorious indeed!

I can hardly keep from laughing!

And in his sheer pride, he thinks he has effectively ridiculed all religious
deities and cults!

Yes of course he does not take those meanings seriously, but that‟s exactly
my point here! No matter what he does, he cannot escape the ascription
of deeds and attributes to a willful creator!

I challenge the professor to attempt to rewrite such phrases as the ones I
quoted here without the use of such words, and to rename that book without

221


the use of the attribute “Selfish” altogether. Well, he has no possible way of
doing this! He cannot convey the meaning he wishes to deliver to us in any
other words! The core argument and the very purpose of the book will be
destroyed if he keeps from using the word “Selfish”!

The process – in order to be called a process to begin with - must have a
planner, a purposeful and willful planner that knows what he‟s doing and for
what end, an agent to which attributes that are similar in meaning – and in
meaning only - to human attributes, are to be ascribed by necessity of
language and reason! That designer and His will, define our very purpose
and the meaning of our existence in this world!

There‟s no escaping that! The very title “the Selfish Genes” proves just this!
This title is obviously not science, and the subject matter of the book is
definitely not a question that a Biologist could answer at any level of
validity!

What he does in that book is not falsify this fact, he‟s actually making it
much clearer than he could possibly imagine; and in a pathetic way I should
add! It‟s like saying: If there must be a purposeful creator, from whose will
we obtain the meaning and purpose of our lives, and if those meanings are
indeed inescapable to the human notion; then why call this “creator” those
names you call “it”, and give “it” those attributes you believe in? There‟s no
need to think of it as the truth “out there”; it‟s all “in here”! Take this story
instead! The story of the “Selfish Genes”! See if it works for you!

I need not quote anything more from that book (The selfish genes); for I
don‟t think he would have much left of a tongue to “bite” on if I did!

Again I know he will argue that this is only a metaphor, a figure of speech,
and that he does not mean to ascribe any “attributes” in the sense that
religions do to God! However, how can we believe him when the core
meaning and belief that the book presents is a particular ‗plan for an end‘,
that genes have supposedly been running in natural life ever since the living
cell originated, one that is clearly much bigger than being the mere code of
copying and keeping of characteristics of different species? The book speaks
of a role that is far bigger than the fact that general traits of a certain species

222


do propagate from one generation to the next via the genes! The message of
the book is a clear “selfish plan”, one that has been maintained over millions
of years by those genes!

What are genes anyway? Those genes in my body are in reality nothing but a
complex composition of molecules that came to be part of my body through
nutrition and respiration in addition to heritance! Every cell that is born in
our bodies emerges with an exact copy of the gene code making up its
genes; genes are not external to this process; they are parts of it! They do
not copy themselves; they are copied by an external agent! Are we
supposed to believe now that genes are selfish agents that have been running
the entire process of natural life for a selfish end? Sure enough this is not
what Dawkins believes! So why does he have to write such a book?

If there‟s an ongoing will or plan that has been keeping the system all
along – and there quite obviously is – then it certainly comes from an
external source to those molecules and cells and the way they are made
to run!

But that‟s exactly what Dawkins strives to deny, isn‟t it?! Thus there has to
be “a selfish gene” story; a religious myth furnished with the constant
reminder that design is not design, selection is not done by a selector, the
genes are dead matter with no will and though they act selfishly, they really
don‟t act at all and cannot be selfish… etc.!

Just look at the words he keeps using over and over, building his entire
belief upon them! Not only is there a planner; but a selfish ruthless one as
well! The genes in Dawkins‟ new religion are not programs made for a
particular purpose; they are both the program and the programmer,
simultaneously! A blind, selfish one for that matter, according to his own
words!

The point is, no matter how hard he tries to fight it, the rationally necessary
and natural human conclusion of a willful purposeful powerful “doer”,
creator and sustainer beyond this process cannot be escaped! And this is
exactly why no matter how hard he tries; he will never manage to escape the
use of such words! He will never manage to escape the necessary ascription

223


of what he may call “human-like” attributes! It‟s against the very way our
minds, our tongues and our very souls are built, to think of it in any other
way!

Now, look at the title “Climbing Mount Improbable”! One can‟t help but
wonder: Who‟s climbing? Is this not a purpose? Is this not a “deed”, by a
willful, determinate doer, aiming at an end that could not be – by any code
of proper reason – viewed as anything but part of a previous willful plan, or
a long maintained program of some sort, one that in itself has to be
“designed” and coded?

We cannot help but respond in such a way, not because we are delusional!
Not because we see things, or do not sleep well, or suffer from some
psychopathic symptoms! But because this nonsense is so profoundly false
and irrational that one doesn‟t really know where to begin to refute it!

In that “Christmas lecture” cited above, Dawkins speaks of what he calls
“simple” objects, to which he gives the example of a piece of rock or crystal!
By that he makes it a statement of knowledge and fact that those things are
in themselves and in their composition; simple! But what does he mean by
“simple”?! I ask him this because as soon as scientific examination tools
progress, things that were once thought to be simple, prove to be quite
complex indeed! Just look at the way the first historical model of the
structure of an atom was sketched, and look at what we know today about
the subatomic (mind-maze)! How silly and blind is a man who would speak
so blindly of the atom at the end of the nineteenth century and describe it as
“simple”?! He would look at the simple two-dimensional diagram sketched
at the time and say: “it is simple! There‟s a nucleus in the middle and a
circular orbit for electrons rotating around it! Where‟s the complexity in
that?” Well, he‟s right! There‟s no complexity in that! But is this what an
atom is like in reality? Far from it!

Yes of course a piece of crystal – note: a piece; split and cut off its original
system – is apparently far less “complex” than the subatomic structure, or
than any living being for that matter! But isn‟t it, in itself, made of atoms
and subatomic particles? If by simple they mean functionless or purposeless

224


or un-designed, as a statement of what this thing really is, not of what we
currently know about its structure; they are indeed fostering an arrogant
blindness as a belief in the name of science!

Thus it is clearly a far more fundamental problem with atheism and
Darwinism than the mere fact that they stand upon no evidence! It‟s a
problem with language itself; the problem actually is portrayed clearly in the
very name of the theory itself “Natural Selection”! Let us attempt to
understand the language in this term. If by natural you mean it is a selection
that occurs in nature, regardless of the power that “selects”, what it is and
where it is, I may find some space to discuss it with you.

However, Darwin and other atheists who preach his teachings – like the
good disciple “Dawkins” here - do not mean that! They precisely mean that
nature itself “did” or “performed” that selection, blindly and without any
will, purpose, plan, or external power! So by “natural” they do not refer to
the medium where the process takes place (which is nature), or the belief
that it is a phenomenon that is observable in nature (a natural phenomenon);
they rather refer to the agent that performs, runs, and maintains the process
of selection! They call it nature!

Selection in its very meaning is a purposeful act, or deed, one that no healthy
human mind can let go of the rational necessity of ascribing it to a “doer” of
some sort, one that is willful and purposeful! One who has a rule by which
to select! When you say this thing “was selected”, there is no rational escape
from the linguistic necessity of having an unmentioned actor here (as is the
case with every verb in the passive voice in almost all languages of the
world)! Something was done; it follows naturally, that it must have a doer,
an actor! That doer is responsible for doing this deed (selection) not once or
twice, but for keeping it up as a “method” all along those long billions of
years that Darwinians assign as a span for natural history! Now, by what
reason do they expect us to believe that beyond this amazingly consistent
and unbelievably resourceful plan there is no determination of external plan
and purpose; one that puts meaning into the very language they cannot avoid
using to describe it?

225


It may be more meaningful to replace (natural) with (blind) or (non-
selected). Indeed, in my view, “non-selected” is a term that draws the picture
perfectly! I mean by this term to say: Selection did take place, but things
were actually “not selected” by anything at all! There was selection, but
there was no “selector”! Isn‟t this what Darwin believes? Yes it is! (select-
oid species or traits) may also do the job! After all, if there is no willful
purposeful power that made the selection according to an inclusive plan that
gives the process its very linguistic meaning, then living things were not
actually “selected” but only appear as though they were! Just as it is the case
in Dawkins‟ coinage (Designoid) here! And if we allowed for things to
appear as though they were created, then why shouldn‟t we allow for them
to appear as though they were “selected”, when in fact there is no
“selection” at all?

Well, it is not “natural” selection then; it is more like: “non-selected
selection”! An undone deed! Something that is, and is not, both at the same
time! To put it in mathematical terms, this is just like saying: 0 = 1

So, in a nutshell we may argue that just like Christians believe that God is
both three, and one at the same time (3 =1)… Darwinians believe that Living
beings are both designed, and not designed at the same time (1 = 0)! Nature
both did and did not perform or maintain “selection”, at the same time! One
can also put it this way; they believe the creator (genes) to have both
(designed) and (not designed) natural life, simultaneously! And while all
false and corrupted religions build upon such fallacies of reason and
language in some of their basic tenets, the Darwinian “religion” commits the
worst of them all! Their radical abuse of language and reason should easily
place them at the top of the list!

I can easily coin a term (trin-oid) or (three-oid God) to express what
Christians believe about the deity; that though it may appear to be three
gods, it is actually all but one! Now, why should we view this fallacy to be
any more irrational than the Dawkins‟ (Designoid objects)? In terms of
language and reason - not in terms of the particular meaning in both faiths -
it‟s virtually the same trick! Actually, I don‟t need to coin any (-oid) term!
There is indeed a term that does this exact job in Christian theology! It is:

226


triune! “Triune” means both (three and one; “tri” and “une”) at the same
time! (i.e. 3=1)! What kind of a meaning is this: Something that is both three
things and one thing at the same time? A fundamentally false meaning!

It is said that the term Triune was first injected in Christian theology by
Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 160-225) the early church theologian. He did
that in an attempt to make room for this corrupt meaning in language! It is
an attempt to forge a new word for a meaning that is utterly false and
irrational! And here, we have the exact same attempt in the twentieth
century; however it is only played by a scientist this time rather than a
priest!

So is Dawkins the “Tertullian” of Darwinism? Obviously so!

―Sometimes the language of information theory is used: the
Darwinian is challenged to explain the source of all the information
in living matter, in the technical sense of information content as a
measure of improbability or 'surprise value'.‖ (The God Delusion,
p.114)

I say: yes, they are challenged by that indeed! Matter is controlled and
governed by laws that have to be forced upon it, continually, by an external
source, and with a lot of information that cannot originate from matter itself,
because obviously, X cannot have created X, and set the rules that define the
very nature and behavior of X!

Two pebbles on a table should remain just that: Two pebbles on a table, with
nothing at all to relate them, other than being “placed” on a table; they are
liable to any external effect of any kind! But if you held them in your hand,
and placed them in a box; a relation would then be defined; new information
is added as a system, one that did not come from them, but from the agent
working from outside. A system is now defined for them; the system of
being two pebbles in a closed box (instead of two pebbles on a table)! The
definition (the information) did not originate from the pebbles but from an
intelligent purposeful agent who created the medium and the governing laws
of the system: (the box, and the enclosure within it)!

227


Had there been no external agent to „do‘ anything, or to place any medium
or system or laws, could we‟ve ever come to say that there is anything at all
that relates those two pebbles to each other? That‟s the point! “Accident” –
according to the atheist definition of chance - does not generate information;
not the information that would define a system along with all its governing
rules!

Two atoms in space will never react ‗by chance‘; much less create a system
of order that would continue to be self- maintained by a set of laws and rules
for “millions” of years, unless there is a previously prepared medium and
“plan” for this particular purpose!

We will further iterate on this meaning later on!

Quote:

―However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by
invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as
improbable‖

Again, the same redundant “regress” objection, but in a rather „scientific‘
terminology! First of all, when we speak of a creator we‟re not “seeking to
explain” anything! We‟re only stating a rational necessity; one that
everything in existence proves and demonstrates! As for studying physical
causes of certain natural phenomena in a way that helps making use of those
phenomena for man‟s welfare; this is by no means hindered or stalled by the
belief in the creator beyond; and the queries posed, and the hypotheses tested
by scientists in this regard and for this end, have nothing to do with this
belief! So the statement “seek to explain by invoking a designer” is
fundamentally irrelevant to the subject matter! This confusion in fact comes
from the use of the word “explain” itself, and the nature of the query of
research that it expresses. It‟s another problem with the use of scientific
terminology that has to be addressed inclusively.

228


What “explanation” … ?!

Atheists would so commonly raise the “complaint” that believers in a creator
do not “explain” anything, and that they only manage to escape the question
by saying: This is the work of God!

The problem here is in the position they take for granted; the blind position
that any question they ask, is by necessity:

1 – plausible, reasonable, and legitimate

2 – has to be answered by nothing but observable material causes that are
analogous in every way to those we currently know and understand!

This position comes from a materialist philosophy, the foundations of which
are far more corrupt than those people think they know!

First of all, whoever said that I should accord myself and my answers with a
question that I know - and can easily prove – is entirely built on false
philosophy and corrupt reason? When you ask me to explain something that
is beyond the ability of the human mind to explain or imagine 18, and then
you come to blame me for resorting to an answer that invokes an agent at the
end of the regress the nature of which cannot be explained as well; this is not
a deficiency in my answer; it‟s in fact a fundamental problem with your
epistemic conception of the question in hand! If anything, it‟s not me who‟s
answering too little; it‟s you who is asking too much!

In the previous chapter we gave many examples of “rationally corrupt”
questions, like when a man asks: Can God Kill himself and stay alive? Or
Can God create a rock he cannot carry? … etc.! We explained that no
reasonable man has to do anything in response to such stupid questions but
prove to the one who asks them that they‟re rationally corrupt and cannot be
answered!

This is the point!

18
Reason necessitates that this act of creation cannot be analogized to anything we know or
have ever seen!

229


Your questions are not all by necessity rational, or wise, or at least, valuable
to human knowledge! So, let‟s examine the validity and rationality of the
query itself in the light of human capacity, and the powers of his tools of
observation and research, not to mention in the light of wisdom and ethics;
before we speak of whether or not this “explanation” or that is satisfactory
and reasonable as an answer to the question of origins!

I am not EXPLAINING anything when I say that the creator did it; I‟m only
saying that though I may not be capable of answering this question in detail,
I do know that it is by necessity part of the works of the creator, who is by
necessity, external and cannot be analogized to any part of the system that
He created!

The belief that there is nothing that man cannot do, or his mind cannot grasp,
is absolutely false, and is easily proven false by the mere examination of the
way the human mind itself works, and of the history of human knowledge
itself! The mere variance among human minds from “dead stupid” to
“genius” proves it! The very fact that we cannot solve two problems
(simultaneously) or think about two issues at the same time, proves it! The
fact that we do forget, err, get surprised, change our minds, regret, fear, and
so forth; proves it!

So what kind of an “explanation” is he talking about, and of what exactly?
Of the origins of natural life? What‟s the purpose of such a query? Is he, the
atheist, seeking to possess the ability to perhaps create another universe, or
to create natural life from dead matter in a lab? Nope! This is not the real
urge (although it is there in the hearts of some of them)! I say this, speaking
of what they call science not what they call “science fiction”; even though in
their blindly ambitious delusion they can hardly make any distinction
between what is rationally possible and what is not!

By seeking “explanation”, an atheist is simply trying to satisfy a humanly
inevitable need to know where he came from and where he is going! This is
the true urge and motive. But what does this have to do with how natural life
emerged on Earth? Whoever said that we the humans can or even need to
know how natural life emerged on Earth? We rather need to know who, or

230


what caused it to be, and essentially: WHY! This is the question that is
really definitive of who we are, what we are here for, and whatever awaits us
after death! And it is clear that we cannot make up an answer to that! We
have to obtain it from the only source it is to be obtained from; the evidently
authentic teachings of the creator Himself!

So not only do they lack the ability to answer the questions they‟re asking
and taking false routes to acquire an answer to; they don‟t even know the
right question to ask for that end, to begin with!

Origination of life is obviously a process that must have involved a
transformation that is external to our limited human ability to imagine! The
first transformation from a bunch of dead inanimate atoms, into a fully
functional initial living being (it has to start fully functional or else it will
not survive as a living thing to begin with!), is by necessity un-analogous to
anything we have ever seen! We have only seen species breeding from one
another! We have only seen elements of the system interacting! So whatever
does this interaction and the way it takes place, have to do with the process
that caused the system itself to originate! That process is clearly and
rationally unlike any process of creation or transformation we can mentally
grasp or imagine!

If the very core of the way science and statistical reasoning works (as a
device for obtaining knowledge), is analogy and abstract classification of
observable phenomena, then the limits of this device should easily be
recognized and observed! If something cannot – by its very ontological
definition - be analogized to anything we can possibly observe; then it is
only reasonable that it cannot be explained by applying this device of
obtaining knowledge! So what “explanation” are they asking for?

It‟s the same problem with the so called “big bang” theory! It is a shot at an
unachievable aim! We can never prove or even imagine the very first event
that brought about matter from nothingness, or that brought about this
universe as we see it, from another form of matter the likes of which we
have never seen! Why do they so arrogantly insist on putting the process in
the cast of something that can be analogized to currently observable and

231


testable phenomena of nature or physics? How can any reasonable man think
of the origin of matter itself, to have undergone a process that submits to the
very laws that govern the way that matter reacts with itself within this
system as it is?

How can I suppose that a car – for example – was created, by means of a
method that is analogous to the ways its engine starts, or its wheels run or its
doors open? If I were an AI software running inside a computer device, how
can I suppose that the computer itself was manufactured not in a factory but
in the memory of a bigger computer, as the output of some computer
software? This is nonsense! The way a certain system runs, is not the way
it was created, and the rules that were set by its creator to control it, do
not apply to that creator Himself! You cannot explain the origin of a
system by proposing a process that is only part of the way the system itself is
made to work! Reason denies this! Nevertheless; this is the kind of
“explanation” they so arrogantly seek to “obtain”, and charge believers in
the creator with “escaping” the “scientific method” in obtaining it! The
scientific method doesn‟t even begin to work in that area! You either come
up with some pathetic analogy between a currently observable phenomenon
of nature, and the way nature itself came to be, making that an “explanation”
for the origins of the universe (Abiogenesis: analogy to a bang – Evolution:
analogy to certain observable biological processes), or you have nothing at
all, and whatever you say is not plausible and not satisfactory!

My argument here goes far deeper than the “cat and mouse” game that
Christian “creationists” play with “evolutionists”! It‟s a question of the
purpose of knowledge examining the very objective of this form of science
itself! I‟m not examining the “answer” or “the explanation” here, I‟m
questioning the philosophical validity of the fundamental question itself, as a
query of science, and the ways atheists believe should lead to answering it!
Do not ask me to give you the „scientific‟ answer to a question that is in
itself rationally unanswerable or fruitless, or cannot be answered by the tools
of science (like the question: How did life originate on Earth), and when I
say I can only take knowledge about the origin of life from scripture and ask

232


for no more than I find there; you go charging religion with intolerance to
“science”!

Many atheists would automatically respond to any phenomenon that may not
at first glance appear to match any known explanation to them, by the
attitude of saying: “It must have some rational explanation”. Now, we do not
object to the meaning of this statement. Yes of course everything must have
a “rational explanation”, regardless of whether or not we can obtain it in the
present time. But what exactly is it that they mean by “rational”? You‟d
imagine that as scientists, they are open to all possibilities as long as they
could be proven by scholarly plausible evidence, be it empirical, historical,
or logical (/mathematical)! After all, this is what they claim science is all
about, right?! Well, actually they‟re not!

By rational and “scientific”, they only mean causes and phenomena that can
be observed or tested empirically, according to their current notion of what
natural causes are! Even though they do admit that much of what may today
qualify as “supernatural” will tomorrow be “natural”, they would so easily
dismiss any claims of a metaphysical agent, whatever that agent may be, as
though there is no way of proving the validity of a certain claim other than
direct observation and empirical testing (the scientific method)! They would
listen to you, only if your model of an answer sounds “falsifiable” according
to Popper‟s principle! Only if it is in the form of something they can
perceive, sense and examine empirically!

But is this, (direct observation), the only route to proving the validity of a
certain argument or a certain claim? Absolutely not! Direct observation is
only one form of evidence! There is also evidence from rational deduction
and induction, and there is evidence from reliable historical narration! In
fact, the two routes (the rational and the observational) to establishing
evidence, are so intertwined in the process of science that one cannot – by
any rational means – separate them!

How many men in history had an apple drop on their heads whilst resting
under a tree? Hundreds, perhaps even thousands! But only when Newton
thought it over and contemplated, a certain rational conclusion struck him;

233


one that turned this apple into evidence! It became evidence for a “physical
force” that was then called “gravity”, and is now a granted fact of nature!
Could Newton at the time “observe” gravity? Could anybody observe
gravity or perhaps bottle it in some container? No! So what was Newton‟s
method of proving the existence of a force that affected the apple and pulled
it to the ground? It was a rational method! It was a form of rational
evidence! This is how Newton proved the existence of “Gravity”! This
rational evidence became basis for countless empirical experiments,
deductions and accumulation of scientific evidence!

It has always been very clear that there is a universal power of some kind
that pulls everything to the ground! This was not Newton‟s “discovery”! It
wasn‟t anybody‟s discovery! However, only when somebody with the
quantifying mentality of a mathematician, eventually expressed that force in
a physical quantity, did it come to be called “Scientific” and “physical”! One
would so enthusiastically jump now and explain the universal pull of Earth –
and other planets and stars - to everything on its surface as gravity, and say
this is the “scientific explanation”!

Now we didn‟t see atheists reject this conclusion by Newton on the grounds
that it raised the immediate question of “what is gravity and where does it
come from?”! Does this “explanation” tell us anything about the exact nature
of this “force” or its actual source? Does it tell us what it‟s made of, or how
it really affects things the way it does? No! It is only a name for a physical
quantity; a scientific terminology, dubbed as a physical quantity for
calculating the magnitude, speed, acceleration, Work, energy, and other
observable “effects” of that force that we have always known existed! We
have never observed the real nature of that force itself, so our proof of it
remains to be no more than a rational proof, and our explanation remains to
be nothing but a pragmatic expression of how it affects our lives! From its
many quantifiable effects, we can tell it is there; it has to be there!

Now the question is; why do atheists deny an equally – actually far more -
rational process that we apply when we say for example that there is by
necessity a creator responsible for the existence of the universe and
everything inside it? Why do they refuse to call that an “explanation”? We

234


have never seen that creator, neither have they ever seen gravity! We have
only seen His observable deeds, just as we have only seen observable effects
of gravity! And we can rationally prove that He must be beyond human
analogy, and so we cannot seek to learn anything about Him through the
methods of science! Now do we have to claim the creator to be a “physical”
force working within the bounds of nature, and turn Him into a mathematical
quantity, or speak of Him as though He may one day be tested and observed,
so that they would view this reasoning as a satisfactory explanation?

Well, you cannot upset their dream of observing everything that can possibly
exist, and testing it in a lab! You cannot dare upset their dreams of becoming
gods in this universe, and obtaining complete knowledge of everything that
could possibly be known! This is why they are so persistent on making the
driving force responsible for running natural life; only a bunch of molecules
in the nuclei of living cells; namely, DNA! As irrational as it really is, this is
the only form of “explanation” they would approve of! This is the only kind
of claim that they would call “science”! Why? Because they just “hate” to
admit that the creator is out of reach of their test tubes, and will never be
submitted to their labs, and will never fall under their dominion! They would
contradict one of the basic foundations of human knowledge: (i.e. Deduction
through rational evidence), only because they couldn‟t possibly imagine that
someday all those tons of PHDs and books written on evolution and
Darwinism might be ridiculed and thrown in the trashcan of history!

Yes indeed this is where the problem really is! There are a huge number of
influential atheists in scientific academia in the west today, according to
whose beliefs and philosophies the meaning of what “Science” is and what
“a rational explanation” should be like, is defined! Anybody who wishes to
be anything among those people, should offer them only what they would
approve of and accept as “scientific”! Anybody who dares challenge the
foundations of their philosophies, the fundamental objectives and goals of
their lifetime works and publications, is simply doing something that is
pretty much like telling any follower of any religion: Your Faith is false; all
the way down to the core! This is why whatever that offender may say, and
whatever form of evidence he may offer, he will always be ridiculed and so

235


easily dubbed “pseudoscience”! A guaranteed “career killer” for any
academic researcher in natural sciences in the west, mind you!

When an archaeologist comes up with the discovery of some “mega-fauna”
fossil for example, or an “out of place” artifact, or the so called “Ancient
technology and anomalous findings” or a “giant skeleton of a man”, or so
forth, he is so easily dismissed as delusional, forger, or “conspiracy theorist”
at best! Now I could not care less whether such findings are indeed true or
just fabrications! Fossils are actually evidence for nothing at all dealing with
the question in hand! But in the light of the currently well known reputation
of evolutionists and their fabrication of many fossils of “hominids” from pig
teeth and ape remains, one would not dismiss the possibility of any “crime”
against human knowledge and scientific honesty from the fathers of the
“Church” of evolution!

In fact, one can hardly imagine that a young enthusiastic archaeologist or
paleontologist would choose to ridicule himself and destroy his career in
scientific academia by claiming to have found a finding that will have him
labeled “pseudo-scientist”! Of course, it is possible that he may think of
becoming a “creationist hero” of some sort, for those poor Christian
biologists who actually think that fossils may help their cause! But the point
is, no matter what anybody may find, it is only called “science” if it fits
somewhere within the academic mainstream; the current „religion‟ of
academia! People do want to get their degrees granted, and “evolve” in their
academic careers! This is why “Scientific academia” in the west (especially
in Europe) has indeed become a purely atheistic cult, in every sense of the
word! It is the shield beyond which that corrupt religious doctrine hides
itself today, and preaches its beliefs as “rational” and “scientific”!

This, my respectable reader, is the “Faith” that those people have inherited,
lived by and defended – and continue to do so - just as blindly as any
follower of any false faith… It is the philosophy according to which they
decide what qualifies as “science” or “explanation” and what doesn‟t!

In our experience with answering misconceptions about Islam, we have seen
clearly that it is really not because of a misunderstanding of a particular text

236


or a certain ruling that they charge their attacks! It is basically – as I explain
thoroughly in volume 2 - because they make judgments on those teachings
based on a fundamentally flawed foundation of moral philosophy, hence a
corrupt understanding of the problem that this ruling addresses! They look at
Islam through thick glasses of false philosophy and corrupt cultural
tradition! So easily would they say, for example, this teaching violates
“human rights”! Thus, it is a false corrupt teaching! End of story! When we
answer to such a delusion as the reader will see, we have to first address
what it is exactly that they view as rightful to all men, and according to what
wisdom and evidence they defined them as “rights” in the first place, and
what exactly it is that they know about this particular thing they claim that
Islam deprives “man” from his “right” to do! And at that, we start proving to
this denigrator that indeed it is his knowledge that he was brought up on in
his society as a cultural norm, and according to which he makes his
judgment; that is questionable and evidently corrupt!

This is why in Islam when we respond to misconceptions we do not call
those answers “apologetics” (and I seriously lament any translator who may
do so!)! Islam is not making “apology” or “defense”! It addresses the way its
offenders view life itself; proving to them how wrong a great deal of their
commonly accepted norms are, showing them that this is indeed the reason
why they may see healthy as sick, wealthy as poor, rational as irrational,
right as wrong, beautiful as ugly; and eventually: created as „designoid‟!

Just look at this statement here:

―A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the
easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and
teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity.‖
(Dawkins, p. 114)

Well, first of all, by what standard of rational examination of the questions
in hand, do we view “easy” in this context to mean “irrational”, “shallow”,
“poor” or “unscientific”? Yes it is easy, very easy indeed to say that the
creator is the first cause for everything that we observe around us, including
our very own selves! But does this make it irrational or untrue? Does this

237


make such an argument false? Since when was the simple and clearly easy
argument an unwelcome argument only because it‟s “easy”?

Atheists must understand that when we speak of those questions, we are not
“seeking alternatives” to “Chance”! Chance is not in the picture at all to
begin with! It cannot be there! Chance – according to the meaning that there
is no willful purposeful designer - is the exact opposite of order! It cannot
generate system; neither can system be ruled or governed by a law that
comes from it! Chance – as we elaborated earlier - is the meaning we use to
express something that is humanly unexpected or external to the way we
would plan things or envision them to be!

When a man throws dice, the numbers that will come out are – to him –
random – because quite simply he cannot think of any particular rule by
which he could achieve a determinate result or make a prediction of a
particular outcome at any level of certainty before he throws them! He
doesn‟t know why they gave out those particular values in this particular
throw! However, if one day - for the sake of the argument - all physical
factors that affect the way the die falls and rolls on the table, where
calculated carefully, including the physics of the way a specially designed
machine – mimicking the human hand - throws it, all in full detail, then the
numbers coming out will not be called random any more, will they? Once
you find out the rule; it‟s not random anymore; or at least we could say that
the (sample space) of all probable results of a particular throw will be shrunk
effectively!

You study the pattern, emerging from a set of causes plenty of which are no
longer unknown to you; hence you can make a prediction that is far more
likely to be correct! You will then know how to use certain methods to
obtain particular results with relative certainty that you once thought
unachievable!

The point is: Once you know it; it‟s not “random” anymore!

Chance & Random = You do not know yet!

238


Now when they claim that favorable mutations emerge at random, they are
applying the meaning of randomness – which is no more than a description
of a certain status of relative human knowledge – to the very system the
perfectness and orderliness of which defines the very meaning of natural law
and order in our human notion!

How do we know time? Had it not been for the perfectly steady motion in
the solar system, could we‟ve ever known time? How do we tell our
directions and orientations without the steadiness of star locations in the sky
above, and the constant order of magnetic polarity that defines the very way
a compass works? How do we know reality? Had it not been for the fact that
every time we open our eyes, as we look facing a certain direction we see a
logical sequence of progression of events, could we have perceived any
meaning for reality? How could we construct our buildings applying
mathematics of structure analysis without the ultimate steadiness of the law
of gravitation and the constant laws of molecular bonding in building
materials? What civilization could we ever create in these modern times, if it
were not for the steadiness and perfectness of the natural order of
electromagnetism and thermodynamics? How do we know any system of
our making is working properly without examining it under orderly laws of
this perfect system of nature? How do we “know” any order at all, had it not
been for the perfectness of this system itself that we apply for knowing and
comprehending?

It is this very system (nature and everything in it, animate and inanimate) the
system that gives the word order in our language its very meaning; that they
are so blindly trying to plague with their defiance and ignorance, and inject
“randomness” somewhere in its midst!

This clearly destroys the very meaning of natural law itself! There has
always been a limited man, reasoning through relative analogies (under
limits of the nature of his knowledge and perception), trying to discover the
wonders of this perfect order around him, as he proceeds reasoning those
features of perfect order around him as rigid “laws” that are constant and
perfectly stable! Whenever this limited man falls short of discovering the
governing rule beyond a particular phenomenon, he calls it “chance” only to

239


express his current incapability, and to propose perhaps a different method
of making use of that phenomenon (like probability statistics, or chaos
mathematics)! Imperfectness is only in the way by which he sees natural
phenomena and attempts to comprehend and model them, not in nature
itself! Today he knows little, tomorrow he knows more; it is his knowledge
that increases by accumulation, not the orderliness of an already perfect
system!

However, this is the philosophy upon which atheism builds its science! Self-
contradictory language, blind conception of “explanation” and false
application of statistical reasoning!

―Make no mistake now, the very thing that defines order in your life, is not
in fact as orderly as you think it may be! It‘s only ―Orderoid‖! There‘s
randomness underneath every aspect of it; you just need to read a little more
Darwinian literature, and you‘ll be there before you know it!‖

What the author fails to understand – or rather refuses to admit - is that even
this very claim that he holds that complexity increased gradually and slowly,
is itself in full and sheer contradiction with his understanding as much as
with any possible linguistic interpretation of the word “chance”! This is
because quite simply, without a previous determinate plan for complexity to
increase, and without a specially prepared and preserved medium for that
very purpose, and for the process to maintain and proceed as stable as such
along those billions of years they speak of (even along a few generations for
that matter), no “increase in complexity” could ever take place!

Every single achievement of natural sciences, every single natural law any
man has ever discovered or applied in technology and engineering for his
welfare, everything around him screams in his face with the word creation,
and yet he so blindly tries to push “randomness” into parts of it, only
because he cannot understand those parts! And he calls that an
“explanation”!

Now let‟s take a closer look at this “slowly increasing complexity” in the
Darwinian notion!

240


In the third lecture of the series „Growing up in the universe‟, Dawkins uses
a wooden model to explain how the “eye”, according to him, has evolved
gradually! Interesting enough, he starts by stating that the first “form” of an
eye that ever came about by random mutation, must have been no more than
a simple sheet that can only tell light from dark! One then has to wonder,
what use is this “eye” really? If he claims it may work in detecting a prey;
then this “eye” certainly can‟t help with that! If he claims it may do anything
in detecting a predator, then obviously a creature that can only see light and
dark, will never identify a predator from a prey from anything at all, and by
the time the shadow of a predator is detected by that poor pathetic “eye”, it
will obviously be too late to do anything about it!

They claim that the fact that we can still see such an eye in certain species in
nature today is evidence to support their story of the evolution of the eye!
This is sheer nonsense because obviously this species has always been
equipped with everything it needs for survival and it needs no more of an
eye than this! But can we – humans – for example, survive as a species for a
single generation in the wilderness with such an eye? Every single form of
“the eye” - or let‟s better say “the optic organ” - that we observe today in
nature exists in perfect accord with the exact function it is supposed to be
doing, in perfect accord with its particular place in nature, not a single bit
less or more! We‟ve never seen a single life form become extinct (or
endangered) because its “eyes” are not sufficient, have we? The perfect
equilibrium of all those living species is evidence enough! Now isn‟t it a pity
how some people would strive to argue the exact inverse of what every
healthy mind can only make out of this perfect balance in this vast variety of
perfectly configured life forms on Earth?

Do not believe your eyes folks! You‟re only tempted to see “design” in
“designoid” objects! You are all fooled! Time to raise your consciousness!

As I argued in an earlier section: in any given moment in time, if the
acquisition of a certain organ or genetic trait is a survival necessity, then any
offspring that comes out lacking it will hardly ever reproduce, not to
mention deliver a number of generations that could last long enough for a

241


favorable mutation to come along by pure chance, and save whatever
remains of that poor “species”!

It is amazing how they fail to realize the rational necessity of there being
some determinate pattern that must have always been there to guide the
claimed process of evolution, to – at least - guarantee that every time the
natural conditions of life in a certain locale (not to mention on a global
scale) would change, the desired corresponding genetic change would
appear in due time, before the entire system collapses!

Look at the theories they propose for the cause of extinction of the Dinosaur!
None of them – if you look deep enough – should allow in any way for
natural life to continue on Earth, without the necessity of there being a
collective system of balance that shifts and adjusts many parameters of
natural life on earth for that particular end: not only the continuity of natural
life but even its ongoing „evolution‟!

Genes are – like all other parts of the collective system of nature - blind
inanimate molecules that have no awareness of nature, of local ecosystems,
of food chains, or even of the very species the properties of which they are
made to preserve (they do not “select” anything)! So obviously this
necessary code of control cannot come from anything within natural life! All
systems of nature, animate and inanimate, are governed by stable laws, and
must point – because of the perfect order that binds the entire system
together - to a single controller that runs them all simultaneously and
harmoniously from outside (the end point of a similar regress to the regress
of causes)!

Yet, evolutionists insist on looking at living beings and the way they
emerged and survived on Earth, in separate from other systems of order that
constitute nature as a whole, and they seek to attribute a collectively
balanced system of order to a long line of random events that took place
among certain molecules that could not by any means have caused a system
to emerge, much less have anything to do with maintaining it! A part of the
system is no more than a part of the system, one that is controlled – like all
other parts - from outside by the very being from whence comes the

242


definition of the system itself! Darwinism so blindly seeks to dissolve that
perfect order and to arbitrarily inject randomness and chance into its delicate
joints, only for the sole end of denying the creator! This is the only kind of
“explanation” that they would call science! Either it starts off from
pathetically blind and empty beginnings, and advances gradually, like a
blind human may do with something of his own making in some lab or
factory; or it is too “improbable” for them to even consider!

That‟s why I find it quite fair to say that Darwinism in reality doesn‟t
remove the creator from the process; the human mind cannot afford to do
that; instead, it turns His role in nature into a mere initiator (a random
generator) of a long futile journey of blind try and error (namely: Natural
selection), or what Dawkins calls “the blind watchmaker”! Praised be His
almighty names! No matter how hard they try they will never deny the
undeniable! They will never escape a necessary creator!

It is necessary that there be some governing law that would adjust genetic
and demographic changes of different species to all natural conditions on
Earth, all so that the system survives and flourishes as such, no matter what.
How are we supposed to believe that in billions of years of age, every time
any change of climatic or natural conditions on Earth in general took place,
Darwinian “mechanisms” were always sufficient to keep the process
running, and even rising gradually all along the way? How many random
major events, in natural life or in nature itself may have easily emerged that
would be enough to devastate that unplanned unguided „progress‟ altogether,
and destroy natural life entirely, and what effect would a longer span of time
have on this “probability”?

It is absolutely amazing that they would still speak of the creator as
“improbable”!

It is in fact - applying their notion of “probability” for the sake of the
argument – a billion gazillion times more improbable that natural life may
have ended up today in this perfectness that we see and live, after such an
extremely long journey through the unknown, unplanned, unguided, and
basically random progression, than after a single masterful event of

243


purposeful creation! Please revise my discussion of the Boeing 747 example
in the first section of this Chapter, and then answer this question: How likely
is it that in billions of years of time, not for once did it ever happen that any
random event of nature – cosmic, seismic, climatic, nuclear, magnetic,
meteoritic, geologic or whatever - was sufficient in magnitude to blow the
whole thing off altogether? How likely is it that for billions of years not a
single cosmic event that could cause even the slightest shift in any of the
values of physical constants beyond the range that allows for life to progress
and continue on Earth (thus causing all natural life to fail) ever occurred?

Every time any event at any scale happened anywhere, life always „found‘ a
way; it survived and continued amazingly nonetheless, not only so, but even
continued to “evolve” globally (according to Darwinism)! Never did it
happen that the long awaited “favorable random mutation” that would
enable every species to continue its survival “purpose” in accordance with
natural changes (at least climatic), failed to emerge “randomly” before the
point where the entire system crashes down! And in billions of years, such
has always been the case! All this, and they believe “creation” is highly
improbable!

It‟s interesting how Dawkins in his lectures emphasizes on the meaning that
we are extremely lucky to be here, far more so than we can imagine! Little
does he realize that in doing so, he is actually rendering the Darwinian story
far more “improbable” – by his own terminology - than the story of creation!

What lesson have we learnt from nature, if not perfectness of balance and
overall equilibrium? Did this balance also come about by chance, out of
natural selection? This is impossible! The system cannot start without that
balance already conditioned for it! Construction of new subsystems balances
the decay of old ones; action balances reaction, positive balances negative,
the intake of new molecules from the ecosystem balances the release of old
molecules into it, death rates – for whatever cause death may be – balance
the birth rates, and so on! It‟s a universal constant in all nature, one that
keeps natural life from failure! Had there ever been an insufficient amount
of Oxygen or Hydrogen – for example - in the atmosphere, at any point in
the history of natural life, all life would‟ve failed! What could possibly

244


guarantee – in a universe that has no sustainer or keeper - that this collective
universal balance doesn‟t dwindle throughout those billions of years? No
matter what changes, cosmic events, or catastrophes may take place at any
given moment, the universal balance is always maintained in favor of natural
life! In their sickening close-mindedness, Darwinians look at natural life as
though it has always been evolving in a test tube, or inside a lab; they cannot
realize – or they deliberately neglect - the way the entire universe has to be
kept all along history in its favor!

Nowhere in the system could there possibly be any room for “chance” – as
opposed to determinate order!

If – again - they wish to speak in terms of probability then let me ask them
this: How probable is it, that the system of natural life would remain stable –
stable enough not to fail and perish – all along those millions of years, under
effect of all hazards, sudden and gradual (unfavorable) changes in the
environment, and devastating natural catastrophes of all sorts, with a
survival program that is based entirely on the survival and pervasion of
favorable mutations that come about by nothing but pure chance (assuming
that mutations could ever ADD new organs!)? How likely is it that there
would always be a collectively successful process of natural selection that
keeps the system intact all the way through, no matter what, when there is no
external guiding factors of any sort? And if it ever did happen that the whole
thing came apart and life actually perished entirely on earth (which should
be quite likely), then how likely is it that it would start all over again,
starting from that miserable pool of floating proteins?

So obviously, excessively long spans of time are not helping them with their
claim of higher probability for evolution by natural selection the way they
think it does! If anything at all, it only makes this mythical scenario of theirs
far more “unlikely” and “improbable”! Millions of times more “improbable”
than the sudden leap that Dawkins proposed the parable of “mount probable”
only in attempt to avoid!

After all, to speak their own language, a single successful act of creation
is far more likely (probable) to have started off this perfect system, than

245


a series of millions of perfectly favorable and collectively orchestrated
and naturally balanced and synchronized events of chance, that are –
according to them – neither controlled, nor guided by anything but the
“success” of those who manage to reproduce… !

How “probable” is it that natural life would always – in a collective global
scale – keep proceeding up the metaphorical mountain, with no rule at all to
guarantee any orderly control of the essential balance between natural life as
a whole and the surrounding environment?

To further elaborate the falsity of their rationale of improbability even in the
way they apply it, in a world that is free from any previous plan or deliberate
conditioning for the sake of natural life (i.e. it just so happened by pure
chance that the universe was perfectly prepared for it), it is said that it‟s
probable that favorable chance events come along and add to the score of
natural life, gradually. Thus I wonder: is it not supposed to be far more
probable and commonplace that destructive and devastative chance events
would come along to wipe out all natural life and disrupt any accumulation
that may have taken place of anything at all? Isn‟t this what we should
expect from analogy to other celestial bodies roaming everywhere around us
in the outer space? I mean there‟s obviously an infinite number of possible
events the least of which not only could exterminate life on Earth, but also
leave it without any chance for reappearance! So when they hold that with
more time, the probability of more positive chance events would rise, I say
that on the other hand, the probability of more negative chance events to
take place should also rise, orders of magnitude higher, considering the
number of variables included in the process. Thus, as previously argued, it is
infinitely improbable that natural life would start to emerge on Earth, and
start its evolution, and after some cosmic event wipes it all out, it starts over
again! By what sense could they possibly estimate the story of a single act of
creation - or any story at all for that matter - to be more improbable than
this?

The balance is clearly so sensitive that everything has to be accounted for, in
perfect precision! So by what reason are we supposed to accept the injection
of “random events” at any point there?

246


Here‟s another challenge to Darwinians: How do you explain the evolution
of the so called “Food chain”? It is clear that for a species to be herbivorous
is far less dangerous, less tiresome, less energy consuming and much easier
in acquiring the prey than being a carnivore! There‟s an economic argument
to be made here! Chasing a running prey is obviously much more difficult
and energy consuming than feeding from a tree or from grass, and animals
all tend – by nature - to reduce their efforts and spend more time in their
territories and with their mates! In fact it could be argued that this would
give them higher chances of reproducing (which is what natural selection
favors)! So why didn‟t natural selection make all species into herbivores?

And without an initially balanced proportion between birth rates and death
rates due to the relation between predator and prey, how could any food
chain emerge at all, from a previous state where there is none? And if all this
doesn‟t mean the necessity of previous initial conditioning and stabilization,
then what does it mean?

One of the examples Dawkins used in one of his lectures was the key lock.
He said that if nature is the lock, then the species doesn‟t always have to be
the key, the perfect key, in order to open it! It may do for some time as half a
key! Now I cannot imagine how he could possibly grant such an example
any degree of reasonability! He couldn‟t possibly do better, shooting himself
in the foot! The lock is either open, or it is closed! Half open is no good for
anything, because quite simply, it is not open! Same goes for half closed! A
lock either blocks entry – which is what it‟s made for – or it doesn‟t! There‟s
no such a thing as a half lock! Equally, a half key is good for nothing! If its
job is to open the lock, and it‟s not doing it, then it‟s not the key for this
lock! Period!

The purpose of the key is not at all to be achieved by anything but the right
key! Same goes for the exact purpose of an eye! Seeing only light and dark
is not at all the purpose of the eye as we use it! I really can‟t imagine how
Dawkins would bring along the example of the key and the lock to triumph
for Darwinism! What was he thinking?

247


Where does any criterion of evaluation come from, according to which
natural selection “selects” only what is best and what keeps the system
balanced at every single twist or turn, without ever running a risk of having
the entire system collapse? Without an agent that is perfectly aware of the
implications of breeding this and breeding that, of the essential balance –
that has to be kept stable all along - between birth rates and death rates in
every species, as part of the entire equilibrium of natural life and food
chains, balancing species with each other, and with the resources of nature,
water cycles, plantation cycles, environmental conditions and so forth, how
is it even remotely possible for such a system to proceed from one lesser
state to a more evolved one, not to mention this evolution be the outcome of
a long chain of “chance events”?

If it was all a question of random mutations, then they clearly overlook the
fact that mutations as we know them, emerge within an already established
species; species that did survive long enough to become a species in the first
place! I will leave aside for now the fact that never have we witnessed any
mutation that “adds” up new data to the DNA of an animal; only loss and
damage! Even if we presumed the possibility of a positive mutation, an
animal that is born lacking in terms of survival equipment will never live
long enough to breed and speciate to begin with, much less have a chance to
“evolve” by means of such a mutation! After all, only the right key will open
the lock!

If at a certain point in time, survival without an eye was not possible for a
certain species that did not have one, then there‟s no way it could evolve into
having one! If without an eye this animal cannot survive, then forget about
mutations; there will be no chance for it to even breed to begin with! It will
not even be capable of identifying its mate!

A key either works or it doesn‟t! Yes it may be broken or unrefined, and it
may not be working properly because of that! However it is not a key – by
definition and by manufacture – if it cannot open the lock! If it does, then
there is no “fitter” key to acquire for the particular purpose of opening the
lock! It simply fits! There‟d be no reason for natural selection not to “select”

248


it! So it should not perish, neither should it “evolve” for survival (because it
already works as it is)!

If however the lock is changed, then the key has to change correspondingly!
Otherwise, it will not fit; it will not work! It has to do that in proper
synchronization, because at any given moment of time, if not enough
members of the species do fit, then it will perish. This means that with
gradual change in the lock, a corresponding gradual change in the key has to
take place! This gradation can never happen through random mutations!
Random is contrary to pattern, and gradation is a steady pattern; one that is
posed by the necessity of continuous equilibrium!

According to the model of natural selection, animals in changing locale
conditions (the lock) should start perishing out, as the gap of adaptability
between the genetic makeup of the species and the locale where it lives
increases, until all by pure chance, a lucky mutation comes along in a lucky
individual, and helps it fit!

Now let it be stated clearly that I‟m not denying any observable
phenomenon of genetic drift or change that we can currently observe, in
micro-biology or anywhere else! I‟m only stating the overwhelmingly
obvious: that those are purposeful changes (for adaptation and other
purposes) that are governed by strict external laws that have no room
whatsoever for “chance”! Every specimen or species that perishes is meant
to perish for the sake of – among other purposes – keeping the collective
balance and by effect of that very same law; not chance! So there couldn‟t –
by any proper stance of reason – be any evidence in genetic adaptation (for
example) for the silly scenario of Darwinian evolution!

Evolution means the random emergence of a trait that would turn a species
from unfit (failing) to fit (working). Adaptation on the other hand means
the genetic changes in a given species from X to Y, to cope with the
changes in natural conditions from A to B, in such that while X was only
fit with A, Y is only fit with B. Since it is clear that genes have no
awareness of the changes in natural conditions; then this process obviously
necessitates an external law to which genes are made to respond, kept by a

249


knowledgeable source that runs those synchronous changes within the frame
of time that would give the very meaning of adaptation. Without the
informed control of timing it is not to be called adaptation! Because if the
change happened earlier in the species than the ecological event that should
cause it, then it is not its cause, and at that point, the species would move
from X to Y still under conditions A, which may render it unfit! So that‟s
not adaptation! 19 And on the other hand if the change from X to Y came to
pass more than two generations later than the change from A to B, then it‟s
too late because such as it is, X is not fit to B (which is the reason why
adaptation is necessary), so it will become extinct! End of story! Thus we
can see that every time we observe that an adaptive change has taken place,
we have to admit the necessity of the synchronization of genetic change;
which is the meaning that clearly leaves no room for chance whatsoever!

Now applying the Darwinian conception of probability I can argue that if
indeed adaptation only took place by chance (random mutations), then it is
supposed to be far more improbable to take place in time than otherwise!
But that‟s clearly not what we observe in natural life! Adaptation is a
tracking process that happens in nature in almost all living species, so
frequently and so perfectly that there can be no doubt in the perfect
synchronization of which I speak! How often, on the other hand, do we see a
species become extinct due to failure in performing the change before it‟s
too late?

So clearly the claim that chance is involved somehow in this intricate
process is sheer blindness!

Adaptive genetic changes to a certain species have to be governed by a
stable rule that goes in perfect accordance with changes in the natural locale
and in all chains of which this particular species is a part! It cannot be
escaped! So what‟s the meaning, really, of fighting the windmills in such a
pathetic way, all for the sake of placing randomness and chance anywhere
within what is clearly the ultimate example of perfectness of order and
19
This is why the term “pre-adaptation” is a misnomer. Those species that seem to get their
genes fitted to condition B when still living in condition A, are by necessity suited to both
conditions, otherwise they would perish under effect of condition A before the change to condition
B takes place.

250


balance, unmatched by anything that could qualify as „system‟ in human
notion?!

It‟s the inclination of a blind heart that hates to admit the clearest fact of all!

Why is Quantum mechanics so incomprehensible and so stupefying?
Because it runs in ways that our minds find impossible? Because there‟s
chaos down there and things that are not supposed to be happening in order
for the world around us to be as steady and orderly as we see it? This is
nonsense! It is hard to understand and grasp because it comes at a level of
causes that we humans do not yet have the sufficient power of grasping,
tracing or predicting, not because there‟s chaos or things that are rationally
impossible happening down there! We do not yet know how things run at
that level, but this doesn‟t mean that impossible things happen there!
Impossible things never happen anywhere; that‟s one of the alphabets of
our human reason, and if we‟re going to get it compromised, then we‟d
better forget about Quantum physics, mathematics, and science altogether!

The way we currently observe the Quantum world proves – if anything at all
– that whatever we may currently view to be chaotic or unpredictable, or
does not follow the rules of our logic; is by necessity of reason uniform and
steady all the same, and is by necessity of reason not without binding laws
that have no room for chance or chaos, quite simply because the way things
run „down there‟, determines the way we see the world around us „up here‟,
as it is! This is not another world! This is by definition a subsystem in this
very system that we observe and live in! So the fact that we are currently
incapable of modeling it or dealing with it in any way other than probability;
is only a sign for our human limitedness, not the existence of nonsensical
elements of randomness and chance underneath this perfectly consistent
world that we observe! Have you people learnt nothing at all from your long
history with scientific knowledge? No tower could possibly stand on
footings made of sponge and toilet paper!

This is the Darwinian case with already existing species that “evolve”!

But what about the point when there were no “species” at all of any kind,
except for a bunch of proteins and amino-acids, hanging loose in some lake

251


(the primordial soup)? Is this not the actual point of “origins” that
Darwinians seek to answer and prove that the existence of a creator is not
necessary for the origination of natural life? I ask, in a pool of aimless
molecules, proteins and dead matter, whatever could force those molecules
into reacting to become a living thing? Where did the factor that we call
“life” itself come from in the equation? I would imagine them reacting –
supposing the necessary conditions and binding forces came about by
chance – to result in yet another inanimate compound of some sort! But what
about “life”! What is it and where does it come from? How did it come to
be?

The point I‟m simply making here is that: The problem of how exactly life
emerged on Earth is not our problem to solve! We cannot figure it out, and
we clearly do not need to! It‟s the purposeful creation of a supreme creator,
in an act that cannot be analogized to anything we ever saw in this universe,
and the only authority of knowledge that could be accepted on what exactly
happened there is the revelation of that creator Himself!

End of story!

The very objective or purpose of this “science” is false! Look at Miller when
he attempted at creating life from primary proteins in his lab, attempting
what the poor man thought would be a simulation of the way life came to be
on Earth! Had this man embraced heavenly wisdom and truth before he did
what he did, he would have never designed such a ridiculous experiment for
such a blind uninformed purpose! Why? Because he‟d then have a solid
scholarly argument against such a purpose for research! But he didn‟t, so
what was he thinking really? What was his aim? To perhaps unravel the
secret of life and death, and offer eternity to mankind? To obtain the power
to bring back the dead and to stop people from dying? Is he so narrow
minded that he fails to see what cataclysmic results the mere acquisition of
such knowledge to man – supposing for the sake of the argument that this is
possible - would yield? Is he so blind that he cannot see how essential for the
balance of the universe that life and death remain in perfect collective
equilibrium the way it is and how that immortality is clearly not a state of
being that could be introduced to any part of this system within which we

252


live? Is he so blind to see the consequences of such a childish approach to
science?

Yes, unfortunately he was!

Any man who believes human knowledge cannot be limited, and that
mankind will one day obtain “infinite” knowledge, is a blind man! He knows
it is limited, he knows it has to be so by pure and simple reason, but he
refuses to admit it! He just hates the idea! It is the blindness of arrogance
and sickness of the heart! Now am I, by holding such a position, stagnating
or sterilizing the “glory” of science? Am I killing the flame or the passion
that drives it? When I admit my limits, my very rational limits as a man,
hence placing marks on the road of science that tell us which way is the right
way to go next, and what goals and objectives are the right ones to claim in
science, am I killing the passion or the ambition within scientists that drives
them to search? Well if this is indeed the case, then it‟s not my fault that so
many scientists have been fueled by wrong ends and ambitions to do what
they do, searching for answers in all the wrong places, or seeking answers to
questions that are wrong to begin with!

When I design an experiment, I do it for a purpose! I am trying to find an
answer to a question! Thus, it is only wise to make sure, before I start
pouring funding, resources and time into it, that this purpose in itself is
reasonable, rationally achievable and, of course; fruitful and justifiable! We
do not obtain the root purpose beneath science from science itself! The claim
that for example man descended from hominids, resulted in billions of
dollars poured into research labs where scientists aim at proving that an ape
may evolve the same form of human rationality! How did this claim come
about? The theoretical basis underneath this research: Is it plausible? Is it
reasonable enough to take down to the lab and attempt to prove it? What do
they expect now? Do they expect that if one day they managed to teach an
ape to perhaps recognize a few words of a human language, or imitate some
form of a human activity, one way or another, that this would prove that
apes may indeed evolve into men, or that they do in fact share ancestral
origins with them?

253


This is the problem! I‟m not by any means against designing experiments or
asking questions; no sane man could be! I‟m simply against the sheer
blindness and irrationality in defining a research query that is false at the
very theoretical root of it! And as long as atheists refuse to obtain wisdom
from the only source it should be obtained, and as long as they insist on
denying the undeniable; they will keep spinning blindly in those closed
circles forever!

They would continue to live on this wet dream: If being a god is being
omnipotent and omniscient, then why not work for the sake of becoming
gods? Why not turn mankind into a race of “gods”? A race of elite beings
who know everything and can do anything at all?

I cannot think of a more pathetic mind than one that really fails to realize the
rational evidence for the sheer stupidity and impossibility of this image they
dream of!

The way “life” emerged on Earth has to be unlike anything we have
seen or could ever observe! And to try to figure out the way this event
took place by studying certain chemical processes that run in living cells
or anywhere else: This is sheer blindness!

The very linguistic meaning of the word “evolution” and “evolve” is clear in
describing the process as a process of ongoing change from initially existing
life forms, to new life forms! It only tries to follow (animate matter →
animate matter) changes… That‟s all we ever saw of natural life actually!
So by what right or reason do they claim the ability to address the point
where no life forms existed at all, (which was the case before the initial
event that got the whole thing started) by means of this very same process of
logical inference? How do they attempt to address an event where the
change was (inanimate matter → the first animate matter)? Before there
was (animate matter) to evolve, there couldn‟t possibly be “evolution”!
This is ultimately out of reach of Darwin‟s theory, and any humanly
affordable theory for that matter!

254


An enthusiastic evolutionist would then jump at me saying: “But this
question has nothing to do with evolutionism or Darwin‟s theory in the first
place; it‟s another discipline of natural sciences called Abiogenesis!”!

Well yes that‟s true! But correct me if I‟m wrong; wasn‟t it Darwin who
suggested that life began in a ―warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia
and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein
compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex
changes‖? (Darwin, Francis, ed. 1887. The life and letters of Charles
Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray.
Volume 3. p. 18) wasn‟t it this suggestion that led to the Miller-Urey
experiment and Oparin‟s mythical “Soup”, and became the prevailing
thought in this field you mention: the Darwinian explanation of how the first
living being – the top of the proclaimed evolutionary ladder – came to be?
And more essentially, I ask the Darwinian: Do you not take it for a
personal belief, that science could one day simulate the way life emerged
on Early Earth? Do you not find the current mainstream belief of
Abiogenesis plausible?

So I don‟t care under what discipline of “science” this question goes! It is
part of an atheist‟s religion, and it‟s a pathetic myth all the same! A myth
that has to be put in its right place (in the trashcan alongside Mary Shelley‟s
„Frankenstein‟), once and for all!

Imagine a physicist who wakes up one day in the morning, runs fast to his
lab and cries: ―Eureka! Why didn‘t it ever occur to us before? If we could
somehow observe or model “nonexistence‖ in nature, and study its physical
properties; then we could definitely have some hope in finding a way in the
future to transform matter and energy from nonexistence to existence!
Perhaps I‘ll find a clue to this somewhere in the curvature of space-time! I
don‘t know… It‘s a long way to go for science of course, but somebody has
to take the first steps; and it‘s going to be me!‖

He‟s going to waste his lifetime trying to observe or model what we call
“nonexistence” as though it were some state of matter like the gaseous state

255


or something! So I ask my sane reader: What would you think of this poor
fellow?

Well that‟s exactly what I think of those who seek to create „life‟ in the lab,
or obtain (animate from inanimate)!

I wouldn‟t be surprised though that some imaginative physicists out there
may read this and say “Hey! Why not?”!

This is what atheism does to a healthy human mind!

Thereby I declare in no uncertain terms that a discipline that seeks to study
how inanimate matter turns into animate (namely: how dead matter comes
alive) is by all means an atheistic “cult” of pseudoscience! A delusion of
science!

Those biochemical reactions that those chemists play with, in their comic
attempt to figure out how life came to be, are reactions between chemicals
that continue to be there in the bodies of living species directly after they
die; the body of a dead animal clearly doesn‟t lose any of them in death, and
it‟s not because of this that it dies; so it couldn‟t be more obvious that those
chemicals have nothing to do with the actual agent that defines what life is;
the departure of which leaves an organism as a mere dead lump of organic
matter!

This is why it always remains a black nightmare in the heart of every
evolutionist; his realization that this theory he believes in so strongly, works
– according to his faith in it - only within the frame of a system that is
already started and prepared initially by means of a power that cannot be
explained by it! Evolution – by its very meaning - can only take place on
species that are already established as species, or on living beings that are
already living, in a – by necessity – already balanced system! But what
about a time before which there was nothing but inanimate matter? Is this
not the point that we really target when we pose the question of the origins
of life?

Abiogenesis, then, is nothing but the attempt to fulfill a Darwinian‟s dream!

256


Evolutionists would often say they do not accept the creator for an answer,
simply because it is an explanation that in itself “demands a bigger
explanation”! They‟d say: “the creator Himself must indeed be far more
“complex” than the system he is “proposed” to explain!” 20 But what about
the Abiogenetic explanation? What kind of an explanation do you aspire of
it to offer?

Miller actually failed to design an experiment that was supposed to prove to
the world that life emerged all by chance without any deliberate
preparations, medium restrictions, catalysis, or any form of previous design
whatsoever! Is this not a fundamental contradiction? He seeks to design
something he believes to be un-designed! So what on Earth was he trying to
simulate in the lab? He also forgot that he was seeking to simulate the
change from inanimate to animate, which is obviously a process that has
nothing to do with Chemistry!

So what “explanation” are they speaking of, and what “science” is this?!
What are they really after? Are they really seeking the truth, wherever it may
be (as clear and easy as it really is) and whatever its source may be, and are
willing to accept it as long as its evidence is made clear to them? Or is it just
the blind submission to a false philosophy of “science”, whose sole end is to
deny the undeniable, and challenge the unchallengeable?

In the end, it all goes down again to the ignorant position of philosophy: “I
will only believe in a God if it is something I can test in my lab!” A position
that is so arrogant and in deep contradiction with some of the most
fundamental rules of human reason and of the very way man obtains
knowledge!

20
It is by all means false to describe the creator in terms of complexity or simplicity because He is
by necessity unlike any creature in the universe! Complexity is how He created things: they are
composed of complex parts or elements, each of which is composed of parts, and so on; this is
how we study His creation, it is only the human way of examining it, and He is nothing like that!
He is not created!

257


Dawkins proceeds in his “Delusion”, and I quote:

―Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood that the
improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed, but they
couldn't imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all should feel,
deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design‖

(Delusion, p.114)

Now the only actual difference between atheistic philosophies before
Darwin, and those that came after Darwin, is the shiny cloak of “science”!
Not the idea of evolution itself, it‟s not Darwin‟s invention! It‟s the idea of
natural selection and random mutation that moved the debate from the halls
of philosophical academia and temple or church halls, to circles of natural
science and laboratories! But did Darwin actually prove anything? No, he
did not! He only made a proposition that was received so dearly and
wholeheartedly by atheists of his time, and was so faithfully turned into a
doctrine of „science‟! Darwin managed to offer to natural scientists a theory
that whispers in the ear of every contemporary atheist saying: “You‟re right!
Your faith in the metaphysical is the truth! There‟s nothing out there!
Someone has finally postulated a coherent hypothesis that puts God out of
the picture! It is legitimate science now! You can now be proud to be an
atheist, and walk with your head high!”

Dawkins knows that neither Darwin nor anybody that followed on his path
after him could ever actually prove anything that Darwin proposed to be a
refutation of the meaning of creation! So the highest bid he can really put
forth here is to say that Darwin‟s ideas made him “suspicious of the very
idea of design”, and that Darwin “raised his consciousness”!

Now if you ask me, I would say yes indeed, Darwin‟s theory altered an
atheist‟s consciousness! It gravely ravished his sense of reason and
language! And unfortunately, for the most of it, this is an irreparable
damage! What can any man do to cure a mind that looks at things and
believes, strongly, and on no rationally plausible basis whatsoever, that they
are simply not the way they appear to be? And if observation – the very core
of the scientific method – cannot be trusted, then what is the point in science

258


altogether? What can we possibly do to a man to convince him that this
thing underneath his feet, upon which he is standing, is indeed the Earth?

Go ahead professor; be suspicious of whatever you don‟t like! Even the very
meaning of truth itself, you will always find philosophers that have refuted it
and “delusioned” it, so to speak! Just let your mind “go” and whatever it
makes up for you, rest assured that you will find the works of some
philosopher somewhere on your bookshelf to back it up for you!

Natural selection as a consciousness ERASER

Under the subtitle “Natural selection as a consciousness raiser” I quote
Dawkins:

―'Unconscious' is exactly right. That is where consciousness-raising
comes in‖. (pp. 115)

I ask of every reasonable and sensible reader to notice how that after this
vacuous campaign of pseudo-philosophy that he waged against the concept
of “God” in the previous part, all that the professor can do now, is try to
convince you that there is something somewhere in your “subconscious”
level that has to be changed or “elevated” or perhaps “evolved” when you
listen to the great teachings of Darwin, in order for you to accept them! You
in fact may be getting convinced with Darwin‟s arguments, but
unfortunately, this is only taking place somewhere beyond your
consciousness; that‟s why you‟re somehow reluctant about it! So, you could
either try to raise your consciousness high enough to grasp it, or you could
just follow “the scientist” in your science class blindly and live on the hope
that one day you will have it all figured out!

As you proceed reading this part, you‟ll find that the point he actually makes
here can be portrayed with great fidelity in the thought that perhaps if you
wrote down, for example, the word “designoid objects” underneath the
images of a few animals and hanged them on a wall in your bedroom, then
perhaps with time, long enough, (not as long as the timeline of natural

259


history I hope!), your consciousness will eventually elevate (evolve) high
enough to grasp the Darwinist doctrine and accept it as it is!

So you see, the problem – as Dawkins teaches - is actually not with the
theory of “natural selection” itself, but rather with our poorly evolved,
(primitive if you may) and deceptive „consciousness‟ as human beings!
YOU, my respectable reader, are the problem!

It‟s the same age-old ruse of every preacher of „nonsense‟ and irrational
doctrine human history has ever known! „If you can‘t swallow it, then you
can rest assured that the problem is only with you!‘. He even seems to
mould this sham in a much more outrageous and offensive cast, justifying it
by means of evolution itself! You are now supposed to find justification for
this irrationality and logical incoherence characteristic of the basic tenets of
Darwinism, in the claim that we, humans, are only beginning to evolve
(rationally) to the level where we could fully accept the Darwinian creed! A
typical case of circular logic! An outrageous one for that matter! You can
only understand and appreciate the rational argumentation for Darwinism, if
your mind is sufficiently evolved according to Darwinism!

It‟s funny and interesting indeed how he mentions that the idea of conscious
raising struck him when he contemplated feminist ideas! Why is it, he
complains, that the English language is so inclined towards the use of the
word “man”, “mankind” and so forth in reference to the human race, and not
the word “woman”, although demographically there may indeed be more
women on earth than men? Why is it not called “womankind”?

Well, it only appears to be a very reasonable question to a mind that works
the way the professor‟s mind works! It appears to be a “consciousness
raiser” (to use his own terminology) only to someone who finds it
meaningful to wonder why it was called “history” rather than “herstory”! In
which case it should actually be “hertory” not “herstory” by the way, putting
“her” in place of “his”, given that even by his own confession, the part “his”
here has nothing to do with masculinity, but never mind that! It‟s to him a
problem with the English language anyway! (And in fact all human

260


languages, as it happens!) A problem that made the “man” and the “his”,
take dominion in such linguistic uses over the “woman” and the “her”!

It is of course nonsense to attack language itself in such a way, even though
it does not surprise me a single bit, for the entire faith of atheism (and
correspondingly Darwinism) is founded – as we discussed in detail earlier -
upon outrageous crimes against human language and reason! All humans
have agreed in a total consensus in all languages on Earth, ever since the
dawn of mankind, on using the masculine pronoun in almost every general
reference to the kind, or the race to which we belong, or the particular
communities to which they belong, and never before the “brilliant”
philosophy of feminism came to emerge, did anybody, male or female, think
of this as some sort of unjust gender discrimination or offense to women!

So why did they all accept it so easily, and never had any hard feelings about
it? Because they were all sexists, under influence – perhaps – of some sexist
religious doctrines or social orders? Absolutely not! It‟s because quite
simply, even from a strictly biological and physiological view, males are
equipped the way they are, physically and psychologically, to take over the
duty of building the community outside the home; to take the dominion over
the land and defend the territory, to enforce order and system, to enforce
justice and penalty – as a social necessity, using their naturally equipped
powers for the purpose, even in species other than human kind – and to act
as representatives of the tribe and the community. Whereas females on the
other hand are fully equipped for the other half of the job! The half that
should naturally be none but the female‟s job to do! The soft half! That is,
the job of the home, the children, and the establishment of the very
institution that males work on protecting and preserving: The home!

So males and females – in the natural order of things - complete one
another! They are two parts that complete one another, not compete with one
another in any one of the two clearly and naturally distinct fields of work for
the two distinct sexes! Each one of the two genders has its exclusively
natural job and specialty that has been recognized as such by all sane
humans ever since the dawn of mankind! The job of the male only happens
to be the one that takes territorial dominion and collective power. This is

261


why, quite simply, all languages use the masculine pronoun in reference to
the race itself, or to general duties or rights of people that are not exclusively
feminine! And at that, when the male pronoun is used, we naturally
understand that both males and females (both halves of the race) are
included (unless it is something that is exclusively for males, which is then
to be indicated in particular)!

This distinction of duties, my kind reader, in its abstract meaning, is not
“unjust discrimination”! It is not “Sexism”! It is nature! Healthy men are
always happy and satisfied to do a man‟s job, and healthy women – on the
other hand – are equally satisfied and fulfilled as they do a woman‟s job!
Not the other way round! Healthy women are always satisfied and fulfilled
instinctually as the females they are, as they feel the dominion of a strong
overpowering man upon them; the man they love and desire! No healthy
woman in her right senses would deny her natural need to feel contained
under the power of a strong man who protects her, fathers her babies and
becomes the only male holder of the keys to her female love and her sexual
intimacy! Women are made the way they are, to follow men and to find it
absolutely satisfactory, not the other way round!

So this terminology is the natural linguistic expression of a pure, unstained
human consciousness and understanding of the way nature works! It is the
way any healthy mind would think, and would apply language, with no
reservations whatsoever! It is the way humans are!

Now how do I know that? How do I see those purely rational and natural
meanings so clear? I do, not because I am a philosopher who has just come
up with those meanings as some theory of philosophy of his own making
that may be adopted by some and attacked by others, and eventually washed
away by the waters of time! I do because I have learnt wisdom from its only
pure and absolutely true source: The true teachings of the creator of man
Himself, the one who tells us why we are here; the one who knows best!

This is indeed the way every healthy mind should view the way men relate
to women in the body of the human kind! Pure, clear and simple!

262


However, there came a point in the modern history of the Western world,
when all givens of rational discourse were questioned and attacked! It was
the explosion of an oppressed mob that went out destroying everything in a
fit of rage! An onslaught and a rebel on everything that was inherited from
previous generations, based on nothing but anger! It was a blind rebellion;
yes it was a reaction to a false unjust authority, but it was an utterly blind
revolution all the same!

In the absence of the heavenly light of wisdom, and in vicious reaction to the
tyranny of a corrupt church domain, all forms of heritage were dismissed!
Even language itself was “deconstructed”! People felt that something was
wrong, and yes indeed, something was clearly wrong, in the order of society
ruled by the Church! However, this – by no means of reason whatsoever –
means that every meaning that is passed down through heritage in the
western world or anywhere else is false, or should be annihilated in favor of
experimenting “new ways of life”! This is the blindness and sheer loss of
those who know not! It is not to be turned into a standard for judging those
who do know or claim that they do!

Feminism is the embodiment of this ideological nothingness, this total
rebellion against everything that people of old used to think about a woman,
absolutely everything! It‟s like saying: ―Let‘s do away with everything that
our parents taught us, and let‘s do whatever we like! If what they made up
suited them, then let‘s make up something of our own that suits us better‖

It didn‟t quite matter at that point, that they didn‟t really know what other
path to take instead and what other social orders to establish in place of that
which they have chosen to abolish! There would always be “philosophers”
who would work to fill in the gaps! It‟s like saying: kill the enemy first, and
ask questions later! They would feel free at that point to try anything at all
and see what it does to them! Everything that people of old used to teach
them was to be placed is some museum box and displayed as “History”! In
the secular world of the west, nothing is sacred; nothing is binding or
obligatory anymore! “Who are they – those elders - to force us to live the
way they did?‖, they would say! Well; I couldn‟t agree more with the
wisdom in constantly questioning the authority that is sometimes given

263


blindly to teachings of old and inherited laws! However, I condemn the very
foundations of thought upon which those rebels founded their criticism and
their eclectic attitude towards it!

To come to the conclusion that none of those laws of old is binding, and
none of those stories or religions is anything but myth, and none of those
orders is anything but the frail making of a primitive mind… is sheer
extremism and blindness manifesting in an arbitrary reaction!

Based on what standards and laws did you make your judgment in the first
place? And whatever gives your own manmade laws the upper hand over
other equally manmade laws? Who gives you the right to even preach your
innovations in this respect as though they were the truth, the path and the
long awaited wisdom? Without an external reference that is unlike all others;
one that is evidently not manmade; you are left with nothing but human try
and error! Oh and what an error that would be!

You discover – after having done monumental damages to an entire human
nation – that a certain law of punishment in the system of law that you
devised for it was unfair, and that it caused more damage than cure, so what
do you do? Instead of accepting the evidently perfect source of ultimate
wisdom and justice that cannot be afforded by the limited mind of man
(namely heavenly revelation in the true law of the Lord) once you have it
revealed to you, you go on committing yet another similar crime, replacing
that false “justice” with your own experimental “justice”! 21

21
When people listen to the truth – the only reasonably and perfectly rational truth – about their Lord
preached by one of His prophets, and yet reject his teachings of wisdom and justice (which is by necessity
of definition: Ultimate justice) and insist on going on with their own manmade systems of justice and
morality, they are – by definition – doing themselves and their subjects injustice! But when they have not
listened to any of the Lord‟s prophets, and have not acquired a way to learn this ultimate wisdom, and they
had no choice but to try to figure it out on their own, they are not doing injustice to each other by agreeing
(the distinguished philosophers among them) to a system they call justice and committing to it, even though
in reality it may not be justice at all! This is necessary to note here so that the reader may not be mistaken
to believe that since Justice by its definition only comes from the Lord, then by letting some people die
without ever learning it from Him, He is doing them injustice! Absolutely not! He would only be doing
them injustice by not letting them listen to a prophet‟s message in their nation only if He were to trial them
in the afterlife for what rulings and judgments they made in this life according to their own minds in
acquiring justice and establishing it amongst them, but unlike what Mu‟tazilites believe, this is not the case!
The Quran makes it clear in many occasions that the Lord only punishes in the afterlife only after He has
sent a messenger (He punishes those who listen and reject)! So people of (Fatrah) – those who never
received any messengers – will not be judged in the afterlife for what they called justice, since they

264


Wisdom my kind reader is to say: let‘s examine the teachings of our parents,
and see what proves to be wise and just, and what proves to be otherwise,
and only eliminate that which is false and corrupt, taking the only evidently
true body of wisdom and justice – that we know where we should expect to
find - as our reference in doing so! This comes, by necessity, not before one
has acquired this basis of knowledge that defines right from wrong, and wise
from unwise, on rigid and solid grounds of evidence!

But is this what feminism – for example – is founded upon? No! It‟s an
extreme spiteful reaction to an extreme action, that‟s what it is! It‟s a
rebellion against nature itself! Thus, it‟s blatantly stupid to claim that this
question of linguistic terminology we just discussed is “unfair” or “unjust”
or is the outcome of some form of evil gender discrimination! But this is
what “Extremism” really is! It is plain stupid and unwise, and it has
absolutely nothing to do with the path of prophets and the teachings given to
them by the Lord! It is a blind uninformed unscholarly reaction!

Yes indeed there were many innovated orders that did wrong to a woman in
the Dark Ages under the Church in Europe! In fact almost all laws of the
Church were innovated (manmade) under the claim of (Holy Ghost)
authority, and they lacked evidence from authentic heavenly revelation!

Why does a society – they would say - ask of a woman to stick to taking care
of the kids – for example -, or to taking care of her husband, or to keep from
provoking sexual desires by exposing her female charms (which are
basically biological tools for reproduction) in places other than her bedroom

obviously did what they could, and they had no clue! They tried their best to achieve the closest thing they
could to what justice is supposed to be, so even though it was not really justice, the Lord will not punish
them for not acquiring the code of perfect justice: They did not have any way to acquire it on their own!
But when they do have that one true way revealed to them (As an act of grace and special mercy from their
Lord), and they do get a chance to listen to His messenger; it‟s all different then! They should know by
necessity of reason that they cannot afford to place their own manmade conjectures of justice at the same
caliber with what is indeed the teaching of their creator Himself in definition of Justice! And by insisting
on keeping their manmade systems after the truth is revealed to them; they are – then - doing great injustice
to each other, continuing to rule and judge amongst themselves by those laws of their own making, instead
of the Lord‟s revealed laws! So bear in mind – my reader – that when I say that people who commit
themselves and their followers to other laws than those of their creator are in fact doing great injustice to
one another, this is in the context of our current status as human nations: a world that is indeed addressed
by a perfect message of wisdom from its only true creator; a message that once received as it was originally
reveled; it cannot be mistaken for what it really is!
I shall further my discussion on the concept of morality and justice in Volume two.

265


and to people other than her own wedded spouse, or even to being part of
any such commitment as marriage to begin with? Feminism in its broad
meaning is a rebellion not only against wisdom and everything that a healthy
reasonable man cannot escape identifying as morality; it is a rebellion
against everything that really gives the word “female” – not to mention
“human” - its very own natural meaning!

But here we are, reading a man who finds great inspiration in the way
“feminists” raised his consciousness, and questioned the norms of English
language!

Now, I feel I have to excuse my reader since I may have started writing
about this issue (the question of justice and morality), somehow early in this
literature, for there shall come a chapter in Dawkins‟ Delusion – and
naturally my response to it - that addresses this issue exclusively, and it is
there – in volume two - that we shall drive deeper and further into it; but I
found myself compelled to write those words here nonetheless, as I was
agitated by the way he speaks of how inspired he was by the “consciousness
raising” that feminist approaches to language give him!

Just take a look at this statement:

―When I was young, it never occurred to me that women might feel
slighted by a phrase like 'the future of man'.‖ (The Delusion p.115)

Well, in fact, this only indicates how far away you have gone with
Darwinism, professor, from the pure and natural way all humans would view
those meanings! None but an atheist or a feminist man or woman (or a
follower of any similar philosophy) would think of it this way! And the
reason you did not find anything wrong with it back then, is not because you
were illiterate or uneducated at the time, but because you were much closer
to the pure sensibility of humans than you are today!

The future of “man” is naturally the future of both males and females of the
human kind! As long as the discourse is not gender exclusive, it addresses –
as a rule - all humans! If we said “the future of woman” instead; the mind
would naturally and automatically take it to be an exclusively female issue!

266


The last thing that would come to your mind when you hear this word, even
if you are an ardent feminist, - maybe especially if were indeed a feminist -
is the fact that the speaker means the entire human race, not just women! He
wouldn‟t use this word if that‟s what he meant! It‟s only natural that when
we need to refer to human beings regardless of gender we use the masculine
pronoun! This is also why any intelligent being – in general - is addressed by
the masculine pronoun – by default – unless it has a gender and its gender is
female! I mean even when people speak of those they claim to have been
abducted by aliens, they naturally speak of the alien in male pronouns, even
though it is possible in theory that it might be female or even asexual!
Unless precisely informed that this is a female creature, they find no reason
to use female pronouns. This is exactly why we address the Lord the creator
in the masculine pronoun, because He has no gender; not because He is a
male! This is just the way human language works! It‟s the way of all
languages ever known to man! The same goes for His Angels; they are all
addressed in the masculine pronoun because they have no gender! To use the
female voice would only mean a particular gender; the soft gender that
carries the babies and mothers them! This is what would naturally come to
your mind. It is a rational meaning that language recognizes and expresses
naturally: that women follow men, and that they are the “other sex”, there‟s
no degradation of women in this mere fact, and no woman – prior to the
advent of feminism – ever felt offended by it!

So what Dawkins is doing here by invoking the impact of feminism on
language, is like saying, if now you people no longer take this linguistic
norm for granted (dealing with the words man and woman) – under
influence of feminist philosophies – then you should not find the Darwinian
language (dealing with the words design, chaos and so forth) improper or
irrational either! It‟s just another step on the path of “raising human
consciousness”!

So take a long breath, close your eyes, and keep “rising”!

267


He goes on to say:

―Natural selection not only explains the whole of life; it also raises
our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized
complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate
guidance.‖

What a monumental fallacy added upon an equally monumental lie! Natural
selection explains “the whole of life”? I can‟t believe a proclaimed
“scientist” could actually say that! What an extremist position towards a
theory of biology! Even though he knows that the actual origin of life – for
example – is not within the domain of natural selection, he still finds himself
justified when he makes such a brave statement!

But forget about its origin, what about its actual meaning, its actual nature?
What is “life” professor, in its very simplest of meanings? What is it that
really separates a dead being from a living being on the onset of it, and what
– on Earth – does Natural selection have to do with explaining that? I am so
offended by the way he undermines the mentality of his reader in such a
way! Does he think that the more he repeats his claims, over and over again,
and the bigger he expands them as he goes, the more his reader will be
convinced with their validity? Is this how he believes people‟s
consciousness will be raised by Natural selection?

I may not have been that much astonished or offended if he said that it
explains – for example – how certain species emerge from previous ancestral
species, or even if he said “it explains how life emerged on earth” (and of
course it does none of that, with regards to what he means by “explains”, or
to any other use of the word “explains” at all)! But to claim that it “explains
the whole of life” …! How bold indeed!

He then boasts about the way he converted Douglas Adams, the radical
atheist, and quotes his words, in an attempt to raise our consciousness the
way he is so proud to have raised his!

268


Of course we then have to bear with him as he praises his prophet, his
master Darwin, in attempt to show humility and attribute the “marvel” of the
new religion to its true founder!

I quote:

―Darwin's discovery of a workable process that does that very
counterintuitive thing is what makes his contribution to human
thought so revolutionary, and so loaded with the power to raise
consciousness.‖ (The Delusion p. 117)

What he calls “counter-intuitive” is in fact, “counter-rational” by every
sense you can put in this word! It‟s in fact counter-linguistic as we
explained! And oh yes indeed it is full of power to change people‟s
understanding of life! It is so full of potential to destroy all norms of reason
that define the human mind itself, and the way it works, and indeed it does!
So clearly what he calls consciousness raising here, is actually consciousness
inversion! Or should I say consciousness “erasing”?

Watch how he speaks of Fred Hoyle:

―At an intellectual level, I suppose he understood natural selection.
But perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in
it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power.‖ (The
delusion p.117)

Oh yes indeed you do! Just like all forms of irrational fallacies that have
ever come to stain the cloth of human knowledge (and in this particular case:
Burn it)! Just as it is the case with every false religion or false tenets of faith
in some false divinity! You need to believe, so strongly, that with time and
constant sincere effort, you will eventually be blessed by understanding it
and overcoming the clearly irrational tenets it is built upon, and your
consciousness will eventually rise high enough to grasp it! Like I said
earlier, you‟d listen to the very same „apology‟ from a priest of a false
religion, telling you; “it‟s all rational! It all makes perfect sense! You just
have to work your way with it a little harder and you will eventually capture
it! Perhaps you need to do more prayer!”

269


Yes indeed, if you are to convert to the religion of Darwin, you do need to
immerse yourself in it, from head to toe, just as it is the case with every false
religion! You need to get yourself baptized in fossils and the writings of
Darwinian apologists, answering to their rivals from other faiths! And under
the canopy of a heart that strongly desires to see it as the truth, and is
strongly urged to search for a way out of any other faith you hate to see
yourself embracing, you will have room in your life to accept the religion of
Darwin and accept his “counterintuitive” conceptions and even start fighting
for them! You just need to be motivated; and it‟s then, only a matter of time
before you have fully converted!

Well, I ask, had it been the truth, the meaning that fits in ease and perfect
simplicity with the way man understands words and reasons what he
perceives in the world, the meaning that you should truly feel makes perfect
sense at all levels, would it have demanded such an “immersion” and painful
struggle before one could really “appreciate its power”? I think not!

The truth is not at all challenging to understand! It cannot be
“counterintuitive”! To counter our intuition is to counter the very tool by
which we make sense of things, and by which we know the truth to be what
it is: the truth! What confidence should we then have in the very way we see
things or reason things? What meaning would we then still keep for anything
that is science, knowledge, or even “understanding” and “conception” in our
notion of the world around us? What sense should we then have in the very
meaning of truth itself, if to accept it, we have no choice but to counter our
own natural intuition and reverse the tuning of our mind; our very own
natural tool of understanding and judging?

How pathetic is a preacher who has no better argument to offer now to
convince his followers with his teachings, than ask them to “raise their
consciousness” on the hope that eventually they could “counter their
intuition” and accept his claims!

Once you‟ve managed to see the black white and the white black, the right
wrong and the wrong right, the positive negative and the negative positive,
the perfect imperfect, and the orderly chaotic; you‟ve boosted your

270


consciousness to the level where you can really appreciate Natural
Selection! It takes time, effort, training and exercise of course, but it‟s
absolutely worth it, says our preacher here!

I say – and I hope I no longer need to say it - the truth has to be in perfect
accordance with every standard of human reason; no conscious countering
or alteration or immersion demanded! Its perfect rationality is, by definition,
part of the many things that make it the truth! We should not have to swim
or fly or jump or dig or do any such crazy thing on the hope that one day we
may fully understand it and appreciate it!

Apparently, my kind reader, we are now going through the part of Dawkins‟
book where the priest is doing everything in his power to cover up for the
messy and irrational tenets of the corrupt faith he is preaching! ―Raise your
consciousness and you will accept it!‖

He then carries on another “smoke cloud” effect, in attempt to convince the
reader that what he means by “consciousness raising” is actually the same
effect that any reader of scientific literature would get when he reads any
brilliant idea that any scientist has ever proposed to his field of science!
Well, I say, by what sense of reason could the theory of natural selection be
analogized in its rationality to the example he gives here when he speaks of
the way we have come to realize how tiny we are in the great vast universe,
thanks to the contributions of astronomers like Hoyle? Yet among the
examples he gives, he fails not to quote some atheist scientists as they claim
that their consciousness arose only when they let go of religion (or the
supernatural agent), and who celebrate the influences that Darwinism has
had on their fields of theory!

He then proceeds to criticize a sect of Christian biologists (Old-Earth
creationists and the likes) who find it acceptable to propose that evolution,
even natural selection, is “the way” the Lord created living species! Yes it is
indeed one pathetic position to take, I agree! And it is a natural outcome of a
profound weakness of argumentation and of knowledge of the truth! I do
sympathize with them though, because despite the corrupt image they made

271


up, at least they still respected their own minds, and held on tight to the way
human rationality works, and to the rational and intuitive necessity of there
being a supreme creator beyond all this, and they persistently refused –
which is what Dawkins condemns the most about them – to “counter” their
reason, bite their tongues and let go of the concept of “God” entirely! They
refused to “raise their consciousness” the way he teaches, for the sake of
Darwinism!

But let me ask you this, my kind reader: for a man who holds some corrupt
theology in his religion about the creator, believes his book to be open to any
new interpretation that suits him best, accepts the general concepts of
evolutionism, and sees the rational necessity of there being an external
initiator, coordinator and sustainer even for a pathetically irrational process
like natural selection, what is it really that an atheist could hold against him
when he claims that natural selection may be the very means by which the
creator created new species?

Nothing! He would easily accuse him of failing to understand Natural
selection, because by “natural”, Darwin actually meant “self operated”, “self
maintained”; an operation that needed no external force to initiate or to run
it! But then, how can the atheist prove this position of his to be true about
evolution or natural selection?

Suppose I told you I‟m prepared to accept natural selection, only if you
proved to me that there is no other collective universal law or force beyond
the visible universe that runs it according to a collective plan that makes it
appear to us the way it does, could you – the atheist – do that? Forget about
the rational necessities here, let‟s just say that I‟ve managed to “raise my
consciousness” to the desired level where I could accept the proposition that
there is no initiator or keeper anywhere, and that there could be a system
without a designer! What evidence can you offer me now at that point? Or
am I supposed to accept and believe in it only because it appears to be “an
elegant” “simplistic” theory that just might be a good alternative to the
concept of creation, and because Darwin finally managed (according to your
faith) to offer a proposition that leaves us in no “need” to “propose” a
“designer”? Is that it?

272


Well, yes! That‟s it! At the end of the day, atheists do admit that they have
no evidence to prove that there is no creator! So all they‟re really asking is
that you “fall in love” with Darwinism on one hand, and “hate” all religions
on the other, and join their pathetic club! Which is in fact the reason why
Dawkins wrote and chaptered his “Delusion” here the way he did!

He plays his game in the book in this order:

- First, you – the reader – are to be shaken with doubt by means of the
attempted refutation of some theologians‟ and philosophers‟
arguments for the existence of “God”,

- then you are to be shown that one might as well believe in a spaghetti
monster or a flying tee-pot revolving around our planet, and that you
have no evidence to prove that your god is this god not that god,
(which is of course true for all false religions),

- then you‟re made to believe that Natural selection is not at all a bad
idea, and that it gives you a “consciousness raising” alternative that
gets you out of the embracing position where you fail to prove that
your god is the true god and your faith is the true religion,

- then you are bombarded with quotations from atheist scientists
celebrating Darwin‟s ideas, and introduced to the idea that you have to
“elevate” your consciousness to fully accept those ideas! If you wish
to join the elites of academia, this is your ticket!

- Then you‟re bombarded with a barrage of accusations against various
religious texts (both, truly corrupted texts along with texts
misunderstood by an uneducated author) that leaves you incapable of
defending your false faith whatever it is… and that‟s it!

The author believes that at that point, you will have no choice but to believe
that there can be no creator, and that all religions on earth are plain myth and
bedtime stories all the same, and that you will not need to ask for any more
evidence for atheism! This is all that he has to offer, and to justify the twist
or “countering” of reason and intuition he‟s asking you to do here in order to
accept Darwinism and become an atheist!
273


So, as a matter of fact, although I pity those “middle-ground” creationists he
laments here and the flimsy theoretical compromise they attempted to make,
I find them to be far more true to themselves and to their minds than
evolutionist atheists!

If I were in a position where I have two theories before me to select from,
one that embraces a “creator” with certain details about Him that make no
sense, and another that denounces the creator altogether, and I have no
evidence on any of the two sides, I would easily tend not to deny the clear
rational necessity of there being a creator, and I would not choose to let go
of it for the sake of the other position that counters basic reason by denying
the creator altogether! Moreover, I may even find it a plausible position to
amalgamate the two approaches one way or another, and find me some
middle grounds to stand! I will have gathered – in doing so – whatever
rational pros I may see in both positions, and evaded the cons!

Now, what part of such a process of theorization do Darwinians view as
false or unwelcome, and why? In reality the only reason they will have to
reject such a proposition, is because it puts “God” back into a model they
believe they have finally managed to get Him out of (which they did not of
course)! The only reason why they accept and fight so strongly for
Darwinism is their claim that it offers a plausible explanation that needs no
intelligent determinate agent in the beyond to justify it! And we have
effectively proven that this is absolutely false; and that even as pathetic as it
is, it still necessitates such an agent!

Even with this pathetically corrupt story they propose for natural history,
they cannot escape the necessity of a governing intelligence! I always like to
say that instead of disproving God, all that Darwinians do is actually
attribute “ignorance”, “blindness” and “erroneousness” to Him, denying
Him much of His attributes, in attempt to restrain Him, (May He be praised)
because whatever they do, they cannot escape the clearly rational meaning
of order and governance, and its naturally corresponding meaning of
intelligence in whatever story or model they propose! They cannot even
speak against it, without having to bite their tongues!

274


It is thus quite understandable, how and why philosophers of materialism, as
mentioned by Dawkins here, believed that the more natural laws they
discover, the less it leaves “God” anything to do! They believe that once we
prove – for example – that lightning is caused by natural causes, then “God”
is put out of this process, and has nothing to do with it! Now what kind of
reason is this? How do believers in Him think of Him and the way He relates
to the world, and according to what system of faith and what evidence to
begin with? The “god of the gaps” image is only true, as we discussed in
another section, to particular systems of faith; basically pagan religions, or
ones with pagan influences (like Christianity), where corrupted texts, written
by ignorant men, not inspired by the true creator, naturally allow for new
discoveries to refute those texts!

The reason for this position by materialists as I pointed out in an earlier
section, is the pagan image of “god” as some super human being laying over
a cloud, doing this part of the process that scientists discovered is actually
done by means of humidity, air pressure, temperature, and other “natural
causes”! What they fail to realize is that this pathetic image of a god is
already self-evidently false and corrupt! Any sane man needs not see
scientists discovering that there is no council of gods somewhere atop the
Olympus, or palace of Zeus above a cloud there, to realize the basically
corrupt reasoning underneath this pagan imagery of the deity!

Nevertheless, this conception of a pagan god that hides somewhere within
the universe, in gaps of scientific knowledge, waiting for some discovery to
disprove him and get him out of the picture sooner or later, is what
encouraged some of them to claim that if indeed there is a god, then he must
be doing little next to nothing at all, in running the Universe!

What they fail to realize is that the ways of the supreme creator, in the light
of the perfect attributes that He should be expected to have, must be, by all
means, out of any form of analogy to the human ways! The way the entire
universe is – by pure reason – expected to be maintained and run is not in
such a pathetically anthropomorphic image, so pathetic that they expect to
see – for example - a human figure of a god blowing the winds from behind

275


the mountain, and once they prove that some other physical phenomenon
causes the winds to move, they rejoice in proving that there is no creator!

All natural and physical causes we know and those we yet know not are
governed and controlled by metaphysical forces that are created and
constantly maintained exclusively by the Creator of the system from
beyond! Lordly control does take place from far beyond the visible universe,
over each and every cause and effect that takes place in it and on all levels,
but it certainly is not in the form of some white bearded old guy lying over
some cloud, doing what pagan religions imagine their pity deities to be
doing! The keeper sustainer of this infinite universe is to be praised high
above this pathetic imagery, or any other humanly affordable image for that
matter! This is a necessity of reason, and it is indeed what Islam teaches.

So how does He run the Universe? How does he do it from far beyond all
those levels of natural causes? Well, we don‟t know, we cannot know and
we need not know! It‟s quite okay not to know that, and it‟s quite natural
that we couldn‟t! We are obviously not here on this earth to create universes
and play gods on them! All we can figure out by the tools of our science is a
series of those natural causes from our small earthly end of the process,
causes that we were only enabled – by creation - to learn and discover, for
the sake of the purpose for which we were made into this world!

So to sum it all up, I‟m not at all in favor of what those so called “Old-Earth
creationists” are claiming; there is no “middle ground” or “compromise”
between truth and fallacy! God is not a witless being who knows not what
He‟s doing, may His names be praised! A system built on inherent chaos is
obviously not the work of a perfect creator, and is obviously not the way the
universe is actually built. Holders of the truth accept no “half-true, half-
false” stances! The only authority of knowledge from which we may take
any valid account of origins of species and of all creation is the true
revelation of the creator Himself, and no other! I was only making the point
that evolutionists, who have no choice but to believe in a “blind
watchmaker” beyond it all, couldn‟t possibly have any solid argument by
which to refute those people‟s position, just as well as they have none to
validate their own!

276


Reducing the Irreducible, denying the undeniable!

In the section subtitled by (Irreducible Complexity) Dawkins is turning his
campaign against every Biologist who was ever true to his human
sensibility, as he attributes irrationality to a concept that shouldn‟t need to be
proven true for any man with two eyes and a healthy mind!

I quote:

―It is impossible to exaggerate the magnitude of the problem that
Darwin and Wallace solved. I could mention the anatomy, cellular
structure, biochemistry and behaviour of literally any living organism
by example. But the most striking feats of apparent design are those
picked out - for obvious reasons - by creationist authors, and it is with
gentle irony that I derive mine from a creationist book.‖ (Delusion
p.119)

It is interesting to see how he talks about these aspects: “the anatomy,
cellular structure, biochemistry and behaviour of literally any living
organism‖ in a way that makes them appear as though they are somehow
“lesser” aspects or do not appear to be as well designed as other aspects in
certain living organisms that he views to be “the most striking feats of
apparent design”!

I have no choice but to wonder here, by what datum or standard of reasoning
does he, and all other refuters of what they call “Irreducible complexity” or
“Intelligent Design”, make such a distinction in organic systems, applying
the two words “simple” and “complex” as they do? Clearly, if by simple
they mean – for example – that such a “simple” living being could somehow
be simulated or mimicked by some manmade artifact, making an exact copy
of that “simple” living being, then indeed they are fooling themselves!

We do not need to challenge them to create something as small as an ATP
synthase: A tiny enzyme (a couple of nanometers thick) in the living cell that
was recently discovered and is known as the Mitochondrial ATP Synthase
(which is a 1997 Noble prize discovery by the way)! I urge my unfamiliar
reader to google it up and see what it is! In brief, it‟s a tiny biochemical

277


motor with a part that revolves at about 6,000 rpm (100 rounds per second)
to produce ATP molecules (adenosine triphosphate) from ADP (adenosine
diphosphate), which is only one of thousands of unbelievably complex
reactions taking place in the metabolism of a „simple‘ cell! 22

So what is it then? How do they define “simple”? What is their datum of
reference? The number of organs, perhaps? In fact, I would be far more
amazed to see a unicellular organism performing a great deal of those
organic functions that our own bodies perform, all in a single cell, than in a
multitude of organs articulated in the way we observe in multi-cellular
beings! And on this datum of reference, I say such organisms are certainly
not at all simple! Just take a look at the kind of riddle the way an organism
as tiny as the Amoeba moves around underwater and the amazing way it
performs its organic functions! After two centuries of studying this “simple”
organism, we still know very little about – for example - the way it produces
those (pseudopods) with which it moves and the way it navigates and knows
where it is in a water pond (hence decides on which way to go, given that it
has no top-side or bottom-side, no left from right, and obviously no
“eyesight”)!

So what is the datum for a certain living being to be described as “simple”,
as opposed to another that is “complex”? You mean something that is in
itself, amazingly complex, but is relatively and apparently less complex than
other larger beings? So the rule here is actually no more than a subjective

22
The more science advances, the much more indeed any sane self respecting man would realize
the magnitude of such a challenge! In the Qur‟an, the Lord challenges mankind to create
something as tiny as a fly or a gnat!

I quote (translation of meanings):

2|26| ((Allah disdains not to make an example of a gnat, or even tinier...))

22|73| ((O mankind! An example is coined, so pay heed to it: Those unto whom ye call beside
Allah will never create a fly even if they gathered up for the purpose. And if the fly should take
anything away from them, they could not recover it. So weak is the seeker and the sought!))

May those who honestly seek the truth be guided to it! Amen.

278


sense of amazement, based on the amount of knowledge you may currently
possess! What datum is that?

Well, the notion of “complex” here is actually used due to the fact that
instead of its being a single cell – for example – that does everything; a
multi-cellular organism is a structure of a variety of types of cells with far
more bodily functions, the thing that is assumed to reflect on the amount of
data in the DNA! Now, I may have no problem – for now - with this relative
description of complexity among living beings, in the light of my currently
limited knowledge – as a human - of those less complex beings. However,
does this conception justify the way an atheist biologist views certain
organisms to be “less evolved” or somehow “primitive”?

You have two living beings that are equally perfect in the way they function
and adapt to their locales, to the way they live, and to their place in nature,
and are both extremely complex, yet one of them is obviously much more
complex in terms of organic structure! Now, the question is this: By what
reason or code of scientific integrity, does a scientist allow himself to call
one of these beings “primitive” or “less-evolved” and the other “complex” or
“evolved” and explain that difference the way Darwinians do, only because
he views one of them to exhibit more organic complexity (in terms of cell
structure and DNA) and more bodily functions than the other one? In other
words, how does he allow himself to claim that the more complex being is –
by necessity – “an advancement” or “evolution” above the level of the other
less complex being?

Evolution in what? In the craft of making complex beings? Whoever said
that the more “complex” an organism becomes (whatever your definition of
“complex” here), the longer or better it will survive or fit in its particular
place in nature? Whoever said that a certain degree of complexity that we
see in certain organisms is conditional for other organisms as well, to
survive and to adapt perfectly to their place in nature?

The only objectively acceptable datum to judge any artifact is that of the
function and the purpose! A craft that is one bit more or less complex than it
has to be in order to fulfill its purpose and do its job, is imperfect (i.e. needs

279


to be evolved)! And the “evolution” or the “development” that should come
to replace it does not by necessity have to be more complex for that end; it
may actually have to be less complex! If evolution is not following any
particular plan, and is all based on the selection of random mutations, then
whoever said it always has to go up, rather than down, on a relative scale of
complexity?

The point is that as long as a less complex being is performing its job
perfectly, it is not to be called “primitive” or “less evolved”, and there
clearly is no sense of reason in claiming that there was once a time when it
had to evolve, or in describing further complexity in the light of its function
and purpose as an “upgrade” or “an evolution”! Obviously it never had to
evolve or to become any more complex than it is now, because here it is,
breeding and functioning in perfectness, side to side with other beings that
we describe as more complex!

So the question is this: Does my currently limited understanding – as a
human - of the way a certain organic system works, or the way a certain
being functions in its locale, or the mere fact that it is less complex than
other beings, give me the right to describe it as “simple”, “primitive” or “un-
evolved”? Is this attitude by Darwinians not – in itself – some form of
compound ignorance 23 and of worshipping the gaps? Yes indeed it is!

You do have gaps – huge gaps - in your knowledge and you do admit it!
However, instead of placing some pagan deity there, you are actually placing

23
Scholars of Islam („ulema‟) identify two levels of ignorance: simple ignorance, and compound
ignorance! Simple ignorance (Aljahlul Baseet ‫ )الجهل الثسيط‬is the state of knowledge when a man
knows that he doesn‟t know! While compound ignorance (Aljahlul Murakkab ‫ )الجهل الوركة‬is
when he doesn‟t know that he doesn‟t know, or in other words: he thinks he knows! I will not be
exaggerating if I said that never in my life have I seen an ignorance that is more compound than
this! And guess what; It‟s actually getting more complex in Darwinians with time! It‟s
“evolving”! Not in his wildest dreams could Darwin himself back in his time, imagine that such a
book as “The God Delusion”, would one day emerge, going this far in attempting to apply his
theories in refuting the existence of the creator, where the author would commit such horrendous
assaults on reason and language in Darwin‟s name! Not that I‟m saying that he was not an ardent
atheist himself! It‟s just that by a simple comparison of “The Origin of Species” to titles like “The
Selfish Gene” or to “The God Delusion”, you‟d actually understand what I mean when I say that
compound ignorance does indeed evolve with time!

280


Natural Selection in those gaps; your own worshipped god, a blind god of
chaos! “The selfish gene did it by natural selection”! You‟re claiming that
since certain beings appear to you, in your limited knowledge, to be
“simple”, then they are indeed “less evolved”, or “primitive”!

Now I‟m not asking you – my atheist reader - to place some deity down
there instead, say that it did it, and quit trying to obtain valuable knowledge
about such beings! Absolutely not! The Lord the true creator is praised high
above such paganism and ignorance, and the more we Muslims – people of
true wisdom - learn about life the more signs we see of His majesty, His
mastery and His perfect attributes! I‟m only reminding you of the limited
nature of human knowledge as opposed to the infinitely stunning magnitude
of perfectness in every part of this universe within which we live, a
perfectness that reveals more and more of its aspects to our limited senses
and tools every day!

By Darwinian gaps I mean gaps in our currently limited human knowledge
of the actual degree of complexity in biological systems that Darwinians
seek to explain and use as evidence for their myths and tales! They would
still insist on calling certain organisms “simple” no matter how much
unbelievable complexity new advancements of science would reveal in
them! They would continue to describe them as primates that come at the
bottom of their mythical evolutionary ladder nonetheless!

They judge living beings from the position of one who thinks he knows!
They think that they have the right to call a unicellular organism (for
example) “simple” and hence trace its origins to something even “simpler”,
only because compared to other more compound creatures, it appears to be
less complex! This claimed mastery or beauty of Natural selection
necessitates in order for a man to accept it, among many other irrationalities,
that you attribute simplicity and actually inefficiency to such amazing tiny
creatures they so arrogantly call “primitive” or “primates”!

He doesn‟t yet know, he doesn‟t yet understand; yet it‟s so easy for him to
say “random” or to say “primitive” or to say “simple”, describing what may

281


indeed be one of nature‟s wonders! And they claim science teaches them
humility!

I couldn‟t resist quoting this statement by the author:

―The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance
as a solution: that is what improbable means.‖(Delusion p.119)

As I elaborated in a previous section, neither the proper meaning of
“mathematical improbability” (hence its applicability in this particular
discourse or query of research, and the conclusions it leads to) nor that of
“chance” (as the current lack of human ability to identify purpose or
function for some part of a given system that is not of man‘s own design)
does them any good at all! Yet I know that the professor is one of thousands
of theorists that would readily take such a statement for granted, and never
even think twice about it, and would easily, so easily, - as open minded as
they claim to be - dismiss such a fundamental philosophical objection from
my part; no questions asked!

The distinction he then makes between natural selection and chance is
indeed “counter-rational” if I may say, not just “counterintuitive”!

―But the candidate solutions to the riddle of improbability are not, as
is falsely implied, design and chance. They are design and natural
selection.‖ (Delusion p.119)

Well yes indeed! Natural selection, professor, is not chance; it‟s a masterful
mechanism where only fitting codes survive, in what is actually nothing but
a long recurring accidental accumulation of Millions of “Chance
Events” (random yet favorable mutations) that have spanned tens of
millions of years in gradual accumulation, safely working on turning life
into the splendid unbelievably perfect thing that we see today! Millions of
amazingly “lucky” and “constructive” mutations that all by pure “chance”
happened to fall, each and every single one of them, in the right place,
before it was too late!

282


Now as for where the very definition – formula or binding law – that
determines fit from unfit, - according to which selection takes place - comes
from and how it came to be in the first place; it doesn‟t matter!

So make no mistake now! It‟s not the straight jump by a single act of
“chance” up the mountain; it‟s rather a long fascinating step by step (Chance
by chance) progress sliding up slowly and determinately on a very long
slope!

Just who on Earth are they really trying to fool?

Well, basically themselves! What this book and other similar books are
really about, is a desperate attempt by its authors not initially to convert their
readers - which is of course the end goal here - but to get out of writing it
convinced – deep in their own hearts – one way or another, that they do have
an excuse in dying as atheists! And they never will! They never will find
satisfaction in any of their arguments no matter how many times they repeat
them or how loudly they declare them, because they do realize the challenge
they are posing against human reason itself, and the fact that they have no
proof whatsoever to stand upon! So they write, publish, and propagate, and
the more applause they get, and the more “ratings” and followers those
books earn them, the more they find comfort pretending – in attempt to deal
with their personal „cognitive dissonances‟ – that it proves – or at least
justifies – their position! They so much want to believe those fallacies that
they actually end up believing them! They would say to themselves: “If I can
so easily convince so many people and change the way they see things; then
I must be right!”

After all, what is the central argument of this very book in our hands here
(The God delusion)? The argument upon which professor Dawkins dared to
draw the conclusion that the entire idea of “God” and “creation” is nothing
but delusion and nonsense? Apart from the age old red-herring of regress, he
is offering us an argument from “improbability”! All that he gives you after
such a huge antagonizing campaign against basic foundations of human
reason, intuition and even language; all you come out with in the end, is that
the “concept” of “God” is highly “unlikely”! So what has he really done?

283


Other than shaking the naïve, the uneducated and those who believe in a
false deity or who follow a fundamentally irrational system of faith; what on
Earth has he really managed to prove? Nothing at all! It‟s the sour fight to
“convince himself” before others that as an atheist; he is holding on to
something! Self-justification is the right word here! So typical of every
preacher of false beliefs!

I quote:
―Design is not a real solution either, as we shall see
later…‖(Delusion p. 120)

I wonder; a real solution to what exactly, professor? Design is not a
solution? Can you even begin to imagine a problem to which the right
answer or solution is not a “design” or a “plan” or a predetermined system of
some kind? Are we really supposed to go this far with our “consciousness
raising” in order to make sense of Darwinism? To accept the rational and
epistemic disaster in this phrase: “Design is not a real solution”?

By solution he obviously means an explanation that he accepts for the
“improbability” that he sees in the origination of those amazing and
astounding creatures. What – then – is the other alternative in the eye of the
beholder for something that is perfectly orderly and systematic (hence
rationally necessitating meanings like creation, Design and Plan in
describing it) as an “explanation” for the way it came about?

Listen to this comment that he makes on the words of a creationist writer:

―'Did all of this happen by chance? Or did it happen by intelligent
design?' Once again, no of course it didn't happen by chance. Once
again, intelligent design is not the proper alternative to chance.‖
(Delusion p. 120)

I ask of every reasonable self-respecting reader to tell me now; what is this
comment if not a desperate attempt to make people accept the meaningless
claim that Natural selection is neither “design”, nor “un-design”? It‟s like
saying: “You people have to believe in Natural selection because it neither
demands a supreme maker / keeper (like in perfect creation), nor is it

284


something that defies man‘s commonsense (like in mere chance)! If you do
not wish to believe in any deity whatsoever, then this theory should work for
you! So go ahead, embrace it and put it in the place of religion!‖

He‟s not asking you to embrace “chance” because very clearly no matter
what he does he cannot pass it through to you; yet he cannot make you think
of it as some process of “design” or “plan” either! If the word “Designoid”
makes any sense to you, then what are you waiting for? Go ahead and
become a Darwinian!

Forget about “evidence” gentlemen! This is what he‟s doing here! This is
what it‟s all about! Indoctrination! He‟s only trying to make you a believer,
like he is, not convince you that it is true by means of evidence!

―Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible and elegant
solution; it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever
been suggested‖ (Delusion p. 120)

Might as well write a poem on Natural selection, professor, on the hope that
people‟s consciousness may eventually “rise” to meet its “standard”!

"Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance.
It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical
improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible
intelligent design becomes." (Delusion p. 120)

Does this argument, by any standards of reason, qualify as evidence, one that
justifies denying a basic rational and intuitive necessity? We are supposed to
prepare ourselves now to accept the "fact" that the concept of design and
purpose in nature is equal in its defects to that of pure chaos and “chance”!

So what exactly is "the riddle of statistical improbability" that he claims
“design” not to solve anyway?! It is indeed the true delusion here!

Just get “probability” out of the picture and then we can start debating on the
grounds of rational and considerable evidence!

What is probability and improbability in its very concept? What is it about?

285


He obviously finds no problem repeating himself, and neither do I!

So let me explain it again!

Probability is the mathematical assessment we give to the degree of
likelihood of something to take place under certain observable conditions, as
one of various observable possibilities (sample space), based on our
observations of previous similar (analogous) processes in nature! Simply
put, it‟s like saying: “Well, since I do not know on what side the coin will
rest when I flip it and why, I can only say that there are two equally probable
possibilities for the outcome that could be expected!” Long experimentation
of tossing coins may be taken to suggest that both outcomes are – overall –
equally probable.24

So by what reason can we presume the concept of probability or
improbability to be characteristic of the order or power that yielded the
origination of nature and life itself? What on Earth does this tool of
mathematics have to do with the question of the Origin of life on Earth?! We
formulated this concept to examine how likely certain observable events are
to take place, according to previous experience! It is a tool of statistical
presumption (best guess so to speak) that is based on our limited observation
of the way certain events usually recur in nature around us, events we yet
have no reliable knowledge of a standard law that governs them! It is a clear
statement – in its very nature – that we do not know; we‟re only guessing!

24
Please note that I have been avoiding the use of philosophical jargon throughout this literature as much
as I could, to make sure that the book addresses all levels of education in all different disciplines of
knowledge that I had to tackle with along the way. It should also be clear to professional philosophers
that I’m not bound by strict formulations and wordings of different theories that I may have approached
in my discourse in this book as I delve deep with my discussion and criticism to the conceptual
foundations of such theories. Thus I deliberately avoid concerning my reader with the name of this or that
theory, or with its common philosophical statement verbatim! It’s the concept that really matters. So as
much as the conception of probability concerns me and my reader here, I’m not in the business of spilling
more ink and doubling the size of two already engorged volumes, to explain the difference between – for
example - a “frequentist” and a “bayesian” philosopher, in this particular context! My philosophically
uneducated reader could easily find that information somewhere else if he feels that he needs to! I
couldn’t care less – on the other hand - if much of what he reads here is not to be found in any textbook
of philosophy that he may have read; the validity of an argument is judged only by its evidence, not by
how much it agrees with the beliefs of this or that philosopher, no matter how mainstream they may
currently be! And if this is not your attitude my respectable reader (whatever your scholarly background)
then it’s unlikely that you’re going to accept much of what I have to offer here, and perhaps it will not be
a very good idea that you carry on reading this book!

286


Probability does not propose a standard law or rule! It‟s just a guess by
means of statistical observation of analogous scenarios! We just propose
that since the majority of apparently similar cases went (A) then this case is
more likely to go (A) than (B) for example.

You say "intelligent design" suffers from Statistical improbability? Just how
many cases of creation of the universe and of natural life from dead matter
have you ever witnessed, professor? How many cases of origination of
natural life on similar planets have you ever seen? How much observation
data have you gained from similar cases under similar conditions that enable
you to presume that it is “highly improbable” under those conditions (that
you cannot even imagine to begin with) that life would have emerged by
means of intelligent design?!

I repeat that this is just another example of fundamentally corrupt reasoning
that they apply in postulation and deduction and easily call science!

This "riddle" of improbability thus can only be suffered in a mind deeply
corrupted by the teachings of Darwin! A mind that does not care to revise
the very meanings of the terms it applies!

―And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent
design becomes‖ (Delusion p. 120)

Oh yes indeed, the higher your “consciousness rises”, the higher the
“improbability” that words would mean to you what they actually mean! We
have effectively demonstrated that even by their conception of
improbability, the Darwinian story is supposed to be billions of times more
improbable than a single act of willful creation!

―Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the
problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself
(/herself/itself) immediately raises the bigger problem of his own
origin. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as
improbable as a Dutchman's Pipe (or a universe) would have to be
even more improbable than a Dutchman's Pipe. Far from terminating
the vicious regress, God aggravates it with a vengeance.‖

287


I suppose my reader has noticed by now, how it is that every time Dawkins
fails to create a new argument for his faith, he rebounds – over and over
again – to the same “infinite regress” argument and the very same question
“Who created the creator”! As a matter of fact, it never fails to amaze me
how he and his followers fail to see the magnitude of the crime they are
actually committing against human reason, even as they make the statement
that “the improbability is redoubled”!

First, let me wipe off a particular pagan imagery that reveals itself in these
words “the designer himself/herself/itself”! As I pointed out earlier, the
creator has no gender, He‟s neither male nor female; There‟s nothing like
Him! Reproduction is an organic function that He created in living mortal
beings for the preservation of their kinds and for the wisdom of what they
are all made to do in the world, the place where every living being that is
given life should eventually die! It is only a property of His created system
and is not to be attributed to Him; the omnipotent, the omniscient, the
eternal! Of course this is a tenet of Islam, and a basic rational necessity for
the attributes of perfectness that a human mind should accept no less, for the
creator of everything!

So there is no “herself” here! This is because as I pointed out earlier, when
you refer to an entity in the female pronoun, you are indicating gender;
you‟re talking about a female being! The Lord almighty is praised above
gender altogether; be it male or female! He‟s not an “it” either! “It” is used
in English for unconscious things! So there‟s no linguistic choice but to use
the “He” and the “himself” pronouns, bearing in mind that He has no gender,
given the fact that all human languages use the masculine pronoun for
intellectual beings free from any sexual or gender associations, as elaborated
earlier.

Second, by what reason do you allow yourself to view His existence as a
problem? Define „problem‟!

If by “problem” you mean we cannot understand what His attributes are like
or examine or reason how they are, then the problem is actually only in your
own mind! Because nobody said that we need to explain him! We only

288


need to understand the way this system to which we are restricted works,
and what we are here to do with it! He is not part of that system!

There‟s nothing in His creation that is anything like Him! Attributes of the
Sole almighty creator are by necessity of reason, nothing like those of His
creatures! The knowledge is nothing like our knowledge, the power is
nothing like our power, and whatever we learn from authentic scripture that
is among His attributes, is by necessity of reason – and according to
scriptural evidence - unlike anything we have ever seen in a creature! So it is
fundamentally wrong to ask “What is He like”, or to chase a purpose of
knowledge of understanding how He is!

This arrogant (but not surprising) attitude towards the creator destroys the
rationally essential meaning of His being the uncreated creator (end of
regress) – please revise in earlier sections of this book why it is rationally
essential - because simply, if there was any way for man to know how the
attributes of the Creator work (in the meaning that natural scientists give to
the word “explain”); then it should follow by necessity that those attributes
and properties are analogous to the way creatures in this world work and the
way they are composed, simply because this is the only way our minds
understand the way things around us work; analogy and analysis of
composed systems! And this in turn will only mean that this creator is
created and a composed system himself like all created things; which is
again not true of the creator of all created things!

This is why pure and simple reason necessitates that we, the humans, cannot
chase such a query or obtain knowledge thereof: What exactly He is like or
How He is (The How question)! We only know about His attributes what He
teaches us in His truly inspired words and the words of His true
messengers… but to ask for more, or to ask for knowledge of how those
attributes are, is to claim a forbidden claim that our minds cannot even begin
to process or absorb!

Thus we say that the claim that such knowledge is achievable to man is a
claim that contrasts every meaning that pure human reason is compelled to
attribute to the creator! It is a claim that turns Him into yet another element

289


of this universe; analogous to creatures of His own making; which is a
meaning that is by every sense in any healthy mind: false!

So there really is no “problem” at all for believers in the creator to solve! We
cannot afford it, and we are not supposed to suffer it! This is not what our
minds are made to do! It‟s sad that a man would waste his entire lifetime
enjoying the ability to search and theorize, without even knowing what he
was given those faculties for! No matter how brilliant this man proves to be
in whatever he does with his mind; he is at the absolute antonym of wisdom!

Imagine a man who is given a fancy car, top tech, with GPRS equipment and
computerized navigation and so forth, but from where he sits behind the
steering wheel; he really has no clue where he has to go or why he was given
it at all! He does not know his destination or the path to take to it! What will
he do? He may be blinded for some time by the marvel of the technology
under his hands, thus he will indulge himself for as long as he can, and for as
long as there is fuel in the tank, he‟ll just drive away! He‟ll just have fun!
But what is he really doing? In reality, this is nothing but child‟s play! He‟s
wasting fuel! He‟s wasting time! He‟s actually losing!

Now to be given something – that you obviously did not obtain on your own
- and claim that it‟s up to you to decide what you should be doing with it, is
a clear assault on whoever it was that gave it to you! Now imagine the
magnitude of the insult when you actually claim that nobody gave you
anything at all to begin with! Can you claim that you chose to come to this
world out of your own free will, and that you chose to be born? Did you
have any choice at all on whether or not to come to this world, enjoy those
senses and powers, make the choices you are enabled to make, and gain
whatever you have gained? You didn‟t! And when it‟s time for you to leave,
do you have any choice about it? Can you not die? And when you‟re gone to
wherever you will go to, can you come back?

Now I will not ask you in this context, what Darwin has to say in answer to
this fundamental “WHY” question, because clearly he has nothing to say
about it! Despite the feverish efforts by Dawkins and others to make the
Darwinian faith appear as though it gives satisfactory answers to those

290


questions; it clearly does not! To make man appreciate his life and feel that
he‟s “lucky” to be here – which is what they say it does to you! - is not
something that needs Natural selection to make people feel it; it kills the
value of those marvelous givens that we have, and mutes the deep natural
urge in a man‟s soul to be thankful to their giver; the giver of those valueless
and countless gifts! It mutilates a man‟s spirituality and intuition! So how
can it possibly offer any reasonable answers to “Why” we are here?

I can easily argue that this is absolutely not what Darwin himself attempted
to answer or even had on mind when he wrote his book on the origin of
species and natural selection! This is because the theory clearly leaves the
question itself pointless and meaningless! It leaves it hollow; and turns it
actually – against every bit of reason and commonsense in man - into a mere
product of organic evolution! It destroys the meaning of “purpose” along
with many other basic meanings to human reason and intuition! To a
Darwinian, we are merely a species that has evolved to a point where it
started to make up “pointless” questions, perhaps as some sort of mental
luxury or so! So what Darwinism teaches in this respect is in fact total
abolish!

Anyway, I shall rebound to those meanings later… the point here is that a
wise creator is one who creates everything for a reason and a purpose!
Nothing in his creation is more than it should be, or less than it should be!
Nothing is made for no purpose! Nothing is in its wrong place! Every fruit
and every poison, every disease and evil that we see around us is made for a
purpose, the knowledge of which is only to be obtained from Him, the
maker!

Thus, reasonably enough, the All-wise creator must have limited our
abilities to no more than what we need for the particular purpose of our
creation in this world! And to accept the existence of a wise creator is to
accept – naturally – the fact that He did not create anything without limits
that accord with a particular purpose that only He defines!

The wise creator naturally did not create us to share power with Him! He did
not create us to become His equals, His rivals, to become “gods” or to obtain

291


the power to challenge Him on the dominion of the universe! This is simple
common sense here! It is a rational necessity of wisdom that is attributed to
every king, every Lord, creator and owner of a created system! He will not
let it be spoilt by the rebellion of one of its autonomous elements! It is a
rationally necessary feature of the system even for the sake of the system
itself! Power, dominion and control over it cannot be up to any element
within it, neither can it be shared with such an element! You cannot
imagine a ship with two captains, and two control panels; can you?! So what
do you say of control over the entire Universe? Those are rational basics
here; they are the foundations of Islamic faith in the Lord the creator, as
argued effectively in the Qur‟an! He will not enable us to destroy the entire
universe; He will not allow us to challenge Him on His dominion above the
heavens and Earth! Yes He did enable us to have choice and a manipulative
form of control over a huge variety of resources in it, for the purpose for
which we were created, but only under natural physical restriction to
those laws, limits and restrains that restrict all creatures and systems in
the universe are we given this dominion of choice; not above them!

To sum it up, think of this question: If reason cannot allow for the attributes
of the creator of all creation to submit to any form of analogy that the human
mind can afford, or to be testable in the labs of natural sciences the way
created things (elements of the created system) are; then by what logic could
we view this very rational necessity as a “problem” that keeps a scientist
from admitting and accepting the necessary existence of the creator? This is
sheer contradiction! It is no more than an empty pathetic attempt to create a
problem out of something that is actually a natural given of human reason;
just to support the position of atheism!

So easily would an atheist say in sheer arrogance: “I don‟t like the idea of
the creator because it leaves me incapable of testing and examining the
“nature” of that creator himself”! It‟s like saying: ―My condition for
accepting the existence of anything that I cannot currently see; is that you
prove to me that one day I will be capable of putting it under my
microscope, or that the way it works is not out of reach of my human tool of
perception, analogy and comprehension!‖

292


Well, as a matter of fact; You are the one who has to prove that everything
in existence (not just in the universe) has to be fully comprehensible to man
and analogous to things that he can perceive, qualify and quantify! Can you
do that?

Is this – in its very nature – not a blind tenet of faith (one that is fundamental
to Darwinism)? To believe that there is no limit whatsoever – in principle -
to the human mind and the human perception, and that there cannot exist
anything inside the universe or outside that is immeasurable, unperceivable,
or incomprehensible? Yes indeed! It is by all means a tenet of blind faith;
one that comes in conflict even with basic reason and with mathematics
itself!

Now I ask of every reasonable man to tell me; what kind of “anti-science”
and “anti-knowledge” is such a “faith”?! You‟d rather deny the undeniable,
twist and manipulate reason and commonsense, and make a man falsify his
very own senses, just because you don‟t like the idea of not being capable of
“explaining” the way the creator is, or the way He does what He does?

Indeed, blind arrogance only begets more blindness and more arrogance!

As you proceed with reading “The Delusion” you cannot help wondering,
what does this man really think? He thinks that repeating the appraisal of
natural selection over and over again will perhaps hypnotize the reader and
eventually change his mind?

―Natural selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution
that has ever been suggested. And it is not only a workable solution, it
is a solution of stunning elegance and power.‖ (Delusion p. 121)

No comment!

―What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the
problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the
starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative
process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small
pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not
prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable
293


events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is
very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the
reach of chance‖ (Delusion p. 121)

Well, as we have demonstrated, the “accumulation” concept that he reveres
so much about “Natural selection” is – in itself – a proof for its fallacy! We
have argued effectively against this (slight improbability) that he attributes
to those “steps of chance” that constitute his (mount improbable)! We have
demonstrated linguistic inconsistencies like the one we find in this very
statement! To accumulate, as a meaning, is to imply – by necessity – the
existence of two things:

- An accumulator

- A container for accumulation

- A law that defines this process and guarantees its continuity!

Natural selection seeks to call itself a process – and it has no choice but to
do – despite its emphatic denial of every rational aspect that the very word
“process” itself must imply! An accumulation, that is, but without the basic
dimensions of reason that do give the word “accumulate” its very meaning!
Just like “designiod”; this indeed might be “accumuloid” so to speak! Just
make sure to insert an “oid” suffix in every word of this sort as you speak,
and you will be okay! Natural selection will – then – be your salvation!

Again, a set of billions of “lucky” chances that were all good enough to “add
up” and to “accumulate” giving out this amazingly perfect end result, is to
him far more “probable” than a single event of chance, not to mention a
masterful act of creation! And of course, while a single event of chance is to
him unthinkable; an accumulation of billions of happy events of “chance”
that all come to fall in place before it‟s too late and “save the day”, is on the
contrary; not – in its totality - chance or random or improbable at all!

I remind the reader here that I‟m applying his own use of chance, random
and probability (the one that rips it off from its relative meaning; relative to
man, and ascribes it to nature itself) and that I shall be doing so for the rest
of this literature for the sake of the argument.
294


So; Chance + chance + chance + chance + …… = NOT CHANCE!

That is, atheists believe that given enough time: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + … = 1

Well indeed yes; it is not “chance”! This must indeed prove that none of it
could be “chance” at all! Yet, they insist on emptying the only right words to
describe the way nature really works from their very meanings, applying the
“-oid” word play! Say “Design” “designed” and so forth, - as you obviously
have no choice but to do so - but make sure you keep in mind that they are
not actually designs; but only appear as though they are! Do not be troubled
by the fact that there are no words in any human language for the alternative
meanings that Darwinians seek to express here (like a middle meaning
between created and uncreated), and rest assured that with time and
sufficient practice you will get used to them!

Moreover I have to wonder here: By what datum of reference or statistical
inference could you decide that those “small pieces” are all just “slightly
improbable”, not to mention the way they accumulated?! Not a single one
of the millions of steps of the Darwinian story is to be called “slightly
improbable”! Not only because improbability – in concept - does not apply
to changes the likes of which we never even saw before, but because the
conditions and parameters by which those “random” mutations are supposed
to emerge in every time they work, cannot possibly take place without an
external organizer, a perfect creator (It‟s rationally impossible), and if I‟m
going to abide with their rationale of probability for the sake of the
argument; I‟ll say it has to be unbelievably improbable that this would
happen at all! So how do you describe billions of extremely improbable acts
taking place gradually over an unbelievably long span of time despite the
extremely high probability of all forms of destructive hazards and
devastative events along the way; by any word other than Plan or Design?
There can be no room for any other meaning at any level in this scenario,
even as preposterous as it really is!

I could actually present dozens of other arguments the least of which is
enough to destroy this nonsense at foundation level; however, I think I‟ve
already done that! I actually have much more valuable things to do with my

295


time than go on unraveling more defects in the rationale of “Natural
selection”! So let‟s get done with this book, or we never will!

―The creationist completely misses the point, because he (women
should for once not mind being excluded by the pronoun) insists on
treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off
event.‖ (Delusion p.121)

I chose to quote this insignificant statement here just to show the reader how
disturbed and extremely uneasy a writer will find himself, when he puts in
his mind that the masculine pronoun he uses naturally when speaking of an
unspecified gender is insufficient, or that he always has to make it (he/she)
and (Him/her) and so forth instead of just (he) and (him) in any general
statement that he makes!25 Well, I‟m sorry to disappoint you professor, but
wise, healthy women who have not been brainwashed by the nonsense of
feminism and similar philosophies, will not feel even remotely offended by
the common ways of human language in addressing people, if that‟s what
you think they will feel! The problem, professor, is in your own convictions,
your personal beliefs; not in the way mankind has always been putting
meanings into words!

This is what Darwinism does to a man! (Or should I say: To a ‗human‘, lest
I be accused of sexism?!)

Now listen to this:

―Evolution, by contrast, goes around the back of the mountain and
creeps up the gentle slope to the summit: easy!‖ (Delusion p.121)

Oh no! Not easy at all! It “Goes” and “creeps”, means it commits to a path
(which is the slope itself)! I ask: Where did that slope itself come from in the
25
It is really disappointing that many academic circles of the world today have come to mandate the use
of so-called (gender-neutral) tactics in research writing and documentation instead of the masculine
pronoun, as though a word like (mankind) has always been gender biased and exclusive to women, yet
people never realized this (inequity) until lately! In fact many feminist authors in human sciences no
longer use masculine pronouns at all, when referring to a human being in general! Some of them may
discuss a certain issue concerning the human psyche with no particular emphasis on males or females,
and while a reader may start reading about a (he), suddenly he finds himself reading about a (she), just for
the sake of gender equity!!! Now as confusing as this trend may be to a reader, it has – unfortunately -
become quite common indeed!

296


first place? First there has to be a slope to begin with and a driving power –
constantly existent – to force the process up that slope, right? “Chance” and
“easy” you say? Marvel as you wish with this “slope” of Darwinism
professor, and praise Darwin for as much as you wish; every sane man with
an ounce of truthfulness to himself and to his mind can easily see through it,
and will indeed understand the real reason why it took “so long” for an idea
“that simple” to be turned into “science” by a man like Darwin! No wonder
here for them!

As I proceed, I find the author making a metaphor that is really not worthy
of a comment, but I will quote it anyway!

―Another favourite metaphor for extreme improbability is the
combination lock on a bank vault. Theoretically, a bank robber could
get lucky and hit upon the right combination of numbers by chance. In
practice, the bank's combination lock is designed with enough
improbability to make this tantamount to impossible - almost as
unlikely as Fred Hoyle's Boeing 747.‖ (Delusion p.122)

First of all; we can easily see that no matter what he does, he cannot escape
selecting a well designed object for his metaphor (the Bank combination
lock). Now, please note that this is how he will always start it off.

Of course he forgets the basic question of “who designed the lock itself, and
defined its combination code”! And while probabilistic reasoning works
perfectly well describing how the bank lock works; it has nothing to do with
the subject matter. Anyway, he then works his way – against all
commonsense - in attempt to paint a pathetic image of a key that could work
partially in the job of opening this lock, step by step! Thus he finds he has no
choice but to get around by making an assumption that really has nothing to
do with what any actual lock does, not to mention the Bank lock by which
he began his metaphor! He says:

―But imagine a badly designed combination lock that gave out little
hints progressively the equivalent of the 'getting warmer' of children
playing Hunt the Slipper. Suppose that when each one of the dials
approaches its correct setting, the vault door opens another chink,

297


and a dribble of money trickles out. The burglar would home in on the
jackpot in no time.‖ (Delusion p.122)

So where did the “extreme improbability” of opening a Bank lock by chance
go; now that we have turned to talk about a “badly designed combination
lock that gives out hints … etc.”? How do we add up the last part to the first
part of the metaphor?

There is no such lock (one that opens partially letting dribbles of money
dribble out in such a way)! No money is coming out at all unless the lock is
open or broken! And then again, whoever keeps attempting to open it
gradually and to go through it; cannot by any means be doing this without a
previous intent and a long lasting – very long indeed - will and
determination! We do not have that in natural selection! Or do we?

Even as pathetic as this imaginary lock would be, it would demand a specific
design that opens up gradually in this manner! So no matter what he does, he
can‟t pull it off!

Now look at this statement of religious praise:

―Darwin devoted an entire chapter of the Origin of Species to
'Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification', and it is fair
to say that this brief chapter anticipated and disposed of every single
one of the alleged difficulties that have since been proposed, right up
to the present day.‖ (Delusion p.123)

Well, I suppose atheists are bound now to praise the name of Darwin, the
“prophet” of modern day atheism! Not a single “alleged” difficulty to natural
selection that ever came to arise ever since the time he wrote down his
“revelations”, did he leave unanswered in his perfect book “the origin of
species”; and only in a brief chapter! Isn‟t this a miracle?

I know that many readers will say that my comment here is not “scientific”;
but then, by what standards of any practice of natural sciences whatsoever is
this statement by Dawkins here to be called “scientific”? We‟re obviously
not talking science now! It is clearly the way a stout believer (a preacher no

298


less) speaks of his book of faith and of the “teachings” of his prophet in
certainty and devotion!

Do you, professor, claim Darwin to be an infallible prophet who delivers
teachings to mankind from an omniscient being (as it is the case with
followers of every religion)?

You‟d say you don‟t!

Is this work by Darwin in reality anything more than a manmade theory that
may be subject to revision, objection, modification, and maybe even total
replacement?

You‟d force yourself to admit that it isn‟t!

So how – on earth - can any natural scientist allow himself to make such a
bold claim about a theory of natural sciences unless he really holds it for an
unquestionable doctrine of faith, and truly believes it to be infallible? “Every
single one of the alleged difficulties” he says! Is this even possible for any
man to write a theory that suffers not even a single difficulty whatsoever, no
matter how minor? What is it – then – that evolutionists have been doing –
revising and manipulating – with Darwin‟s theory ever since it came out to
this day? I suppose they are committing some form of a heresy or blasphemy
against Darwin! How do they even dare drift or sway from the original
teachings of the Apostle of natural selection?

As for me, a Muslim, I can so easily prove that my prophet is a messenger
from the Lord creator of heaven and earth, and thus that there is not a
single objection or difficulty that has ever been raised against his
message that does not have a profoundly complete, rational and
consistent answer!

Such a powerful and bold claim indeed, isn‟t it?! Yes it is! And I‟m willing
to go with it to the end of the Earth, and discuss my evidence with any man
alive, no matter what background of faith he comes from! This is my faith!
And I know it to be true both from general and tons of detailed evidence!
My position of knowledge here is a position of faith! The only perfectly
justifiable faith in the only perfect and infallible source of knowledge! It is
299


not a position of scientific skepticism that is reasonably assumed by a
natural scientist who is still questioning the theories of his colleagues and
who will never be certain about the completeness of human theorization
(which will never be complete; hence he will never quit being skeptic about
it and unsatisfied with it, no matter how far it goes)! I know out of certainty
– not skepticism – that Darwin was wrong! I believe him to be wrong, and
it‟s not a blind faith! Faith is by definition a position of certainty! It is the
exact antonym of skepticism! So if this faith is founded on an evidently true
knowledge, justified by irrefutable evidence, then any theory of science that
comes to contradict it is simply (and verifiably): False!

So when I make such a confident statement about the teachings of the
prophet I follow, I‟m not ascribing perfectness and infallibility to the
hypothesis of an ordinary man like myself where healthy skepticism is the
proper and reasonable position to take! I‟m ascribing it to a body of
knowledge that is verifiably the Lord‟s revelation.

But is this the position of the professor here?

Far from it!

While he is supposed to assume the position of a skeptic natural scientist (a
biologist), not of a minister of religion; hints of his true position as a strong
believer and even “a preacher of faith” – like the previously quoted
statement of his - keep popping up every now and then, and he cannot help
it! It does not surprise me though, not a single bit!

He is indeed a preacher of a religion that propagates itself in a cloak of
natural sciences! His temple is in his lab and his congregation is in his
lecture hall; and he‟s out to convert you all!

He then proceeds to discuss the so called “theory of irreducible complexity”.

I quote:

―A functioning unit is said to be irreducibly complex if the removal of
one of its parts causes the whole to cease functioning.‖ (Delusion
p.123)

300


Now there is much to say here in discussion of nothing more than this mere
definition alone! The notion of “irreducibility” is indeed a philosophical
statement of a rationally sound meaning that flows quite naturally from the
very meaning of the word (closed system) which is the best word to describe
a living organism with every biological process that runs in its body! And
even though it makes perfect sense as we will discuss, atheists hate it and
fight it with all their power because it seeks to replace Darwinism as a
philosophy of Biology!

Now it sounds so easy to judge a complex system, doesn‟t it? A part that
does not seem to have a known purpose to me - and thus appears to be
removable – is proof that this system was not properly designed, or that it
did not have a good designer! So what is it that may allow me to make this
judgment on a given system X?

There is a set of conditions of knowledge that should be fulfilled in me (the
observer or the critic) before I can make such a judgment on a “part” of any
given –perfectly or imperfectly functioning - system! Conditions of
qualification! I can easily do that – as a man - with a car, or a hand watch or
any manmade artifact, if and only if:

- I can easily obtain its blueprints,

- I fully understand its function and the detailed purpose of its making,
by knowledge that comes only from its maker,

- And I have all the knowledge it takes to design a similar artifact on
my own.

Now, without the fulfillment of a single one of these conditions; by what
right could I allow myself to criticize this artifact, pick out one of its parts
and claim that it has no function, or that the system could do without it?

What would you say of a man who knows little about the way a computer is
built, and yet he opens it up, pulls out some expansion card or a RAM
chipset and throws it away, and when he turns it on and finds that it still
boots properly, he concludes that this part that he removed arbitrarily must
have had no function, and from there deduce that it was badly designed (not
301


to mention that it was not designed at all)? In his ignorance, this fool made a
judgment that is by all means false and presumptuous, and thought that he
has proven that the computer is badly designed! He thinks this is proof that
as a designed system, this device is reducible!

Fact of the matter is that he did not know what that thing he removed really
was! He did not know what it was there for! He thus had no idea what kind
of damage he really caused! So whatever can he possibly prove when he
sees – in his limited knowledge – that his removal of that part seemingly did
not affect the way the machine functions? He is not qualified to make such a
judgment in the first place!

As a matter of fact, had the professor been actually talking in the previous
quotation about a manmade artifact I would‟ve said to him: the fact that it
does not cease to work even after the removal of this part does not prove the
part to be functionless, just like in the example I just made on a computer
device! But in fact, he is talking about organic systems; biological systems,
systems that are far too complex to identify at any level of certainty what
exactly every subsystem within them is there for! Systems about which we
lack the conditions of knowledge that I mentioned a few paragraphs earlier;
all three of them!

- We do not have the systems blueprints!

- We do not – and cannot - fully understand the functions of all of its
parts and the purpose of their making

- And we certainly do not have the knowledge to create a similar one!

The idea of reducibility – by which they oppose “IC” - stems from the same
arrogant atheistic approach to every system or order in nature! Even the term
“organ” can only have a relative meaning that is only defined by means of
human observation and conclusion of what we currently think is the
particular role that this part plays in this overwhelmingly complex system!
Does this mean that what we know now about the function of every part that
we identify as an organ; is by necessity all there is to it, and there‟s no other
set of functions of which this set of cells is subsystem? No! It doesn‟t! A

302


wise man of science should know that it doesn‟t! Scientists are discovering
more and more and learning more every day, about the way organs function!
So what today you claim to be “replaceable” or “reducible” due to your
current lack of knowledge may easily prove to be otherwise tomorrow! This
has been the trend of human knowledge ever since the dawn of mankind: we
grow – by accumulation of knowledge with time - to learn more about this
amazingly seamless system that we call nature! So it should be taken for a
law of philosophy to be hung on the office-wall of every biologist, that
there is no such a thing as a reducible system in biology! We simply
cannot afford to make such a judgment, no matter how much knowledge we
may possess of any given biological system!

―A cataract patient with the lens of her eye surgically removed can't
see clear images without glasses, but can see enough not to bump into
a tree or fall over a cliff.‖ (Delusion p.123)

Now that‟s a clear example of the meaning I‟m talking about here! This
example is supposed to lead you to the conclusion that the human eye is a
reducible system!

The problem is; the author here is not kidding! In a different context I would
really take this for a joke! But he‟s really not kidding!

A cataract patient is somebody who suffers a sickness that spoils the way
her eye works! It does not blacken the eyesight or cause blindness; but it
seriously damages eyesight! So yes she can still see enough not to bump into
a tree or fall off a cliff; but who – on earth – could dare claim that humans
can do in this life with an eye that only sees that much? I mean not as an
individual, but as a species, as a kind, the kind of man as a whole; by what
right or reason can a sane man claim that an eye without a lens could suffice
or could make us into a species to begin with? The use of the eye in man is
not just to dodge a tree or to not fall off a cliff! The professor knows that
much, I hope!

So when we say “what good is half an eye” we mean what good is it for the
job – every possible function - the eye is supposed to do in this particular
species! Everything that it does is part of its job! Everything we – the

303


humans – can see is part of what our eyes are made this way to do! So what
they don‟t realize is that by reducing the structure of the organ in such a
way, they are – by necessity - reducing its functionality as well! The system
would then serve only a part of its purpose; and the bigger the damage (or
the reduction), the bigger the failure! Because its purpose is not defined by
one or two functions that it does, but by everything that a human eye works
for, and should reasonably justify its distinction in structure and composition
from the eyes of other species! So I will agree – in principle - that an eye
without a lens could do for humans, only if you could convince me,
professor, that all that you need your own eyes for is to avoid falling off a
cliff or bumping into a tree! Isn‟t it sad that we may have to respond to such
a statement?

“Seeing” is something that works for a variety of purposes in the life of an
animal, not to mention man! Not to bump into a tree is indeed the simplest
imaginable purpose of them all and in fact the least that should come to our
concern! What about identifying a prey and hunting it? What about
identifying a predator and escaping it? What about identifying the female for
mating? What about guarding the territory and protecting it? What about
feeding the young and protecting them? What about man and his extremely
sophisticated use of his eyes – as well as the rest of his senses - which makes
him what he is on this Earth? Are those not all basic necessary “functions”
and “purposes” of the eye?

Those people are after nothing but the attempt to insert hideous imperfection
in the system, the very system they cannot resist – in other occasions -
admitting its magnificence and perfectness! The very system the perfection
of which gives them their jobs and the definition of their missions as
scientists!

Look at the way he goes on with this:

―Half a wing is indeed not as good as a whole wing, but it is certainly
better than no wing at all.‖ (Delusion p.123)

Absolutely not! You first have to answer to this: better for what exactly? If
the purpose we are talking about is flying and navigating through the air like

304


birds do (which is very obviously necessary for them as a species), then
certainly half a wing is not doing this! It is not the key for that lock! If all
that an organism needs here is like he says, an organ to: ―save your life by
easing your fall from a tree of a certain height.‖, then clearly this is not the
job of what we would call a wing, is it?! It is the job of something else!
There are indeed certain species today (like the squirrel glider) that do have
such a “web” of loose skin that would help them glide in the air with ease
when they jump from one tree to another at great heights or to the ground!
But this is by no means to be called a wing! It is another organ doing
another function in another species!

―And 51 per cent of a wing could save you if you fall from a slightly
taller tree. Whatever fraction of a wing you have, there is a fall from
which it will save your life where a slightly smaller winglet would
not.‖ (Delusion p.123)

What a miserable image indeed! This is dead wrong, because the wing is
clearly a tool that works entirely differently from this so called “winglet”! If
the purpose of a wing was originally to keep an animal from getting
damaged when it falls off a tree (of course one has to wonder how it got up
the tree in the first place!), then it never should‟ve had the ability to fly off at
all, and develop into what we now know as wings! It didn‟t need it! In fact
one would expect the final step of evolution of such a device, the function of
which is only to save a falling animal, to end up more like a parachute with
more skin (a wider area) to achieve higher air resistance during the fall! But
to turn into a pair of wings with the power to navigate and move up in the
air; what on earth could justify this eccentric shift? Nothing at all! Only the
blindness of a Darwinian who insists on placing those two distinct and
equally perfect devices as they are –each in keeping up with its distinct job –
on a single track in his mythical story of natural history!

He proceeds:

―By analogy with the trees of different height, it is easy to imagine
situations in which half an eye would save the life of an animal where
49 percent of an eye would not.‖ (Delusion p.124)

305


As a matter of fact, it is wrong to say that “saving the life of an animal” is
the only function even of those pieces of skin in glider squirrels that he
views to be “less evolved” than wings! (How that skin could “evolve” into
feathers to become „wings‟ is another thing that is beyond me!)! Their job is
actually to help them jump from one tree trunk to another by means of
smooth air gliding! They use it for the purpose of moving from one place to
another for short distances, not as a safety device just in case they were to
drop off the tree! The author, just like all other Darwinians, forgets that first
he has to prove that there once was a species that was endangered due to its
inability to maintain balance above high trees, which to his notion justifies
the “evolution” of wings! I say, no animal that finds itself incapable of
climbing a tree; would even dare climb one in the first place! To shift its
metabolic system into feeding from down on the ground where it is safe is
clearly a much easier and more „probable‟ option for evolution of such a
species, isn‟t it?! And again, clearly enough, this “safety” function is not
what those gliders use their equipment for!

Now far more corrupt in terms of reasoning is to claim that the eye‟s job is
to “save an animal‟s life” according to his proposed analogy here! Try to
bring a few animals of any species that has eyes, damage their eyes down to
half of their eyesight, and see for yourself what would be of them in the
wilderness!

You see my reader, the problem is clearly with the way they so arrogantly
take their irrational faith to the level of an unquestionable fact; and from
there, they just go on taking every morphologically proximal species that
seem to have an apparently “less complex” structure than species X, to be an
example of what the ancestor of X was like before it “evolved” into X, and
by that they go on to acquire what they call “piles of overwhelming
evidence”! Had it not been for their blind unrelenting denial of there being a
creator who made it all in whatever way He chose, and gave every species
exactly what it needed, they would‟ve admitted the deep corruption of their
ways!

According to this reasoning, they would give themselves the right to
describe certain forms of life as “evolved” and others as “less evolved” or

306


even “primitive”, on the grounds that there are parts in certain organisms
that they claim do more of a certain function than similar parts in other
organisms! However, looking close enough you would easily see that neither
are the parts equal, nor are the functions they do! Gliding between two trees
like a kite or a parachute, is clearly not the same as, and not even close to
flying overseas like an airbus! One needs only to have a good pair of eyes
and a proper sense of things to see this! There is no privilege in a bird‟s
wing over a glider‟s skin coat! The glider does not need to fly the way a bird
does, neither does a bird only need to glide between tall trees! Both kinds
have survived perfectly just the way they are! Those are two clearly distinct
forms of life with clearly distinct feeding habits and life styles! So by what
right do they allow themselves to put a glider at a lower level of evolution –
biologically – below birds?

Here‟s an expression of the logical incoherence of this reasoning! They
judge the function of an organ (X) in species (A), by the standards of the
function of an organ (Y) in species (B), on the false assumption that (Y)
should better be doing in (B) the same function that (X) is doing in (A)! This
is absolutely false, because (B) is observed to survive perfectly well with (Y)
not with (X), and (A) survives perfectly well with (X) not with (Y)! So
there‟s nothing to even suggest an evolutionary history here!

What we have is two distinct systems of navigation in the air: short distance
gliding or parachuting, and long distance flying and navigating! Each of the
two systems has its own standards of functionality, and is seen to work
perfectly for the species that uses them, with organs that are perfectly
functional just the way they are!

Thus we say that when the author here attempts to use this example to prove
that the system of “flying” in birds is reducible, he is really building falsity
upon a deeper falsity! And unless he could prove to us that once upon a time
a certain species of gliders needed to have wings instead of skin flaps (a
totally different organ) and fly away, we have no reason whatsoever to
accept such a claim! And clearly enough now, no wing could do its job in
flying the way it should – or any other relevant function - if it had one or
some of its parts reduced or removed! Go ahead and try it yourself! Grab a

307


pigeon – for example – and cut off half of its wings, then place it over a tree
branch, kick it from there to see it fall, and see what it will do! It most
certainly will not glide! So what part of a wing – any given wing of any
given species – do they think could be reduced without that species failing –
as a result - to fly or to glide? And whoever could claim that as a species it
could survive without that part?

Do not mix a glider with a bird! Reduce any part you choose of the device of
gliding or of the device of flying, as they are, and see what happens to them!

Failure, on one level or another, if not total failure! That‟s what will happen!

To reduce an organ is to – quite simply – leave it insufficient in performing
its particular function! And we never saw any species suffering from such
insufficiency in our long experience with observing elements of natural life!
All we see is perfect organs – in the normal case that defines the species– in
all species everywhere doing exactly what they are supposed to do!

Darwinians – however - are trying to convince us that since a corrupted
organ (reduced) may not be too corrupt to fail entirely, and may still have
some use left in it at a certain level, that those parts you took away from it
are “reducible” or are not necessary for the organ to work the way it should
work! Just what are they talking about? Who defines “the way it should
work” in the first place and by whose standards?

Whenever a wise man speaks of a function or a purpose for a particular
device, he starts by acquiring all knowledge there is to acquire about the
device, and by defining its desired function clearly (by authority of its
designer who made it this way), before he judges the way that this device
fulfills it! However it is obvious why atheists never take this approach! It is
purely a question of belief! They give themselves – because of that belief –
the authority to reduce complex systems they are barely starting to
understand! But this surprises me not! I mean, they did admit the inversion
of human intuition to be an essential condition for people‟s consciousness to
be raised “high” enough for them to accept Darwinism, didn‟t they?

308


―Smooth gradients are provided by variations in lighting conditions,
variations in the distance at which you catch sight of your prey - or
your predators.‖ (Delusion p.124)

Great! However, those variations that you may see exist today varying
among different species, are all perfectly fit each in its particular species just
as it is! We have never seen any one of those species suffering from
insufficient eyesight, and thus having to survive long enough – despite this
failure - until a lucky mutation comes along to give it a more efficient eye, if
it ever does! Each one of those species is equipped with nothing more or less
than it needs! Now try to alter or shift any of these variables in any given
species one slight level up or down and see what damage you will do! If I
could not see a predator early enough for me to manage my escape or my
camouflage, then I‟m doomed! I will never live long enough to breed and
become a species in the first place, with such a predator always stalking me!
There is no possibility for a lesser organ for this particular species living
under those particular conditions! This fact is really too clear to demand
proof!

So when the professor says:

―And, as with wings and flight surfaces, plausible intermediates are
not only easy to imagine: they are abundant all around the animal
kingdom.‖ (Delusion p.124)

This clearly demonstrates the sheer emptiness of their reasoning! It‟s only
amazing how some of them insist that they cannot see the magnitude of the
leap of faith that is required to accept this pathetic story of „evolution‟ they
chose to believe in!

The mere proximity in physical features and general biological functions
between different species does not make them hereditarily related professor,
and it certainly does not prove them to have all descended from one common
ancestor! It is you who need to believe that they are! Driven by faith and
faith alone, Darwinians forged all kinds of theoretical explanations for
spatial relations and proximal similitude between carefully selected
observations and findings (and I use the word selected deliberately here) to

309


build this huge (tree of evolution) the way they did, and turn it into
indisputable fact, not troubled for a minute by the sheer logical and linguistic
incoherence and fallacy at the very foundations of Darwin‟s theory!

It is quite obvious that a number of species that live under the same
conditions, submit to the same laws of the physical world, and are all parts
of the same continuous cycles of nature (both animate and inanimate cycles:
food chains, water cycles, etc.); will certainly have to share a great deal of
similar features, and sometimes even strikingly similar organic compositions
(in DNA as well as in morphology)! Their variety – as unbelievably wealthy
as it is – is limited by the unity of the natural conditions to which they are all
restricted! (That‟s why I call them morphologically proximal)! An
amphibian animal – for example - is by necessity expected to be an
intermediate – in the way it was created (its physiological structure and its
body functions) – between a marine animal and a reptile, and the closer it
would be to a particular species in the locale and the general conditions of
living, the more likely it is to look closer to it in those features that accord it
to those conditions and adapt it to them! This is not a theory of biology; it is
a simple observation! This biological similarity or proximity which places
an amphibian in this place in biological terms, is not the way it is because
there was some sort of “evolutionary” slope upon which they all moved
gradually from one step to another, all starting by pure chance in a soup of
proteins, or because there was some point in the history of natural life where
some fishes had to crawl out of the sea and evolve into amphibians, but
simply because any living being that lives both in the water and on the land
is expected to already have the best qualities that allow it to live in such a
way, and thus it will have to share certain biological features and organic
qualities with both sea creatures and land creatures!

When Dawkins compares the eye of a flatworm to that of a man, trying to
prove his point on “plausible intermediates”, he almost makes me laugh,
because quite clearly, the job and the purpose of a flatworm eye is much
“less” than the purpose of a human eye! We certainly cannot do - as humans
- with a flatworm eye… can we?! And on the other hand, had the flatworm
needed any more complex eye structure for the sake of performance of its

310


different organic functions, and fitting in its place in nature; it would never
have speciated as such, with an eye as such!

Now, let‟s try to move on with this part for it has taken much more than it
should!

The worship of Gaps, you say?!

In this section, Dawkins flaunts over the comic book image of “god of the
gaps” that he claims is an argument – or at least an intimidating objection -
against all religion! We have discussed this meaning repeatedly in previous
parts, and have clarified that though there is indeed a great deal of deities
that have been (scientifically) proven false with the expanse of
advancements in natural sciences, this is not the case with all religions all
the same! He cannot prove that all religions suffer from this problem, no
matter what he does! Yet the professor thinks that by joking around and
making fun of some obviously corrupted texts in certain religious books; he
would be making his point and justifying his position as an atheist!

He claims – first off – that religion – all religion – strangulates the quest for
knowledge, on the grounds that whenever you don‟t know, you‟d easily say:
“God knows” and just quit searching! Now as much as this image appeals to
atheists, it may only be the case with false religions that are not delivered
from the omniscient, all-wise creator, or ones that have been corrupted and
spoilt! Followers of the true revelation of the creator understand that the
Lord knows it all, and controls it all, yet they also know that they are here
for a purpose, that purpose is based upon knowledge; knowledge that places
everything in its right place, and gives a man the only wise and right
justification for what he does with his life, including the ways he takes in his
quest and search for advancement and prosperity in natural sciences and in
all fields of human knowledge all the same! So there‟s indeed a great
difference between telling people not to advance in „science‟, and telling
them to let go of false or unethical paths that certain doctrines of faith (like
atheism) have been driving natural sciences into!

311


A follower of the true heavenly wisdom is a man who knows exactly what
he is here in this world to do! And thus, he knows when he walks into a lab,
what exactly he is searching for and for what end; he holds that end or
higher objective with reliable evidence that it is the truth from its only
rightful and capable source, not the philosophy of another man like himself!
So he does not waste his entire lifetime enslaved in his lab by the fallacious
beliefs of another man! He knows that there are yet far more causes and laws
that the Lord has created in this nature that we still do not know, and may
have to search for and uncover by means of our human tools, for the sake of
better fulfilling the purpose of our being on this earth! He‟s not doing
science, posing questions just for the fun of it! A Muslim is certainly not
afraid that as a believer, science may endanger his faith, or that as a scientist
religion may leave him with nothing to do! Far from it!

And as a follower of the true heavenly revelation, he knows better indeed
than waste time, money, and resources on a quest that is radically false or
that bears no true benefit to mankind, on all levels! He knows much better!

Just listen to this quotation by Dawkins in which an atheist justifies his deep
hate for all religion:

―Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists
exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do.‖
(Delusion p.126)

How pathetic is a man who just keeps working and working – blindly - with
a certain practice just because “it gives him something to do”! This is indeed,
my respectable reader, the emptiness of a blind and ignorant heart! He
knows not what he is here on this Earth to do! At the far end of it; he knows
not the meaning or purpose of life itself! He knows not what he should keep
running his labs and his research for; he just sees himself enjoying the
mystery and the glory of uncovering the mystery, so blindly he hits the gas
and runs away… where to, it doesn‟t matter! Why and what for, who cares?
He‟s just doing it for the fun of it… Only to prove that he can! Just because
it gives him “something to do”!

312


If this is what it‟s all about to you professor, then by all means go ahead,
close your eyes and have fun!

No, my respectable reader, religion does not teach us the virtue of being
satisfied with ignorance; it teaches us the exact opposite to that! It teaches
the wisdom of knowing what queries to claim and for what end! It gives the
process its higher purpose, its meaning and gives it its only right path!
Wisdom – to those who know it - starts from the point of knowing the right
question to ask, and the right query to take to the lab! It‟s atheists who are
satisfied with their ignorance in this respect!

The author then complains about creationists. He must understand though
that their arguments against evolutionism are not by necessity the way
scholars of every other religion would argue, and when you prove that
creationism is wrong in many of its ways or arguments you certainly don‟t
prove „religion‟ to be wrong! Now I will not be as naïve as he hopes, and
declare – like creationists usually do - that since he cannot tell me how this
evolved from that, or he cannot give me any “intermediate fossils”, or
“missing links”, then “God did it” and hence it can only be “designed”!
Instead, I would easily ravage his false reasoning at foundation level, as I‟ve
been doing so far in this literature! My argumentation in this book goes deep
underneath all that “noise” to the level where every reasonable man should
be arguing against atheism in general and Darwinism in particular! I am not
in the least intimidated by the slander or the expel by some academic
community here or there, that many people may fear, and thus find
themselves forced to compromise and seek some „middle grounds‟! It was
this intimidation that spawned pathetic positions in contemporary Christian
thought like (Creationism) with its many different flavors: (old Earth, young
Earth, Neo-creationism, progressive creationism …etc.)! I have no
reservations whatsoever in hammering mainstream philosophy wherever it
is, as long as I know how to forge my arguments and present my evidence
clear as day!

―The following is hypothetical but entirely typical. A creationist
speaking: 'The elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog is
irreducibly complex. No part of it would do any good at all until the

313


whole was assembled. Bet you can't think of a way in which the
weasel frog's elbow could have evolved by slow gradual degrees.' If
the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, the
creationist draws a default conclusion: 'Right then, the alternative
theory, "intelligent design", wins by default.'‖ (Delusion p.126)

I really pity this poor “creationist” here! He so easily fell in the trap! As for
me, I don‟t need to do anything to prove that the weasel frog never
“evolved” an elbow joint, at all! As we observe it in its locale, we can easily
see that it couldn‟t possibly do without the joint there in the first place! It
could‟ve never become a species to begin with, if it didn‟t have one! Try
removing that joint out from its elbow – or any part of it -, put the frog back
in the lake and see for yourself! Now that would indeed be an ―interesting
project for a graduate student‖, wouldn‟t it?!

The philosophical trick here is in the precise definition of the function (X) of
the elbow joint in the Weasel frog! Now this particular job (X) cannot be
done any better by any other biological system, and clearly enough, this kind
of species, suited to this particular ecosystem as it is, cannot survive without
that joint as it is in there! It thus follows – rationally – that there couldn‟t
have possibly been a time when this kind of species – as a species – didn‟t
have an organ that was good enough for job (X) that this organ is doing,
otherwise it wouldn‟t have become a species at all! Unless of course it didn‟t
need it back then, and it fitted perfectly well without it; which – in fact -
makes it another species altogether, one that had no need for job (X), but for
some other job (Y) that helped it survive with its own ecosystem! Now, this
has nothing to do with creationism or reducible complexity or even biology
folks; this is plain commonsense and elementary logic!26

26
It may be useful to add here that this clear distinction in definition of biological function between
organs of fossilized species and current ones leaves the inference of ancestry baseless! The distinction
between (X) and (Y) as functions should be rationally sufficient to draw the same distinction between (A)
and (B) as species! It is no plausible argumentation to infer that (B) was ancestral to (A) on the grounds
that – for example – we never dug out a fossil of a (A) from the geological stratum where we found (B)!
Absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence! Adaptation or even selective breeding – which are
both facts known by observation - are not indicators of the possibility of such a relation between (A) and
(B), because neither adaptation nor artificial selection – as we observe them – could possibly develop a

314


So I‟m not even interested in whatever new fiction he may come up with,
linking some living species to one another in such a warped way, placing
them in another Darwinian ladder, attempting to use that for evidence to
prove his position that there is no creator! This is all child-play to me, and a
waste of precious time!

Creation is the only plausible answer around (to a question that shouldn‟t
have ever come to be asked at all in the first place) and it will always be so,
because it is the only rational mode of thinking for every sane, healthy
human being! What Darwin really did was plot a theoretical, philosophical
attempt to twist human reason to the point of accepting that there could be
another alternative to creation! And now Dawkins is actually condemning
those scientists who speak of “intelligent design” as an alternate to
evolution! Isn‟t it a pity? To twist man‟s reason –as such - is to destroy the
way he thinks and the way he sees things around him! Nothing is more
worthy of being labeled as “bad science” or “pseudo-science”, no matter
how mainstream it has become!

This is why naturally, when we blow a Darwinian‟s arguments out of the
water - with sound and solid rational arguments I must add - we are only
putting things back in their right place and restoring the right order of
things in a man‟s mind!

So it is supposed to be viewed as silly of him to complain and object that
when creationists disprove evolution in any given particularity, they believe
that by default they are proving creation! Well yes of course they‟re not! No
healthy human being has to do anything at all to prove “creation”! It has
always been you – the Darwinians – who bear the burden of proof, to prove
to all mankind that their very own senses and their very own minds and
tongues have always been fooling them! And if it may help bring some
atheists back to their senses that we demonstrate in detail some of the clear
rational incoherencies of Darwinian philosophy, then so be it! It has always

new organ to serve a new function (X) instead of a function (Y) in species (B), thus turning it into species
(A)! We never saw that! It’s amazing how they don’t feel that they need to – at least – show us that this
phenomenon did happen one day!

315


been the atheist‟s pathetic cause and struggle – exclusively so - to sway
people‟s reason and twist it to have them accept this theory!

You speak of the political immunity of ID? Well, Fact of the matter is; no
other theory in any branch of natural sciences in the documented history of
mankind has ever enjoyed such a faithfully devoted cult of followers and
even militant apologists in scientific academia like the theory of Darwin;
despite the very clearly counter-intuitive and counter-rational tenets upon
which it is founded!

And again I cannot miss the chance to express the sorrow I feel towards
“creationists” who hang on to the argument of lack of fossil intermediates!
By this, the poor guys are actually admitting to evolutionists that there is
indeed a reasonable frame of arguable evidence within which they work as
they examine their fossils, and that once they could come up with the
“missing link” they would be granted philosophical approval as an evidently
proven theory!

This is why many Christian scientists (creationists) would unfortunately fail
the debate, and instead of disproving Darwinism, they usually find
themselves trapped in it, solidifying its foundations; thus giving their
opponents leverage on the outset of it, that only leaves them in need to make
as much of a compromise as they can! And eventually you get many
versions of Christianity where people haste to give any interpretation they
see fit to any scripture that may appear to come in contrast with this or that
theory! I say they do indeed lose the debate from the very moment they
mention the word „science‟ there!

Science is clearly not the arena of argumentation where this battle is to be
fought! This is why they would only find themselves confused, trapped and
strangled to death in a futile struggle among the many branches of this
gigantic tree of theory, and naturally fail to address – or even see - its rotten
roots deep down! The roots of its monumental irrationality! No wonder they
leave their opponents making fun of what seems to be a relentless search on
their part for some “gap” or “missing link” in the story to fit their god into!
And no wonder they left a man like Dawkins with a final resolution of never

316


to debate a “creationist” again! I mean what on earth did they expect?! They
slid down the same slippery slope with atheists, and found themselves
following their very same pitiful lines of thought, ending up with the label of
“pseudo-scientists”, as though they were some little children trying to prove
by means of fossil findings, archaeology, genetics and microbiology that
Santa Clause created the universe billions of years ago from his castle up in
the North Pole! This is how they made it look, when they effectively turned
the undisputable fact of creation into an “ism”! By God, What „transitional
fossils‟ are you people challenging them to present? I mean what are you
doing guys? Just get out of there!

May the Lord guide you all to the truth!

―We could easily have had no fossils at all, and still the evidence for
evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and
geographical distribution, would be overwhelmingly strong.‖
(Delusion p.127)

Clearly; the very same rational problem with the understanding of what
“evidence” is! No matter how many more Darwinian interpretations of
observable phenomena – in fossils or elsewhere - you may pile up to your
theory, this doesn‟t fix the fundamental corruption in its rational basis!

And what does molecular biology do in favor of evolution anyway? It never
demonstrated any process of ancestry with new organs emerging or the
advent of any form of new genetic data that would significantly shift the set
of functions a creature‟s organic makeup is perfectly set to perform!
Geographical distribution does not prove common ancestry either!
Darwinian ancestry and local speciation is merely a proposed explanation
for it! Geographical differences among species in all cases are only the
natural outcome of thousands of years of adaptation and re-adaptation
to distinct natural conditions!

Actually I may argue that this persistent attitude of sheer stubbornness and
blindness by worshippers of Darwin is indeed one of the major reasons why
the Lord chose to do that! For the sake of the test of life, and for every
arrogant heart that has seen the falsity of its methods and “explanations” and

317


yet would still insist on advocating fallacy nonetheless, and rejecting the
truth as clear as it sees it; to really deserve the price it will one day pay for
its arrogant choices!

When on that day they say: ―Oh Lord, why did you choose to create life the
way you did, fooling us into believing that it all evolved from pure chance?‖
Or ―Oh God why did you choose to cause some events in the world in ways
that we do not understand and ask us to accept them as your creation?‖!
What excuse would they have then? On what base of argument will they
stand? You rejected what you could not explain claiming that you do that
because you could not explain it (scientifically); when you know very well
that this doesn‟t make it a fallacy, and that this is not the true reason you
rejected it! You insisted on denying the perfectly clear mastery of creation of
this world, on the basis of an idea that is so obviously false, made by a heart
like your own, so what excuse do you think you may have? With the sheer
corruption of their methods clarified and the irrationality of their claims
exposed before them, here and now on Earth, what excuse would they really
have there? Well, when a man chooses willingly to reject the clearest of
rational necessities, and insists on calling his own synthetic fallacies
evidence; he does indeed deserve to be fooled, for it is he who did that to
himself, and it is then a perfectly just and fair reason for the Lord to create
certain creatures in a certain way for atheists to fool themselves into
believing them to share ancestry or to have “evolved” the way they claim
they did, with no “creation” whatsoever!

Fair enough indeed!

Choice in this life is responsibility; a responsibility of an eternal fate no less!

They insist on denying the undeniable, taking solace in false reasoning and a
fundamentally false application of the scientific method!

I see a wide hole in the ground, how do I explain it? I may propose it to be
due to the work of a man, the explosion of a bomb, the bombardment of
some meteorite, or some natural seismic activity or the motion of Earth
strata above one another! I may add a few more possible explanations –
according to my limited understanding and experience with similar causes to

318


similar effects (analogy) – to the sample space of probability there. Then
with closer examination I may pick the most probable analogy from within
that space (that set of possibilities I have proposed), make it “the”
explanation, and go from there to explain all the details of the event. It
would be by all means plausible science!

The question now is this: what if there is – for example – some ample
rational argument that proves that it was actually impossible for any man to
have ever placed a bomb in this place? Shouldn‟t it be enough to blow this
line of probabilities off the sample space entirely? And what if we could
actually prove - with rationally indisputable argumentation - that the hole
cannot have been caused by something that we could submit to analogy in
the first place, and that it is by necessity the remainder of an event that has to
be like nothing we ever saw or could even imagine? Would there still be any
sample space of probability to tinker with? Would this „gathering and piling
up of forensic evidence‟, then, make any sense at all?

You‟d think that such a fundamental rule of rationality concerning the
function and value of “evidence” is too clear to demand explanation or
demonstration! However, with a mind entrenched in Darwinism; nothing is
clear enough!

So we have to spell it out, over and over again.

Atheists would often complain that “people of religion” do not accept those
forms of evidence (tons and tons of overwhelming evidence) in Biology
because of their faith in their gods and religions, even though they would
accept much lesser forms of evidence in many other fields of natural
science! Well yes of course they would reject any such “evidence” that seeks
to make them believe that by their nature, humans are incapable of telling
their left from their right, and that‟s why they view the world to be “created”
when in fact it‟s not! Yes of course science grants acceptance sometimes
to much lower ranks of evidence than this huge forensic accumulation
that we have here; but whenever a scientist seeks to pile such kind of
“evidence” in any field of natural sciences for the sake of validating a

319


theory that violates a standard axiom of human reason, language and
rational necessities; it is by all means bad science! 27

I repeat that it is not the ways of empirical or forensic science that I reject
here! It‟s the Darwinian application of those particular ways for the sake of
this corrupt philosophy they insist to believe in! It is the philosophical
platform upon which this “science” stands that I am rejecting and arguing
against! Because it is from that platform that their ranking and evaluation of
“evidence” itself emerges; and that‟s where they have the problem! This is
why we say no matter how many “tons” of “evidence” you pile up people; it
accounts for nothing! This rank of evidence simply cannot validate an
argument for an idea as philosophically corrupt as „natural selection‟,
not to mention an argument against (creation), no matter how big the
pile grows! Imagine dropping coins, one coin after another, in a money jar
that has no bottom! This is what those thousands of findings (from many
disciplines of science) really account for! They just fall straight from the
bottom of the jar!

Some atheists would draw the analogy of Evolution theory to the atomic
theory, arguing that they both come at a higher level than fact, and attempt
to explain tons of facts and givens of data by means of rational hypothesis
and induction, and thus they draw the conclusion that if you rejected
27
One of the most popular parables that paleontologists like to make about their profession, and use to
charge children‟s enthusiasm for their field of research, is the way they describe themselves as “scientific
detectives”! They say they are doing pretty much the same job as a detective who is examining physical
evidence in attempt to solve a crime! Well, I say this is by all means a false analogy, and the reason is quite
clear!

First of all, as a detective, I start my search from the point where I postulate a motive! This comes from the
fact that no crime should take place without a motive! If you had that basic fact removed from the process,
then there shall be no way any detective could ever solve any crime, or have any grounds to hold anybody
suspect at all! A paleontologist on the other hand, builds on the assumption that there can be no motive,
because there is no suspect at all in the first place! He sees no purpose beyond the past events that he claims
to be examining, the way a detective does!

Thus, in crime analysis, a detective does not work his way with gathering evidence to prove that such a
clearly perfect crime should have had no doer at all! He does not admit it to be a crime and then seek to
prove that nobody did it! Furthermore; he is never so blind as to keep up with his theories and assumptions
even when the real suspect comes forth and makes his confession, and is evidently and clearly – by
necessity of reason - the only one capable of doing it!

320


Darwinian Evolutionism for the mere definition of it as a theory not a fact,
then you might as well reject the Atomic theory (for example)! I argue that
this is by all means a false analogy! This is because quite obviously, there is
a major difference between the rational foundations upon which Darwinism
and the atomic theory are built! Yes indeed both are theories, and both use
scientific observation in adding further propositions and explanations to
support the hypotheses; but what about the basic rationale upon which the
hypothesis itself is founded, and its philosophical validity? How can they
even claim the philosophical foundations of both theories to be analogous?

Not even close!

The atomic theory does not demand us to actually invert the way we make
sense of reality around us! We do not have to counter our natural
commonsense so we could accept it! It does not force us to put new
meanings – false meanings – into language (the very tool that defines all
mental processes of perception and cognition in man), and to “bite our own
tongues” to not describe things we see in the world around us using the only
right words we can think of to describe them! In short, the atomic theory
does not stand upon a philosophy that is one millionth as rationally corrupt
as the theory of Darwinian Evolution! And to us, Muslims, in addition to
rational evidence, there is irrefutable scriptural evidence that cannot
possibly be challenged by this caliber of scientific evidence!

In a public discussion that Dawkins held with physicist Lawrence Krauss, in
Stanford University 28, Quantum physics was mentioned, and Krauss argued
- those are not his exact words - that if people are finding trouble accepting
Darwin‟s theory because it is counterintuitive, then they might as well reject
all of quantum mechanics, a field where little next to nothing is understood
by anybody! He uses the double-slit experiment as an example of how
“counterintuitive” the very observations that we make at subatomic level
are; they are objectionable he says! He says that when throwing a baseball as
a projectile, it takes a certain path that is predictable, calculable, and quite
rational! However, when you throw an electron, it takes unpredictable paths,
and when thrown at a sheet with two slits, it does not act like any particle
28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLctxRf7duU

321


should; it appears as though it passed through both slides simultaneously,
and comes out on the other side to interfere with itself! He tries to impress
the audience with the fact that this is certainly not a behavior that any
reasonable man could understand of a particle (being in two places at the
same time)!

Well, first of all, Dr. Krauss, you are indeed much smarter than make such a
silly analogy; making people think that at subatomic level we should expect
to see particles behave like baseballs! You know better than that! You know
that at subatomic level quantum particles reveal their dual nature (wave-
particle duality), and you know that at that level we humans are playing
close to the point where the definitive boundary between energy and matter
as we know them is (at least) hazed and obscured, taking the whole thing
beyond our ability to model or predict (the way we do with a baseball)! I
don‟t know if we‟ll ever comprehend the quantum world the way we
comprehend the mechanics of a baseball, I have no reason to believe that we
may not (although I find it to be quite unlikely); but we all agree that we
currently don‟t know what exactly is going on down there!

So the reason why our grasp on particle activity at subatomic level is so
fuzzy and our understanding of it is so unclear; is obviously because those
particles are not really particles! They are more like packets of condensed
energy with wave properties that we are only beginning to understand!
Scientists have known about the dual nature of a photon (and obviously of
electrons and almost every other quantum particle) for long enough now that
you‟d think they would realize the reason why it is clearly not behaving the
way we may expect a baseball to behave! It does not conform to our
mechanical definition of a particle; it‟s another physical entity. Thus an
electron is certainly not to be analogized so easily to a baseball! It‟s not even
a „ball‟ to begin with!

This analogy reminds me of a time not too long ago when people used to
think of the atomic structure as a 2-D circle (as in Bohr‟s first depiction of it
at the beginning of the twentieth century) with a nucleus at the centre and
electrons orbiting around it! Little do we know today, and much less did we
know back then! So you really can‟t help wondering; what impact could

322


such an anti-rational approach to what‟s going on down there have on future
research in this particular field? Is it about to turn into yet another doctrine
of philosophical nonsense, rather than an actual discipline of natural
science?

Yes we do not yet know how to explain such a duality, when and why an
electron acts as a particle, and when and why it would behave as a wave or
even as a mere packet of energy, and may – in fact - be approaching the limit
of our human ability to model and theorize at that point; but this certainly
does not justify the nonsensical interpretation by some philosopher of
physics who would easily say: ―well, this proves that unlike anything man
has ever seen or accepted: a particle could exist in two places at the same
time‖! Of course it couldn‟t! Nothing could! This – to build upon the only
tool that we humans have and trust for explanation and understanding – is
certainly impossible; for anything at all to be in two places at the same time!
We are not going to question the basic axioms of our human reason because
of such postmodernist nonsense, are we?! This is indeed a grieve danger to
all human knowledge; do not lose your grip on reality and reason just
because you cannot explain certain patterns of behavior of subatomic
particles! Snap out of that, professor Krauss, before you lose your mind!

What we observe down there is to be explained and understood only if one
day we could understand this bizarre interference between the properties of
matter, wave and energy, and explain it in terms of 1+1=2! Those properties
are only distinctively articulated and defined in our current knowledge
within a theoretical (mathematical) model that only deals reliably with the
level of our common perception of the world! This is why it‟s not working at
quantum level, and that‟s no surprise to any reasonable man! There‟s
nothing irrational or counterintuitive about that! It‟s only natural human
ignorance – at this stage of human history - about something that we see for
the first time! An ignorance that may indeed turn into laughing material
someday in the future!

Irrational interpretation = false interpretation! We have to be capable of
throwing this judgment forcefully in the face of every enthusiastic physicist
who starts speaking nonsense, and getting wet dreams because of what he

323


sees in his lab, because if we cannot make this distinction between rational
and irrational, then science itself is a lost case, and nothing will ever make
sense!

So do not make such a statement “Quantum mechanics makes no sense, so
go ahead, become a Darwinian and let go of your reason”, and propagate this
nonsense as “consciousness raising”! This is a typical example of a fallacy
seeking to be justified by complex ignorance, in addition to what you may
call (argument from incredulity)! What could possibly be more miserable
and anti-knowledge than such a position? And it comes from people who are
viewed to be the elites of scientific academia! Those are the people who
drive the process of science in the West today to its glorious future; and
they‟re out to enlighten the world with what they believe!

Darwinism is obviously attempting - through the likes of Dawkins and
Krauss - to have people convinced that it‟s okay to find a theory
counterintuitive or even irrational, and be satisfied with it nonetheless, just
as it is the case with many theories that seek to explain the quantum riddle!
Well I say sorry professor; we do not accept irrationality or counter-intuition
in Quantum physics any more than we do in Biology or in any other field of
human knowledge for that matter! Our minds are not to be fooled or made
fun of! This is not what they are there for! “Ridiculous observations” should
not be given ridiculous explanations, because first of all there is no such a
thing as “ridiculous” or (counterintuitive) observation; there‟s rather a
currently unexplainable observation, or an observation that defies our ability
to do any form of analogy, but not a “ridiculous” or “irrational” observation!
And as for proposing explanations, it should come as firsthand logic, an A-
B-C of human rationality, that there couldn‟t possibly be one object in two
places at the same time; so any theory that bases its interpretations and
explanations on this nonsense, is easily at the same rank with the Darwinian
theory and should also be rejected and ridiculed! It builds over a
fundamentally false rationale!

So be aware my kind reader that while sane people who do make sense of
things and who demand a path of straight and healthy rationality should
reject irrational quantum explanations just as they reject Darwinism, there

324


are people on the other hand who are trying so hard to have people accept
Darwinism on the grounds that many people did accept counterintuitive
(irrational) explanations that have been proposed in other fields of natural
sciences, and did not file lawsuits against teaching them in schools! Well, I
don‟t know about you my respectable reader, but to my mind this is an
outrage!

So when Dawkins comments happily saying: ―Well, ridiculous observations
call for ridiculous theories!‖! I can only comment saying: ―Well, ridiculous
theories only come from ridiculous people, professor!‖ And I thank God
we‟re not that kind of people.

It is really sad to find so many evolutionists willing to debate with their
opponents on every single aspect or detail of their marvelous story of natural
history, the fossil record, the ancestry tree and so forth; yet they are so
unwilling to address the core philosophy, science philosophy, at the level of
rational foundations of the theory itself! It is only at that level that
evolutionists might really see what exactly is wrong with the “science” of
their theory; if they were ever willing to see! Good science and bad science
is to be judged by the validity and rationality of the fundamental philosophy
underneath any given theory of science, just as it is to be judged by the
soundness of its observations and experiments! It is not to be judged by how
many more findings you can explain on the same course of philosophy of an
utterly “ridiculous” theory!

It‟s about time you realized, my atheist reader, that the money Jar is
bottomless; it doesn‟t matter how many more coins you can drop in, through
the slot on the top!

Quote:

―When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could
ever be falsified, J. B. S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in
the Precambrian.' No such anachronistic fossils have ever been
authentically found, despite discredited creationist legends of human
skulls in the Coal Measures and human footprints interspersed with
dinosaurs'.‖ (Delusion p.127)

325


Even if you did find that fossil rabbit in the “Precambrian” one day,
evolution still does not accord with Popper falsification principle, because
there would still be a barrage of other possible explanations to such a
finding, the least of which is the conclusion that rabbits may have evolved
much earlier than is currently thought! Darwinians do that all the time, don‟t
they? There‟s always a way out! So how could they possibly be falsified by
any direct observation or empirical experimentation?! Any observation that
works as evidence only after it is given a theoretical explanation; can
never end any theoretical debate on a theory of science! And that‟s the
case with everything that evolutionists (and creationists in the most
case) would call evidence! There will always be exclamations like: “Oh, but
we never found any such fossil!” or “If we find such a fossil then we will
prove to be wrong!” or “Perhaps we will find this fossil one day, we haven‟t
dug up all the Earth!” … etc. But the fact that they never found a certain
fossil doesn‟t mean that it never existed, does it? There will always be an
endless number of possible explanations, and never any form of direct
observational proof to actually falsify Darwin‟s claims! We will never find a
fossil or a genetic code or a complex biological system that disproves
evolution in the eyes of its followers, the way a black swan disproves the
statement that all swans are white! Only if we travelled back in time would
we obtain such a kind of observation that either falsifies or validates any of
the Darwinian claims in a way that leaves no room for any further
philosophical objections, and that‟s simply impossible!

This is why people have got to understand that the scientific method does
not work in favor of either of the two sides in the debate between atheists
and the rest of mankind regarding the existence of God! It‟s just healthy
reason versus sick reason! Some humans have got really sick and they need
serious help; that‟s why there ever came to be such a debate!

The Cat and mouse game of fossils (or you may call it the fossil challenge
game) is played by both sides of the debate in the west today: Christian
creationists and evolutionists all the same! In fact I could even name a few
Muslim scientists - who really know less about Islam than they know about
the corrupt logic of Darwinism – who got themselves trapped in this futile

326


game of fossils nonetheless! Both teams are playing the game of what fossil
to come up with, and where to put it; on the assumption that not finding any
fossil remains of a particular form of species, is enough evidence to prove
that it never existed, or that at least, it never lived in this or that age! This
conviction had both teams busy searching eagerly for certain features in
remains of dead animals, on the hope that they come up with a breakthrough
“finding” that ends the debate! I really feel sorry for them all! What a waste!

Now this notion, the idea that they may actually keep searching desperately
for a particular type of fossils forever and never manage to come up with
one, has posed a great ideological threat over researchers in the West, which
did in fact lead to many famous forgeries! This is why we have seen many
scandals of fake fossils in attempt to fill the so called “missing link”, mostly
between man and his proclaimed ancestor! Those fakeries were indeed
propagated and advocated strongly by science magazines and the media in
general, deemed as scientific breakthroughs of their time, only to prove
afterwards to have been nothing but cheap acts of forgery! Some
evolutionists would easily fake a skull from some little fragments of a jaw
bone, or even from a pig tooth for the sake of cheap glory, or for the
achievement of a PHD degree or so!

Now in the light of such a poor rationale towards the meaning of a fossil
finding and its radically false use as “evidence” on both sides of the debate,
and the fact that they have been proven to easily commit such cheap acts;
what credit of scientific integrity could any sane man still give to any of
their proclaimed “substantial findings” now? How do you know they really
found everything they claim they found, and that none of this is fake? They
have already been proven to perform acts of deception and forgery and to
have people believe them for years, so how could you people trust them on
what they claim they have, and the way they manipulate it to make it support
their story (according to their notion of evidence)? This is a moral question
here! Not that this fossil frenzy really proves anything to either parties, we
know it doesn‟t; the point here is the concept of forgery itself and the motive
from whence it arises!

327


My point here is: how desperate is a scientist who would do something like
this, for the sake of proving a theory of “natural science” towards which he‟s
supposed to be skeptic? What does this theory really mean to him, if not a
theory of natural sciences like all theories? Why not go out to the world and
say: “I failed! The hypothesis in my thesis proved to be wrong, or did not
prove to be right! I could not come up with a single observation that could
qualify as indisputable evidence!”? Why not do that when it is revealed to
you? Why lie? Why fake?

Well, the answer is simple! They lie because their personal faith depends on
it; not to mention of course their academic careers as scientists!

What other theory of science in the history of mankind do you know has had
such a reputation of having some researchers actually forge “evidence” to
support it? This is not the work of a “skeptic” or “objective” scientist; it‟s
the work of a desperate believer who feels challenged to prove the validity
of his false faith, no matter what! It‟s the typical work of a minister of a false
religion!

So given this fishy reputation with fossils; when Darwinians wage wars of
propaganda against other findings that come from the opposite camp (like
giant human skulls or mega-fauna 29 or the so-called out of place
29
On a side note, it is narrated in the most authentic books of Hadith (AlBuhkary, Muslim and others) that
prophet Muhammad Sallalahu Alihi wa sallam said: “Allah created Adam at the height of sixty cubits,
and then He said to him: Go and greet those Angels, and listen to their greeting; that should be your
greeting and that of your offspring after you. So Adam said to them: “Peace be on you”, they replied
“Peace be on you and mercy from Allah”, they added “mercy from Allah”. Everybody who enters
heaven will be in the size (and shape) of Adam. And ever since his time, humans have been
decreasing (diminishing) in that.” (AlBukhary, no. 3326)

This Hadith tells us that the first man to walk this Earth was about 32 meters high (one cubit is about 56
cm), and ever since then, humans have been dropping gradually in size until today the tallest man would
hardly exceed 2.4 meters! Some stubborn enemies of the truth would make fun of this Hadith and say it
proves that Islam or Sunnah is false, whereas some ignorant Muslims would argue that it is not authentic
because it cannot be true! First of all I emphasize that this Hadith is indeed at the highest level of
authenticity there can be after the Qur‟an, in the scholarly science of Hadith, so we have no reason
whatsoever to doubt that those were the exact words of the prophet (Sallalahu Alihi wa sallam). Having
said this, we remind every Muslim reader that there couldn‟t possibly be any rational objection whatsoever
against a positively authenticated scripture of Islam, and this one is no exception! There‟s nothing irrational
about Adam – regardless of how far back he lived in the past – being 32 meters tall! There‟s nothing
irrational about the generations after him dropping gradually in hight, in lifetime spans, in physical power

328


(anomalous) archeological finds … etc) findings that are thought by
creationists to support the opposite position, how is their media machine to
be trusted on that? I mean, when they claim that all that their opponents ever
claimed to have found – all of it – was nothing but myth or forgery, who
could ever trust them on that claim?

I‟m not claiming that the opposite team does not have cases of forgery as
well (though I do not know of any particular case that was reported and
exposed as forgery on the creationist side)! I can easily understand that when
some immoral Christian scientist who lacks scientific integrity and honesty

and even in intelligence (and the capacity of memorization, for it is narrated in the Qur‟an that Allah taught
Adam the names of everything on Earth)! We Muslims need nothing more than the authentication of a
single narrative of this story to believe it to be true! As for missionaries and atheists we tell them that we do
not care what fossils say, we do not care what archeological finds may say, we do not raise such forensic
theories at any level of valuable argumentation for or against such a story in our scripture! I can argue right
now that those remains of mega-fauna and giant lizards (Dinosausrs) indicate that there was indeed a time
when all – or most - elements of natural life were orders of magnitude larger than they are today (including
man)! I can even argue that the proportion between man and the largest lizard in his time was kept the same
even as this decrease in size took place! The Komodo Dragon (considered to be the largest Lizard on Earth
today) could go as large as 3 meters (from tip of tail to tip of nostrils), whereas the average man today is
1.8 m tall. Keeping this proportion, how large do you expect man may have been at a time when the largest
lizard around may have exceeded 40 meters of length? Well, you do the math! I can even argue that many
“creationist” researchers did find remains of giant human skeletons, and highly sophisticated artifacts in
strata where man was supposed to be nothing but a miserable hominid still hunting and gathering; findings
which were all – for obvious reasons – expelled by the Darwinian community! I may even argue that
ancient megalithic remains like the great pyramid in Egypt in which a single brick of stone weighs over
seventy tons, could not have been built in antiquity time by any of those nonsensical Egyptologist
explanations, and that at the time of its construction (whenever that was), it was in fact – relative to the
scale of man – no higher than a two storey building at our current scale! I can go further with this, but I
wouldn‟t do that! None of this conjectural archaeology proves anything or is even worthy argumentation to
me, not to mention whatever conjectural responses atheists may come up with in response! A fool is a man
who hangs his acceptance of the truth on such arguments! You want to believe there were never any giant
humans on Earth because you never found such remains, or that the great pyramid was built by some aliens
who have been toying with us ever since the dawn of mankind, or that man evolved only after dinosaurs
became extinct; have it your way then, but do not dare accuse our scripture because of this nonsense!
Muslim scholars do not take such ways to prove the validity of what their prophet teaches them! It suffices
perfectly to blast away those silly objections, to say that there can be no rational objections whatsoever
against this Hadith! Suppose you spent your entire lifetime and died without ever finding the fossil remains
of a giant man, or any remains of certain great civilizations the Qur‟an tells about (like the kingdom of
Solomon for example, the remains of which Christian archeologists have been trying to find in total vain)
what argument would you have on the Day of Judgment rejecting the truth because of this? Quit fooling
yourselves atheists, and reconsider your choices before it‟s too late!

329


is driven by mainstream thought into believing in the value of fossils as
“evidence” for or against Creation, he may easily be tempted to forge some
fossils to help his case! I do understand this urge in a helpless man who
openly declares that he is defending his faith (which doesn‟t change the fact
that it is a forgery)! But when it comes from the opposite party, which
claims to be skeptic regarding the tool of their science, and “faith free” (so to
speak), and to be only doing a normal “natural sciences” research on a
theory that is by nature, a man‟s proposition that should be open to
refutation and replacement; this is something that should not be taken
lightly! It further demonstrates that whatever atheists say about their being
“skeptic” in their scientific query; they‟re actually lying to themselves as
well as to others! It is indeed a war of faith on both sides, not just a debate
on a theory of natural science!

Please note that when I say they cannot be trusted, I‟m not talking about a
scientist who can test every fossil in the lab first hand to check for himself
the validity of the claim! I‟m basically talking about the rest of the scientific
community and the world on the watch; people to whom a fossil finding – its
story and its denunciation all the same - is basically a piece of news; one that
could impact the illiterate public deeply! How can they trust them now?

So when the author here speaks of “discredited creationist legends of human
skulls in the Coal Measures and human footprints interspersed with
dinosaurs'” I can only just sit back and enjoy the show! No sane man should
decide his position in the most crucial issue of concern to every human being
in this world; his position of faith towards his own creator (for or against),
on the outcome of such a game of fiction and archaeological emptiness!
None of this nonsense – on either sides of the debate - does any good at the
level of argumentation and evidence at all!

The problem with the word “evidence” is that it does not always mean
“proof”! It may sometimes only mean “a sign that supports a certain claim”.
So easily would an ardent atheist come to say that this is what they mean
with their use of the word evidence! He‟d say: “I never said that this or that
evidence “proves” Darwinism! This is not what “evidence” means to me as a
scientist!”

330


I‟d then say; in all cases, and whatever the meaning you give to the word, or
whatever the level of “proof” you think it establishes; the concept of using a
hypothetical explanation for a certain finding to support a theory (a
hypothesis in itself), and claim that the more of such “explanations” you can
come up with and make accord with that theory, the more “true” it becomes:
is only plausible argumentation if and only if you are not building the case
for a rationally invalid or inconsistent theory! No such accumulation of
evidence could be strong enough to oppose – or to even challenge - the
rational necessity of certain givens of axiomatic human reason! This is a
serious epistemic fallacy, and it is to be viewed as such in all disciplines of
human knowledge!

I hope I do not have to make it any clearer that we do understand what a
theory is, and how it is regarded in different disciplines of science and
human knowledge. It is precisely why we so often say: “Darwinism stands
no chance in this debate when it is only a theory”! 30

Had the debate been held between two diverse theories that followed the
very same methods in their postulation, building on equally justifiable
rational basis, then we would‟ve said: okay, let‘s weigh the evidence on both
sides and see which theory will tip the scale, and hence be viewed as a better
candidate for an explanation. However, neither is Darwinism in debate with
another “theory” (creation was never a theory!), nor does it stand on sound
foundations of reason to begin with! So there‟s no “scale” to tip at all!

Thus I say, I would‟ve had no problem accepting such a model of
accumulative supporting propositions and explanations (as a good
suggestion for what the truth may be, as it is the case with many theories in
many branches of science), had I not known in certainty that the rational

30
In the literature of (Usoul al Fiqh: The foundations of jurisprudence in Islam) there is indeed the richest
legacy of argumentation to be found anywhere on earth, on the issue of the ranking of evidence and the
assessment of theorization in the deduction of rulings from given scriptures; a legacy that I say all scientists
need to study, to take wisdom on how to evaluate the power of an evidence)! I do not describe it as „rich‟
because of the efforts of its scholars – as great as it really is – but because of the fact that it is built – as a
discipline – on the given wisdom of revelation! An argument or a rule is valid in this discipline basically
because it relies on scriptural evidence and the induction thereof, in addition of course to its demonstrable
rational validity! There‟s much that the world needs to learn from this discipline of knowledge to see how
far atheistic reasoning has taken science and human knowledge in general from the ways of sound
rationality and coherent argumentation.

331


foundations of this theory are scandalously false! This is why in debate,
atheists are often reminded that unlike the meaning of creation, Darwinian
evolution is only a theory! They need to understand what exactly they are
pushing it against!

However, to them it is much more than “just a theory”! It is as deep a faith
to them as every theist‟s faith is to him! So you see them use the word
theory and the word evidence over and over again, without any proper
accord with its actual “size” as a proposition, in comparison to its
opposition! They keep coming up with more explanatory stories for fossil
findings thinking that the more they could come up with, the stronger their
position of “evidence” becomes in the debate!

That‟s what a Darwinian paleontologist – for example - does, typically! He
follows his deep faith in making up every new explanation and theory for
every new finding. He digs, brings out fossil remains, uses his imagination
in identifying by selective analogy what kind of a species this specimen may
belong to (no matter how scarce those remains may be), hypothesizes the
rest of its structure and even gets an artist to fantasize what it may have
looked like, in accordance – usually – with the “dating” info he gets, or the
stratum he finds it in, makes up a story for it and places it somewhere in his
flexible myth of Darwinian ancestry tree, then puts it – when he‟s done - in
some museum of natural sciences and have people believe that this is
another breakthrough that further solidifies Darwinism! This is what they
typically call a new addition to their score of “overwhelming” evidence!

I have to admit that their ability to make up such stories the way they do on
every fossil they add to their gallery, and accumulate upon their mainframe
of theory is really impressive; takes a vast span of creativity and imagination
I should say; I mean not everybody could come up with such detailed
sketches of a “hominid”, the way it looked, the way it fed, lived, and
“hunted” its food, based only on a tooth, a fraction of a lower jaw bone, and
some piece of crude pointed stone! But what on Earth does any of this
fiction, offer to human knowledge at the level of “proof” for Darwinism
versus the rational necessity of creation?

332


It offers nothing – in reality – for the sake of proving Darwin‟s case! No
matter how many of such “evidences” they come up with, the theory will
always be no more than a monumental work of fiction that could‟ve never
lived that long, had it not been for the faithfulness and sheer devotion of
atheist scientists all over the world!

Thus I stand justified when I hold that Darwinism is simply an out of scope
theory! It‟s a fundamentally wrong application of the scientific method! It
seeks answers to certain questions in all the wrong places, and refuses to see
why it is wrong! After admitting the irrefutable necessity of God being there,
questions like, who He is, where we came from, Why He made us and what
He wants of us, and where we all go to when we die, are clearly not
questions of natural science or even philosophy! This knowledge has to be
received from Him; and nowhere else, and it has to be authenticated – as a
source – beyond any reasonable doubt! It‟s an epistemological necessity!

Thus we say that believers in the creator, followers of all religions other than
atheism and its branches, do not take what they have about the question of
origins and the existence of God for the work of theory proposed by a man
in some branch of natural sciences or philosophy; this is not what they claim
it to be! So you cannot ask them to approach those issues with skepticism!
Regardless of whether or not they can prove their particular position of faith
to be the truth; it is – naturally – a position of certainty to them, by
definition! This is why emphasis is made here and in every argument by
every follower of religion on the heaviest meaning of proof rather than this
wishful probabilistic thinking that Darwinians – like many other theorists in
other branches of natural science - would call “pieces of evidence”! This is
why they‟re usually saying, as they criticize Darwinian argumentation for
atheism: “This doesn‟t prove anything”! 31

The position is usually expressed as such: “who are you to tell me to let go
of the existence of God, the omniscient creator, for the sake of some human
theory?” This objection stands justifiable regardless of the validity of the

31
This is why when some humanist association once placed a poster on the side of a bus in
England that read (There‘s probably no God, Now stop worrying and enjoy your life), all sensible
people made a joke out of it!

333


particular doctrine of faith to which its holder may belong! Basic belief in
the existence of the creator is independent of what this or that religion
teaches about Him! It is a rational necessity upon which all theistic religions
are built!

Naturally a believer in God has full support of pure human reason at the
level of accepting the creator; the kind of reason that Darwinians are fighting
windmills for the sake of subverting! This certainty in the natural meaning
of creation is what makes us dismiss and ridicule – with confidence -
everything that they have ever come to view as evidence for their miserable
theory, because quite simply: Rational necessities (naturally qualifying as
certainties) cannot be overcome by accumulating theoretical
probabilities! They must offer an irrefutable proof; which is something they
know they don‟t have and never will. And it is not possible – rationally - that
there could ever be a case where man discovers irrefutable proof for
something that destroys the very basics of rationality!

So what are the options now for a Darwinian preacher to have people accept
his theories in place of their rationally necessitated and intuitively
ascertained faith in the creator?

Well, he finds – just like Dawkins does here in “the Delusion” – he has no
choice but to move to plan B! To shift from the strategy of attempting to
convince a believer in God with Darwinism, to the strategy of proving to
him that his religion is false; which is of course an easy task to take on when
the religion is indeed not the true revelation of the creator! So once the poor
victim loses the grounds of certainty that he has always granted for his book
and his religious leaders, he is left in deep confusion, uncertainty and
bitterness; and at that point, he is easily fooled into believing that all religion
is fiction all the same, and that only in “science” – namely Darwinism -
could he find his asylum! It‟s this extreme psychological reaction that
atheism really feeds upon!

At that point they would have him convinced that there is no creator at all,
even though they actually did nothing more than prove to him that his own
religion in particular – which ascribes itself to the creator like all other

334


religions do – is false or corrupt! So whatever does this particular conclusion
have to do with the natural and perfectly rational necessity of there being a
creator? Nothing at all! They‟d tell him: “well, now that you‘ve lost your
previous certainty in your religion, come join our camp and accept the
closest thing we can get to an answer to the major questions of life;
Darwinism‖!

This is why this book, this “Delusion”, is structured as such! If you don‟t
find Darwinist beliefs about the metaphysical convenient enough through the
first couple of chapters, then let us show you before we wind up, what
“evils” religion has caused in the world! Becoming a Darwinian is a typical
act of conversion from a previous religion to the doctrine of atheism, and
that‟s exactly what Dawkins admits his book to be about!

So do not speak of those fossils or any other findings as evidence; because
clearly they are not! This pathetic chase of remains of dead animals is not
the way to learn the truth about our origins for those who truly seek it!

Thus in conclusion I say; those “pieces of evidence” really account for
nothing in terms of “proof” here, no matter how plentiful they are, or how
coherent they may seem to be! They would always be nothing but additional
detailed assumptions branching from a big assumption that is basically un-
provable; and is fundamentally anti-rational and counterintuitive at the core!

It doesn‟t matter how many more bricks you can pile up in a wall or how
you can make a brick fit in some hole in this wall, when you actually have
no footing down at foundation level for the wall to keep standing in the first
place!

Quote:

―The speedy resort to a dramatic proclamation of 'irreducible
complexity' represents a failure of the imagination.‖ (Delusion p.128)

One can easily take notice of a lot of similar comments throughout the book
by the professor! It‟s the typical attempt by every atheist to depress or
intimidate his opponent by describing him as “unimaginative” or “un-
insightful”, making him feel like a mindless advocate of faith who really has
335


no conception of “science” and no valuable knowledge to offer to the
question in hand! Atheists do that all the time. However, without reasonable
evidence and good argumentation, it is nothing but empty noise! Only the
power of one‟s arguments is what justifies his tone of speech and his
attitudes after all!

As for failure of imagination, I just admitted that Darwinians do enjoy a
great deal of imagination indeed! And so does every talented fiction novelist
around! But we‟re not in for science fiction, are we?! We‟re here for the
truth! How much imagination you have in the stories you make up is – thus
– irrelevant to our query here!

I have also elaborated that the reason we always come out from refuting
Darwinian mythology by going straight to “Creation” is that creation is
really the only rational and sensible meaning that every healthy human mind
is bound to see by default! All along their literature, Darwinians themselves
admit repeatedly that Darwinism is to them but a “worthwhile substitute” or
“alternative”! They are always on the quest and claim to “prove” it to be a
good alternative! They do admit that by default all healthy humans think
nothing but creation and perfectness at it nonetheless! Thus they
acknowledge that humans have to alter the way they normally make sense of
things, in order to swallow Darwinism! So how come they complain now
that whenever a certain “particular” postulate of Darwinism is refuted or
argued against, people would resort by default to creation in its stead?

What – on Earth – do they expect?

He comments:

―You might as well simply assert that the weasel frog (bombardier
beetle, etc.) demonstrates design, without further argument or
justification. That is no way to do science.‖ (Delusion p.128)

Now this statement here is by all means a disgrace to human knowledge,
rationality and common sense! It exposes – in the clearest possible words –
the magnitude of the mental darkness that Darwinism – like many
nonsensical philosophies - has befallen on humanity! If I cannot assert that

336


the weasel frog “demonstrated design” without further argument or
justification; then I cannot assert that anything at all demonstrated design
without further argument and justification, and if this is the case, then I
should really go get some serious help! If I cannot identify such a meaning
in what I see around me, and I feel I still need further justification to
describe something as “beautiful” or “organized” or “systematized” or
“designed” when I see it, and realize by virtue of linguistic meaning that
there must be a perfectly creative doer of these deeds; then I am no better
than a poor postmodernist who questions the meaning of “truth” or doubts
the existence of “reality” and suspends his belief in those meanings until
they are proven by “further argumentation or justification” to be “true”!
Don‟t you agree, professor, that this a joke? Seeking to prove truth to be
true? How do people know that truth is true?

When some poor psychopath argues that there‟s no truth, or that truth is a
relative value, people should have the courage and the mental integrity to
deplore him forcefully saying: If that were the case then there‟s no proof
for the validity of any argument whatsoever (including this argument of
yours here); so go play with little kids! There would be no such thing as
“proof” or “evidence” to begin with, if we went down to this level! Some
meanings and axioms of human reason and language cannot and should not
be messed with; otherwise, nothing will have any meaning, and
argumentation would only be a pathetic play of empty words! No decent
man who respects his mental integrity should allow this nonsense or give it
any degree of credibility! Yet you, professor, see those sick people made
into intellectual icons and heroes in your society, and you don‟t find it a
noble cause to spout your disdain on them! Probably you don‟t understand a
single word they write; so you figure; well, there should be others who do,
otherwise how did people like (Derrida, Baudrillard and others) become
members of western intelligentsia? And even though this intrinsic
contradiction and sheer irrationality in postmodernist nonsense is too clear to
demand a proof (it destroys the meaning of proof itself!); postmodernism did
pervade and people found themselves applauding the meaningless mental
vomit – pun and offense intended here! - that postmodernists present in their
works, just in fear that if one of them stood up and said: “This is nonsense”,

337


he would be accused of stupidity, ignorance, or at least poor intellect and a
consciousness that is not sufficiently “raised”! ―You don‘t know the first
thing about postmodernism‖ those “pioneer philosophers” would easily say!
Is this not sheer hypocrisy?

If I cannot trust my natural human faculties of cognition and sensibility,
then what is the point of thinking or even living at all?

If every time I look at an obviously well functioning system (it cannot be
described by any other words) and say “it was made up – set up – composed
– created - … etc - masterfully”; I have to be reminded by some deranged
philosopher that when I say “made up”, I shouldn‟t by necessity mean that it
is “designed” or “made up BY X, where X is a masterful maker who
designed everything in it, and put it in its right place according to a
previously determined purpose”, and that in fact the truth could be the exact
opposite to this meaning; then the world is indeed a sorry place! The end
result is that we have no reliable conception of any of these very meanings
themselves: Design, purpose, making, maker, … etc.! If every time a man
says “selected” he is told that he still needs to make an argument to prove
that this meaning necessitates that there be a “selector”, and to justify this
linguistic necessity inherent in the very definition of the “passive voice”
itself, then we are indeed in deep trouble, and we can no longer make sense
of the words we use!

“Anti-rational” is indeed the only proper word to describe such a
philosopher, not just “irrational”! That‟s what Darwinism is in reality; Anti-
rational philosophy in a disguise of science and rationality! But in a crazy
world where our very conception of reality and truth is no longer valid, and
our perception and natural linguistic abilities are no longer to be trusted;
whatever does the word “rational” even mean at all? And whatever should
stop people from accepting Darwin‟s contribution to such a world in
demise? After all, life is only a meaningless crazy place where nothing is
certain or makes any sense!

This is why it never fails to amaze me to see Dawkins emphasize on the
meaning of “evidence” and “proof”, lamenting postmodernists and the way

338


they mess around with those meanings! What on Earth – then – do you think
Darwinism is doing to your own cognition, professor?

It does not take a scientist to make out the difference between night and day!
What argument does any sane man need beyond the overwhelming
perfectness of a weasel frog which only takes two eyes and a healthy mind
to admit? You say: that‟s no way to do science; I say actually that‟s no issue
to do science for in the first place! Science does not test basic axioms of
human reason or challenge them; it presupposes them! Science is only
one of many fruits of those axioms in human life! That‟s how things work!
The very simplest and clearest of all meanings that a man knows, needs no
“science” done to argue for it or justify it! I do not need to „demonstrate‟ the
fact that the weasel frog is masterfully created; not by removing its limb or
any other part of its body! I just need to have a pair of eyes and a healthy
mind that works properly; that‟s all!

No reasonable man needs any demonstration to prove that the frog would go
cripple – malfunction – at the loss of a limb, or blind at the loss of an eye,
and would be in great danger of perishing because of that loss! I wonder
now, if this is not – in concept - “irreducible complexity” then what is it?
What is the outcome of removing a frog‟s limb that would have him admit
that it is ‗irreducibly complex‘? Does he expect it to – perhaps – die or to fail
in survival? Well, nobody can prove that survival is the only function or
purpose of a living being – Darwinians have it for a given fact though! –
Yet, even with the little that science knows today, it is evident enough that
without a limb, a joint or an eye, it will indeed fail to survive!

A living being is indeed a huge set of functions and purposes, as we
elaborated earlier; systems and subsystems that make it this perfectly
adapted and perfectly functional creature that we see in nature! So what kind
of a demonstration is he asking for to believe that it is indeed perfect just the
way it is, and that it can‟t be this way without a maker who defines this
perfection in the way that it is and the way that we perceive it? And if the
only purpose of an element of any compound system in organic life is – to
him - to assure survival, then what good is half a limb every time it‟s
imperative for it to escape the attack of a predator, for example? Will he

339


rejoice in finding a part that when removed from the frog‟s body, it will not
die, and he will not see any obvious, immediate or long term change in the
way it lives? Will he then claim that it is reducible? Typically; an argument
from complex ignorance!

Quote:

―The logic turns out to be no more convincing than this: 'I [insert own
name] am personally unable to think of any way in which [insert
biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step.
Therefore it is irreducibly complex.‖(The Delusion p.128)

Well, how about this: ―I (insert own name) am so arrogant and stubborn
and thus I‘m personally unable to admit the perfection that I see in the way
organic systems work, and the rational necessity that follows from there,
that every part of it must have a function even if I did not know it yet!”?

Think about it!

It should be made clear that whatever meaning an atheist gives to
reducibility, it is false! Nothing in natural life can be reduced the way they
claim, and not fail on one or more level of functionality!

In a TV interview, Kenneth Miller commented that Behe‟s famous example
of the mouse trap does not prove irreducibility! 32

His point was that without a bate and a pin (two parts without which it
cannot work as a mouse trap), it can easily serve as a tie holder or a paper
clip or even a “spit ball” launcher; ergo it is reducible! Now what on Earth is
this man talking about? Behe‟s example was the mouse trap! The artifact
that serves as a mouse trap; not as a paper clip or a tie holder! Once you
remove one of its parts; it‟s clearly no longer fit to function as a mouse
trap! When you reduce it, you are obviously demolishing the particular job
it was made for! And that‟s the whole point of irreducibility in a well

32
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW 2lLG9EZM)

340


“designed” system! This artifact only works as a mouse trap with all those
parts fit in place! It doesn‟t matter then what other job it may be used for in
its new “context”! That would be you thinking of a new job for a new
system that emerged from your modification, which is not the original
purpose for which the designer of the original artifact made it!

So whatever the artifact may be used for after the modification is clearly
irrelevant to the debate, because we are only talking about the function of
trapping mice for which it was already designed! We define an organ by the
function (or the top function in a set of functions) that a certain part of an
organic system appears – within our currently limited knowledge of it - to
perform. So once you speak of another function or a different set of
functions; you‟re clearly speaking of another organ, part of another system,
in another context, by definition!

I remember watching a somehow “smarter” young atheist fellow on Youtube
trying in vain to demonstrate that a mouse trap may still work well as a
mouse trap even with some of those parts removed! The guy obviously
understood the concept of irreducibility better than Dr. Miller did, but his
attempt was equally pointless. It was pretty obvious that after the reduction,
the trap wasn‟t as efficient as the original design was, due to all those parts
he removed! And yet I will have to disappoint him and say that if indeed this
thing was at least equally efficient as a mouse trap after the removal of those
parts, then this is because the human designer who made it was not good
enough, and this modification of yours will indeed be a good economic
suggestion to develop this artifact in the future! So good for you kid, you
proved smarter than the designer of the mouse trap; but that‟s all you really
proved! Organic systems are obviously not mice traps designed by limited
humans like ourselves! We know too little indeed about the infinite number
of subsystems in function in even the smallest and simplest of organs in our
bodies!

Behe‟s definition of an irreducibly complex system was originally put as
thus: “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that
contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the

341


parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” (Behe, Darwin's
Black Box, p39, 2006 edition)

Now even the clearest of organs we know of cannot be said with certainty to
have exclusively one function for each and every element in it, which serves
none but the apparent function of the organ itself! Sets of functions may
intersect and overlap, and since the definition of an organ is based upon
function, and since we still learn more about those functions every day, a
system‟s purpose will never be final or absolute to our notion! You do not
have the blueprint for this design and you are only beginning to understand
the perfect and unbelievably complex way in which it works! We can only
speak of particular functions that we know relate directly to a particular part
or set of parts, according to the amount of knowledge we currently possess
of a given organic system! Thus, Any part that may not appear – at our
current status of knowledge - to contribute to a certain organic function that
we currently recognize and attribute to one system or another as its “basic
function”, cannot be dubbed – so arrogantly - “reducible”!

Evolutionists used to make this boorish claim about the appendix in man,
(placing Darwinism in that „gap‟) and now they are only starting to learn
some of its functions!

In an article in (The scientific American) 33, Loren G. Martin, professor of
physiology at Oklahoma state university declares:

For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological
function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an
important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells
appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of
development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been
shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones,
compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic)
mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other

33
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t)

342


role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does
not exist in domestic mammals.

He adds:

Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved
primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate
in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the
second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and
practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of
development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a
lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one
variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of
antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers
have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of
molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various
other locations in the body.

Now I wonder how much more we may learn about it tomorrow! And how
dare any Darwinian then dismiss it as a functionless “leftover”? 34

The point is: Nothing in nature is reducible! Nothing is functionless! The
nature of human knowledge does not give any man the right to pass such a
judgment on a system that is obviously and infinitely flawless!

Translation of the meanings of the Qur‟an (67|3-4): (((He) who has created
seven heavens in harmony. You can see no fault in the Beneficent One's
creation; so look again: Can you see any rifts? Then look again and yet
again, your sight will return unto you weakened and made dim.))
34
Even the coccyx which some evolutionists so presumptuously dismiss in man as an “evolutionary
leftover”, is mentioned in authentic Hadith as the part of the body from within which humans will be
resurrected in the day of resurrection. We may or may not get to discover other functions that it plays in our
bodies as it is, but the point is that even if we never found out why it is there: We know too little, and we
will never have the knowledge that gives us the right to judge it or any other organic system as
“functionless” or “leftover”! Any biologist who respects himself and the nature of his object of research
should make this confession! Why wouldn‟t he just say: “We don‟t know yet, maybe we will find out
tomorrow”? Why jump and place Darwin‟s nonsense in this gap of knowledge, on the previous judgment
that the „design‟ is – against what our very eyes tell us –“imperfect”? Well, we all know the answer to that,
don‟t we? Because they are at war with human reason and perception for the sake of convincing themselves
and others that none of this was “created” to begin with! That‟s what atheism does to its followers!
Imperfection and reductionism in the Gaps!

343


Now, suppose I rephrased the concept of irreducibility as such: “For any
single functional system composed of several attached parts; the removal of
any one of those parts should cause the system to effectively cease
functioning entirely or partially (in one of its functions).”

Meaning that by reduction it either ceases to function entirely, or its
performance drops due to loss in some of its sub-functions.

What would you say to that?

To cut it short: Reducing parts = altering design = damaging (or
changing) original function. This meaning applies to everything that we
may call “composite system”. It follows from the determinism of causality
in nature. A function may be defined (causally) as a desired „effect‟ that
follows naturally every time a group of specifically organized „causes‟ is put
to work in a predetermined manner. Thus it is clear that once a cause is
altered, the effect will be altered. A particular effect (X) should demand a
particular cause or set of causes (Y) to be obtained! If (Y) is changed, then
(X) (which may be a set of effects as well) cannot be obtained!

If the system could work after the reduction as something else, and that was
intended as a purposeful modification to it, then that‟s a change in the
system, a redesign so to speak! But if not, then it‟s simply an act of
“sabotage”, because functions will be wasted; data will be lost! Period! And
if the removal of a certain part does not affect a functional system in any
way, then it wasn‟t part of the system in the first place; by definition!

So it stands perfectly clear that the rephrased argument of irreducibility is as
rationally sound and straightforward as the meaning of the word “function”
and “system” itself! It is just like saying: a system that is obviously
functioning in perfectness; must be a perfectly designed or created system,
where every part or component should matter in a way we may or may not
know! No functioning system that is made –as a system – of parts, would
continue to function – by definition - as the same system that it was, once a
part of it is removed! This is true of everything that a sane healthy man
could call “functional” and “system” by linguistic definition!

344


So to sum it up, the basic logic beneath IC is quite clear and irrefutable, -
regardless of Behe‟s particular statement - and should not be described as a
“theory”! To put it again in biological terms: “Any organism that has parts
(organs), will never be capable of functioning as properly as it should
(failure at some level), if one of those parts was removed”!

In their debate against IC, Darwinians often bring up – like Dawkins does
here – the example of the eye, and claim that they have evidence to prove
that even the eye could be reduced!

When they so easily claim that they do have evidence in nature to prove that
the eye „could have evolved‟ through lesser (simpler) steps; they neglect one
major fact that cannot be dismissed! Let alone the fact that they take
“simple” to be synonymous to less perfect, they forget that each and every
one of those species they see today in nature; has an “eye” – or some
analogous organ – that is perfectly functional for its host species just as it
is!

A nautilus for example clearly needs no more of an eye, and no more of the
functions of sight than it has! Thus it is clearly false to claim that a more
complex eye like ours is an evolution for it! And clearly, on the other hand,
we need not have a compound 3D eye like that of a gnat, a fly or a bee! So a
fly‟s eye isn‟t any more “evolved” than ours! Why is it so difficult for them
to see that those many species they view as “lesser” or “primitive”, and
claim to have been steps on the ladder of evolution, are indeed all perfect,
each in the particular place it in is today, doing just what it does, with no
need for any additional biological parts or subsystems?

What I see is the perfect work of a perfect creator who puts everything He
creates in its right place, for its exact purpose, not a single cell lacking or in
excess! The obvious perfectness of each and every step they use as example
for their claimed “evolution” of the eye proves just that! Perfectness of
creation is by definition the success of a created system in doing what it is
supposed to be doing! And obviously, this is the case with every living
species that we have ever seen on Earth! It is – in itself, as it is – perfect and
needs not evolve in any way! Yet they use “less complex” organs in certain

345


species to prove nothing more than the mere “probability” of there being
lesser forms in our claimed ancestry! Again I say this position of lesser and
more evolved is rationally false, because just like we see such life forms
today in perfect accord with their places in the system, we have no reason to
believe that it was any otherwise, any time in the past! And clearly, no
reason to believe that such an organism ever had to evolve by natural
selection! Just the fact that we can see different species with different
“structures” of an eye, varied in the degree of complexity and optical power,
does not mean that they represent lesser – or higher - eyes on any ladder of
heredity!

None of them is in fact any less perfect than the other! Because to judge
them, we should not compare them to one another according to the degree of
their complexity, or according to the job that one of them in particular is
doing, but according to whether or not every one of them is doing what it is
supposed to be doing; and that‟s clearly not the same exact job (set of
definitive functions)! Complexity is not a standard prerequisite for
perfectness of functionality! If device A is more complex by design than
device B, and both devices seem to be doing the same kind of job but in two
different systems that have different purposes of design, then it is not at all a
necessity that device B will function better in its place if it was made as
complex as device A, or that A would function better in its place if it was
reduced in complexity to be similar to B!

Something may be too complex, just as it may be too simple; in both cases it
is not perfect! Quite clearly, nothing in nature or in natural life is too simple
or too complex to do what it is there to do, just the way it is!

If an organism will do perfectly with only a patch of photoreceptive cells,
according to the extent of eyesight that it needs for its vitality and for the
purpose for which it is made, then it is perfect with nothing more than just
that; not a single cell more! And if one day such a species was discovered, it
will only prove further variety and mastery in the works of the creator; not
that there once was no eye on Earth but this patch of cells as ancestor to all
eyes! Its mere existence today and its survival and prosperity with no more
than just this, is in itself a sign of perfectness in design, not otherwise!

346


Additional complexity in this organ in this context will then not be an
“evolution” for that species at all; it will actually be a defect!

Watch as the author gives an example that is totally irrelevant for the attitude
of humans that are not atheists. He recounts the story of a magical trick that
he watched by Ben and Teller, and comments:

―I [Richard Dawkins] am utterly unable to think of any way in which
this could be a trick. The Argument from Personal Incredulity
screams from the depths of my prescientific brain centres, and almost
compels me to say, 'It must be a miracle‘ ―(The Delusion p.129)

It is sad really, but this is the “high” place where Darwinism places the
“consciousness” of its followers! I ask the professor: Do you really believe
that the way those magicians pulled their trick, is comparable to the way the
universe and natural life came to be? Do you really believe that creation and
people‟s natural acceptance of it and belief in it; is a trick they are all just
fooled into believing? Do you really think your mind is playing a trick on
you? Well yes it is! All atheists suffer from that, because they chose to do it
to themselves! They chose to challenge their own minds and their own
senses!

Translation of meanings of verse (7|179): ((…(They) have hearts wherewith
they understand not, and eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith
they hear not. These are as the cattle; nay, but they are even worse! These
are the neglectful))

I quote the Qur‟an as it describes in one of many verses how blind they are,
for they act as though they never saw a single sign or heard a single
argument to prove them wrong; they would reject it no matter how clear that
proof is!

Christians would probably quote Psalm 53 (The fool has said in his heart
there is no God), and it would also fit right in place! Although one cannot
tell the authenticity of this text, thus I cannot ascribe it to the Lord; I find it
very expressive in this context nonetheless, and it may in fact be part of the
remains of heavenly revelation that are scattered in „Psalms‟!

347


Personal incredulity, professor, is what a man suffers from when he refuses
the givens of sound human reasoning, insists on taking in corrupt
philosophies and embraces them regardless of the strain and effort he has to
exert in order to convince himself that he is okay with them, and that they
could qualify for the truth!

Look at the incredulity in his comment on the analogy of a stone arch as an
irreducibly complex structure. He admits that it must have had scaffolding,
and then he says:

―In evolution, too, the organ or structure you are looking at may have
had scaffolding in an ancestor which has since been removed‘

Can‟t he listen to himself? What is “scaffolding” now, if not a device made
precisely for the purpose of bracing and carefully laying bricks on it in a
predetermined way for a predetermined purpose? The injection of
scaffolding in evolution certainly destroys both its pillars (random mutation
and natural selection); even an atheist should see that much! But we must
not be tempted to believe that he actually means (scaffolding), mind you!

We are now supposed to believe that some lucky random mutation not only
came around just in time, and not only offered a new working addition just
in place; it actually offered us a scaffolding for a design that would work
once it is finished – all by the success of many steps of chance –, to save the
species and offer it a perfect organ that it desperately needed at that point!
How impressive indeed!

And as I argued earlier, the parable of mount improbable should be rewritten
– using their understanding of probability – to state that by climbing mount
improbable, you are actually going: (improbable) x (more improbable) x
(much more improbable) x … etc.! So obviously once at the peak, you will
have gone through something that may indeed be – as a residual - a billion
billion times as improbable as the single leap of willful creation at the other
side of the mountain is claimed to be!

It is very interesting that he makes this confession:

348


―The origin of life only had to happen once. We therefore can allow it
to have been an extremely improbable event, many orders of
magnitude more improbable than most people realize, as I shall show.
Subsequent evolutionary steps are duplicated, in more or less similar
ways, throughout millions and millions of species independently, and
continually and repeatedly throughout geological time. Therefore, to
explain the evolution of complex life, we cannot resort to the same
kind of statistical reasoning as we are able to apply to the origin of
life.‖(The delusion p. 135)

Well, In fact professor, you must do much more work in revision of the very
definition and meaning of statistical reasoning itself, because this is not how
it should be applied; this is not what it is for!

He then argues against the example of the flagellar motor as an irreducible
system. He snatches at the understanding that for a system to be
irreducibly complex, none of its parts should be functional on its own!
Again I should state that this is a corrupt understanding of the very concept
of functionality as a definer of a particular system! Yes of course if I
detached a pin from a computer machine, I could easily use that pin in
another machine, or even use it to hang a painting on the wall of my room!
But this is not what the original system uses this pin for, and it is obviously
not working as properly as it should without that pin! The system would not
function the way it should, with any of its parts detached! Forget about the
fact that every part of it may easily be used in separate for another function
(by another designer), because clearly on doing so, you are speaking of a
different system, doing another function that cannot be done the way it
should be done, with any of that other system‟s parts detached as well!

Quote:

―The protein molecules that form the structure of the TTSS are very
similar to components of the flagellar motor. To the evolutionist it is
clear that TTSS components were commandeered for a new, but not
wholly unrelated, function when the flagellar motor evolved.‖(The
Delusion p.132)

349


He celebrates Miller‟s description of TTSS and bacterial structures,
explaining how he finds it to be identical to that functioning in the flagellar
motor, concluding that this proves the motor to be reducible! There you got
it; they have proven to you that there is indeed another biological system that
has similar parts, meaning that those very same parts could be seen to have
another function in another system! That‟s great! But, whatever does this
have to do with proving that the system of the Flagellar motor could be
reduced, in the sense that it could be made to perform this very same
function without the previous assembly of all those parts in it in this
particular composition beforehand?!

We have two distinct systems, the TTS structure and the Flagellar motor;
both share common parts but with different functions; now what on Earth
does this have to do with the fact that none of the two systems can function
properly without its parts attached to one another and in exactly the right
places? How did it come to be ‗clear to the evolutionist‘ that the TTS
components were “commandeered” (By whom?) to function as components
of the Flagellar motor, just because they are apparently identical in a huge
part of their molecular structure?

Again, another false unacceptable explanation, because I could easily claim
that both systems evolved from a different source (which I equally find
impossible); a third system of my picking or of the making of my wild
fantasy, and they couldn‟t tell me I‟m wrong! Or I could easily claim that
they had nothing to do with one another and that they both evolved
separately and it‟s only out of sheer coincidence that they happened to share
parts that are identical! I could easily think of a dozen other possible stories
for the origins of both systems, but I don‟t need to; all I see is that those
parts were determinately created for functions that demand of them to be
identical in structure but with different roles for each of them in its particular
system in its particular context! Nothing more needs to be said!

The point is: not a single evolutionist could possibly prove me wrong when I
claim those explanations to be possible!

350


So what is it that makes it clear to you as an evolutionist, professor, that this
is what happened back in time and it is what justifies this similarity in
particular parts between the two systems? Sheer bias and „blind faith‟ driven
arguments; that‟s what!

We are obviously talking about two parts of two distinct systems with two
distinct functions! So it‟s really sad that someone would actually insist on
claiming such a hypothetical link between their origins imagining that this
claim would work as an argument to disprove irreducibility in the way they
both serve their distinct purposes as they are, and would thus refute the very
meaning of irreducibility altogether!

Again we remind the reader that a mouse trap is not a mouse trap unless it
has all the “mouse trap parts” in place, prepared specifically for this
purpose! So when he takes away some of its parts and says it could function
then as something else; this is totally irrelevant, because quite clearly we are
not talking about something else! We are stating the fact that a mouse trap
could not be called a mouse trap – on the outset of it - without those
particular parts attached! Anything else is just that: Something else! Pure
and simple!

An organism could not have come into being and survived as a species
without a certain system with a particular function in it, and that system
could not do that function without those very parts attached to one another,
all doing just what they are supposed to do! This remains to be the case no
matter how simple a system is (even in a unicellular organism) Therefore
this system with this function could not have evolved from a different
system with a different function! How many parts should come around, all in
the exact place that each of them should be, and each by a purely random
event of mutation, and stay there through generations of an endangered
species, all so that eventually a working organ will start to work once all its
parts are in place? And how are we supposed to believe – based on the
Dawkins argument from probability - that this „unbelievably lucky‟
emergence of parts was the source of information for all organs in every
species on Earth?

351


The fact that a system with a certain function is seen to have more functional
parts or elements than another system in another being that may be doing a
similar function or sharing the same components of the other system but in a
different structure; this fact cannot be taken to refute creation or even the
concept of IC as worded by Behe! It proves that there could be another
system with similar parts doing a different job! This is true, and it is quite
obvious indeed! But it is clearly not an argument to refute creation or
irreducibility of biological systems, not to mention proving common
ancestry! Irreducibility is actually a definitive property of any set of
elements that could be called „system‟ to begin with, so those examples they
bring forth of systems that have common parts doing a different job in each
one of them; they really prove nothing!

For any given function (X), if organ (A) is working properly in its context
(at any given instant of time), then it cannot be reduced, neither does it need
any “evolution”! If however it is not functioning properly, then it should
fail! The addition of a new part to that organ is not as simple as a number of
cells just popping up in place, giving rise to the new desired part! The entire
system has to be redesigned and reprogrammed in order for the new part to
come in its right place – which would then be (the right place) by definition
– and raise the performance as desired! Not only the organ itself has to be
changed, the entire body has to be modified in the way its biological
processes run, for the sake of the new comer to work in harmony; the brain
itself and its neural paths have to be modified! Do you think that all we need
to do if we one day wished to evolve our eyes into those of a fly – for
example – so we could see front and back at the same time, all we will need
to do is take off those eyes in our faces and fix big fly eyes in their place?
Whatever you claim, we are talking about a change that is no less than a
purposeful and perfectly organized act of “redesign” here, which includes
the entire body; one that couldn‟t possibly be pulled off by some blind
random mutation! We‟re talking about total redesign for the sake of a new
set of functions all over!

I mean, come on; if that‟s not determinate (function redefinition), setting
down a previously determined course (scaffolding) for the process which is

352


of course not something that Darwinian mechanisms could do, then what is
it? Or are we supposed to imagine gradual steps for that change between the
two systems, the initial and the final, where some parts had their specific
functions altered (for the sake of the new function that is to emerge at the
end), while others did not? Well this would easily mean the failure of the old
system plus the impossibility of there ever emerging a new one from it!
Because at that intermediate point it‟s clearly neither doing the old nor the
new function! It has lost some of its parts for the sake of a new function that
cannot be performed by those few altered parts alone! So it is neither
working as the old system, nor as the new one at that point, and thus; it
couldn‟t possibly be selected to continue, could it? There would certainly be
no meaning for this change of function of some of the parts of a given
system; because selection only keeps stuff that works; and this initial
mutation (the first step) leaves us with something that does not work! Or
should we wish for a great number of successive mutations that come – all
by chance - to do the desired job (desired by nobody of course!) fast before
the species becomes extinct? Or should we expect the desired changes to
come all in one happy leap of “random” mutation for the entire body to be
restructured in favor of the new organ or part? Of course you have to be
reminded that there is no previous plan, purpose or intent in Darwinian
mechanisms whatsoever!

Thus we conclude that there is no way that this “evolution” of a system with
a new function, from an older system with a different function, could
possibly take place gradually! It either happens in one amazing leap (as in
creation and previous determinate plan), or it doesn‟t happen at all!

All you have to do as a sane human being – really - is to properly understand
the basic rational concepts underneath a given theory or statement in order to
make good judgment of whether or not it is worth taking to the lab in the
first place!35

35
Let me make it clear – one more time - to my atheist reader that I am not a creationist and I am not in the
business of making up a new „theory‟ for biology! My argumentation is purely philosophical, and my
discussion of the concept of irreducibility is only intended to demonstrate to the atheist – by more than one
argument – that no matter what he does, and whatever plot he resorts to in explaining the steps of his
evolutionary story, he cannot escape the necessity of there being a purposeful agent of some sort with a

353


This is why it is wrong and unacceptable - by the way - for professional
biologists to be bothered by people from different scientific disciplines,
sometimes not even scientific at all, for so easily barging into their theories
and criticizing them as they do! If judging the theory demands particular
knowledge of biology then certainly it is not allowable for people other than
biologists to make a judgment on that theory! However, this is not the case
with the core tenets of Darwin‟s theory! It clashes with A-priori axiomatic
reasoning! So non-biologist debaters certainly need nothing more than
possess a proper understanding of the rationale of Darwinism and natural
selection to effectively enter the debate! They do not need to have a
certificate in biology before they could judge the fundamental aspects of the
Darwinian proposition! They are discussing basic rationality here
(philosophy you may say); not how to get a reading from a radiometric
dating device, or how to identify a given fossil!

And if evolutionists cannot have those people convinced with the rationality
of the very core of their position with simple arguments; then they should
not bother trying to convince them that they all should let go of their
religions for the sake of Darwin‟s theory! It really doesn‟t take a rocket
scientist to understand the basic mechanisms of Darwinian evolution, and
the false reasoning it applies!

Whenever a layperson (in Biology) says in response to Darwinism: ―This
must be wrong, I cannot find any good reason why I should not believe this
magnificence and perfectness in nature to have been created by a perfect
creator‖, he is really blowing evolutionism away at first shot; and that‟s
really all the argument any sane man has to put against it! Because no matter
how much evolution or Biology he learns, he will never find that good
reason, good enough for him to let go of his natural logic and intuition in
such a twisted way; in fact the more he learns about nature and living things
the more convinced he will be that this creation is perfect; and thus the
higher he will naturally think of its creator! Evolutionism – as he will realize
- asks him to go against his natural stream of reason, to run it in absolute

previously determined plan somewhere, for everything to fall „in place‟ in due time and to work properly in
a collective equilibrium.

354


reverse! I am, of course, speaking of a lay-person whose natural sense of
things has not been depleted or reversed by Darwinism!

At conception level, the core idea is clear enough for any sane man to refute;
no science certificate required here! Just as it is the case that you need not
acquire a PHD in theology to see how fundamentally corrupt the concept of
the Trinity – for example – clearly is! In fact it is orders of magnitude more
corrupt – rationally – than the basic philosophies of all other doctrines of
faith that we know today! However, like every preacher of irrational faith,
they would easily argue: “You people don‟t understand it” or “You know
nothing about evolution”! So typical indeed!

So again; it is against the core mechanism of evolution that the biological
change from a certain “function (A)” system to a new “function (B)” system
would take place in gradual (or simultaneous) steps of random mutation!
“Gradual” by definition cannot be random! „Gradual‟ can only describe
steps taken on a predetermined path! This is why no matter what examples
Darwinians resort to in explaining the difference between natural selection
and chance (like the example of a random code generator), they can never
escape the rational necessity of a previously determined order of some sort!
This is why we argue – with no regards to whatever they may call „scientific
evidence‟ - that it is against the very meaning of random or chance – as used
by Darwinians in evolutionary discourse - that there should be “steps” or
“gradual” or “simultaneous”!

The model of evolution of a certain system through the advent of new parts
in it for the sake of better performing the same overall function of the system
(like the alleged evolution of the eye or the wing); this model cannot take
place in gradual evolutionary steps, or else the organ will fail entirely! A few
mutations that are only a few steps in the way of changing a simple eye into
a compound eye, will leave the eye functionless, until all the steps are
complete; which should actually mean total failure of the organ in doing
even its old function! We have to get a single set of mutations that adds a
new part, and at the same time has the specific job of all the other parts of
the organ redefined (which means to have them all work in a rather different
way at cellular and molecular level), which means an unimaginable number

355


of simultaneous “random” mutations in different parts, for the sake of
accommodating the new part and working with it properly! This redefinition
should at least preserve the original function of the organ throughout its
transformation into a more complex organ by means of those alterations and
additions of new parts! The only other option is failure! I mean they don‟t
suppose that when a new part (patch of cells) is added to an organism it will
work as a (plug and play) device, do they?! Even “Plug and play” devices
are specifically designed for this model of detachable performance!

So it turns out that very much indeed is demanded from “random” mutation,
far too much for any reasonable man to find the word “random” to really do
any good describing it (I use the Darwinian terminology of random here, not
the actual (eye-of-the-beholder) meaning that it should have, as we
elaborated in an earlier section of this book)!

What “selection” then are we talking about, when we cannot imagine a
number of species surviving through a few generations lacking a certain
function, when it is evident that without this function they cannot have
survived, bred, speciated, or co-existed in balance all across this cosmic
time span? For a gradation of genetic changes to keep natural life up and
running, well adapted and in perfect balance (as a whole) with every
changing aspect of nature, the way we say it must have been, and for every
favorable change to come along before the entire system crashes, and the
balance fails irreversibly; it takes a model of constantly and perfectly
determinate control, not a “series” of “steps” of “chance” where only that
which happens to work by chance would survive! The system must have
always had those strict binding rules.

What we‟ve always been trying to tell them, and we hope they think about it
someday, seriously, is that there is no proper code of reason for any man
to amalgamate within the very same process in its every step; process
with non-process, perfectness with chaos, system with chance; steady
long term mechanism with random instances and uncontrolled events,
and attribute all that work – in origin – to no willful creator! The
pathetic position they seek to uphold between chance – as they ascribe it to
certain natural processes rather than the human modeling of those processes

356


– and creation, only gives us a creator who runs a system of random
generation! All they are actually doing do here is model a lousy process of
creation, rather than acknowledge perfection thereof! Darwinians in fact
believe in a blind creator; and this is all that Darwinism boils down to, no
matter what they do!

I quote:

―A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will be.
Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a lazy
default such as 'intelligent design theory' would encourage.‖ (The
Delusion p.132)

What “lazy default”? I‟m sorry but if you people are only looking for
something “interesting” to keep you busy, then by all means go have fun
somewhere else!

It is wisdom to know what you‟re aiming at, and to have a clear answer to
the “why” before the “how”! A lot of work needs to be done on what
exactly, and for what end? Yes of course a lot of research in natural sciences
still needs to be done to further expand human knowledge, but for what end
and in what fields? Wise people do not do science for science, or for the fun
of it, or just so they find something to do! Atheists on the other hand have
already chosen not to know the purpose of their being on this Earth! So the
question of purpose is to them an entirely ridiculous proposition! They do
science because they have fun doing it! Because it makes them feel better!
Because it would be “lazy” not to, or because it would be “stupid”! They use
this absolution in their position towards everything they like to do,
regardless of whether or not they could justify it properly!

A wise man on the other hand, knows his ultimate purpose, and the specific
objective of every single thing that he does, in the light of this purpose!
People who know the heavenly truth from the creator, stand in the middle
between two extremes: an extreme that holds it a necessity and a must that
humans put all their resources in researching every single idea that could
possibly come across a man‟s mind, regardless of the rationality or the
justifiability of its meaning and purpose, and another extreme that shuts it all

357


off, and closes the gates of research and empirical experimentation
altogether! Wisdom has it that only a purpose of research that positively
(and evidently) benefits people should be put to the claim! But that which
does not, or that which would evidently harm them, should certainly be
prohibited (not just abolished)!

Imagine a man who chooses to design a huge machine that – for example –
does nothing more than scratch his back! This is stupidity! The purpose
itself is stupid! Yes he may do wonders of innovation in the way the
scratching device works; but in the end, no matter how sophisticated it may
be; it remains to be a total waste and a fool‟s work, because even something
as simple as a wooden stick would suffice to do the job!

I remember one day, when I was a student at High school, my math teacher
challenged me and a couple of other students to solve a problem in calculus,
and said that whoever solves it first will be given a reward. We took it home,
and I remember I spent about three hours trying to work it out, squeezing my
head, approaching it from every end, and I practiced every trick in
mathematics I could possibly think of at the time, and ended up writing a
solution that spanned three long pages! It was unbelievably complex that I
can almost swear that even the designer of the problem itself couldn‟t
possibly imagine such a solution! I had all the fun in the world solving it and
was very proud of myself! I delivered it to the teacher the next day with an
air of victory, and was shocked to find that he had given the reward to
another student! When he explained the winning solution, it turned out to be
as simple as a four or five steps operation! It was a single idea or trick, for
which the problem was designed! I didn‟t capture that trick at first glance, so
I took a very long way around! I was disappointed for the moment but then I
realized that this is what mathematics is about: The shortest way to the
query! I doubt that the teacher really bothered to go through the long and
very complicated steps of the solution that I came up with, although it was
indeed quite creative! Perhaps he thought I was bluffing and dismissed it at
first impression as a joke or something!

358


When I remember this story now, I do not blame him! The purpose of the
problem was not just to solve it in any possible way, but in the simplest way
and the most relevant to the course learning outcome! And even though my
solution was perfectly correct; only one solution fulfilled the learning
outcome and particular purpose of the problem, and mine was not it!

The moral is; not every product of the human mind is to be appreciated or
encouraged, based on how sophisticated, imaginative, or creative that
product is! Not every research objective is to be supported and supplied with
the resources it needs! Not every idea of a research is by necessity brilliant,
not to mention: acceptable or Justifiable! Only a fool would stand in
admiration of the technology of a tank that has come to take down his own
house!

So when we say to Darwinians: “Stop! Your research objective is
fundamentally false and unacceptable and is destructive to man” it is not
“laziness” or “satisfaction with not knowing”! It is the wisdom of knowing
how to make the right judgment of a research query, and how to put human
and material resources in their perfectly right place!

Just look at this outrage:

―Here is the message that an imaginary 'intelligent design theorist'
might broadcast to scientists: 'If you don't understand how something
works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know
how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how
memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a
bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on
the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't
work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them.
Don't squander precious ignorance by researching it away. We need
those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.' (The Delusion p.132)

359


Now who on Earth is he trying to fool? Where in this world did you ever
find a religious man who – regardless of his particular creed – would say:
“'If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and
say God did it‖? Could you – please – name just a single one?

Even if there is or was somebody whose false religion or his wrong
understanding drives him against something that is evidently useful to
mankind, then it is he who should be blamed, or his false religion in
particular, not “religion”! The ignorance of a man is not an argument against
knowledge itself!

We, followers of the true revelation of the creator, answer saying “The Lord
did it” only in reply to the stupidity of those who say: “Natural selection did
it”! We do not refrain from performing beneficial research and development
because “God did it”! We do not tell people not to do science because “God
did it”! We most certainly do not tell them to be satisfied with “ignorance”
because “God did it”! And we are not to be blamed for the historical crimes
of other corrupted doctrines of faith that once took authority over Europe,
and enforced dark fallacious rulings in the name of the Lord, may He be
praised! We are not to be blamed for the corruption of a comment by Saint
Augustine, when he says, as quoted by the author:

―There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger.
This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and
discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our
understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn'

We, Muslims, have nothing to do with the way Dawkins understands this
statement! Nothing at all! Even if ever a Muslim scholar expressed such a
meaning as understood by the professor, it is not to be taken for argument
against Islam because it cannot be derived from any of the four sources of
revelation and legislation in Islam (Qur‟an, Sunnah, Ijma‟, and “quias”)!
Actually even Christians would tell you they have nothing to do with this
understanding he derives from the quotation!

Muslims are people whose holy scripture tells them:

360


((…Say (O Muhammad): Is the blind man equal to the seer, or is darkness
equal to light?...)) Translation of meanings of the Qur‟an (13|16)

((…Ask people of knowledge if you know not)) Translation of meanings of
the Qur‟an (16|43)

((It is He who appointed the sun a splendor (luminance) and the moon a
light (reflection), and determined its stages, such that ye could learn the
number of the years, and learn calculation. Allah created all that in none
but truth. He details the revelations for people who have knowledge.))
Translation of the meanings of the Qur‟an (10|5)

((…Allah will exalt those who believe among you, and those who have
knowledge, to high ranks. Allah is aware of what ye do.)) Translation of the
Qur‟an (58|11) (knowledge in this verse is primarily knowledge of the Lord,
and all other forms of useful knowledge follow in graded ranks)

It is a subject of absolute consensus (Ijma‟) among scholars of all ages in
Islam, based on more general texts, that we should seek everything that
yields benefit in this life and in the hereafter (both on an individual scale,
and on a collective scale). This includes the claim of every beneficial
knowledge to man, which is adequately obligatory to the society, (Fard
kefaya ‫ )فرض كفايح‬such that when there is no sufficiency in those who work
in a certain field that is necessary for Muslims, then the entire nation is to be
charged with sin! This is what the ruling (Fard kefaya) means in Islam; it is
any obligatory act which if done with adequacy by the least amount of
competent people who could do it as demanded, then the rest of the nation is
free from obligation and blame, but if not, not! I must add that absolute
consensus of scholars in Islam (Ijma‟) is a source of legislation; based on
scriptural evidence we have no room to discuss here.

So as you can see, my reader, in the true revelation of the creator, seeking
beneficial knowledge in general is not inhibited! It is not even optional to
Muslims; it is in fact mandatory! And the manner of its obligation over
Muslims is indeed a perfect legislation that cannot be laid down by a man!
Had it been a man who made up the Sharee‟a law from his own mind, he
would have made all pursuits of knowledge mandatory for every Muslim, or

361


optional for every Muslim; or he would‟ve neglected it altogether! He would
have spoilt the extremely delicate balance between the welfare of the
individual and that of the community, but this is not the case at all!

The creator knows that not all men could qualify to specialize in every field,
and that humans vary by necessity in their mental powers, and their natural
talents and faculties, and they cannot shift their fields of specialty
repeatedly, or specialize in a multitude of delicate fields at the same time! So
this obligation cannot be laid down equally upon every individual for every
desired practice! On the other hand, had it been only favorable, there would
be no guarantee that sufficient amount of experts would specialize in the
desired field of knowledge and suffice for the necessity as it comes!

So the law in this way guarantees that whenever there is necessity or need,
the nation would understand that there is a collective responsibility of
obligation to suffice for the demand and work for it, and the ruler should see
that it is fulfilled! 36

A nation governed by the law of Islam (sharee‟a) is a nation that has a
religious obligation, a religious duty, to seek knowledge, and to produce –
in wisdom and purposefulness – as many scientists and experts as demanded
in every field of human practice that is necessary for the nation‟s welfare
and prosperity. Tell me now, what other religion or system on Earth do you
know, places knowledge – all forms of evidently beneficiary knowledge – at
such a rank?

As for the Aquinas quotation, this understanding by Dawkins is clearly not
what it means! The man is obviously talking about the claim of knowledge
that is beyond human understanding, that is, beyond the very ability of man
to understand! The problem with atheists is that they do not accept the fact
that there are things that do go beyond the ability of man to imagine or
36
And of course, keeping in regard a corner stone of Sharee‟a that Allah only assigns a man to that which
he can do, and he is not to be charged with something he could not do, we say that without a precise vision
by the ruler of a Muslim nation of the real demands of Muslims in every particular field of practice of
sciences and crafts, and thus with our current incapability of deciding upon that as a nation (or many
nations), we are currently free from deserving punishment provided that we never quit doing what we can
for the sake of better upholding such collective responsibilities in the future, working for that which is
better. Only the ruler in this case would deserve the heavenly blame for not taking up his responsibility in
this concern.

362


analogize! Ask any atheist if he knows any plausible way to describe
whatever is out there beyond the universe (or beyond mathematical infinity)!
For instance, the concept of how the Lord is, or how He does what He does,
is by necessity of reason beyond the human ability to imagine or analogize,
pretty much so like the necessity of His very existence itself!

So healthy humans do realize that there is – by necessity – much that they
should not be capable of comprehending and much that they could not find
out on their own as humans (and hence should not waste their time and
resources seeking to obtain it the way they do)! They do realize that there
are questions that cannot be answered by means of analogy or by any other
means that the human mind works with, so no matter how advanced man
could one day become, they will always be unanswerable by those methods!
It is not a crime to have people satisfied with learning their limits and
placing their abilities on the right track and purpose; it is by all means a
virtue!

So yes you do have a limit, and there is indeed – by necessity of reason -
knowledge that no man can or will ever obtain!

- There is knowledge that cannot be obtained by man at all, and he
needs not obtain it for his life on Earth, or for the purpose of his
creation. (like the knowledge of how the Lord is; The way His
attributes are and the way they work, for example)
- And knowledge that cannot be obtained by man on his own, through
reasoning or observation (empirical science, or philosophy), but is at
the same time essential for man to learn nonetheless, and can only be
delivered to mankind from the creator Himself. (like the question of
origins, the question of purpose, the question of death and the afterlife
and so forth)

This is what separates those who know wisdom from those who don‟t. Those
who know wisdom, will know their limits and their end goals and will know
that as long as the query of research is justifiable by the source from which
that ultimate goal along with all ethics of knowledge is taken, and does not
contradict with a rational necessity (claiming something that is rationally

363


impossible for man), or violate a basic teaching of the true heavenly
revelation; then it is as favorable and positively commended as can be! They
will know what questions are to be asked in a laboratory and why, and what
questions are to be asked somewhere else and where, and what questions are
not to be asked at all! The wisest of all are those who know their limits!

The professor then proceeds to make an argument from the events of the trial
known as (the Kitzmiller-Dover trial), picking on the position that Behe took
regarding the peer-reviewed publications that he was presented on the trial in
response to his claim that science will never find an evolutionary
explanation to the immune system. Well, I can easily dismiss this argument
altogether simply by saying that Behe was indeed wrong in this claim! He
shouldn‟t have said that!

There is indeed no limit to the number of imaginative “explanations” one
can come up with that could be added to the mythical story of “evolution”
one way or another! The theory tells the story of ancestral lineages to
currently existing beings or organic systems, and simply places systems
(both existent and fossilized) that may look proximal in shape, function or
structure, together in a long storyline that is claimed to be an historical line
of heredity that started off from the simplest system of them all and ended at
the most complex we currently know of! Now when you think of it, this is
not – at all – a proposition that we could find difficulty stretching and
applying to every system in life (which is exactly what Darwinians are very
good at doing)! Yet none of this proves it to be the truth, or gives it any
proper justification whatsoever for the way it reverses the very polarity of
human reason! The Darwinian objection to this very simple and reasonable
claim by Behe here under the name of “science” is a perfectly clear
example!

Imagine that one day, you found two photos buried underground of two
individuals that look pretty much alike! Now, you may easily claim that they
must be family; they must be twins or something, then you would start
gathering what you think could be taken as evidence to support your theory

364


(or to dismiss it)! That – by far – is fine by me. But what would it make of
you if even though I could easily prove to you – irrefutably - that they were
totally unrelated, and that the two photos came to this place from two
absolutely distinct places, or I can prove to you that they are both fake, or
even that they are two photos of the same individual!; what would it make of
you if you still insisted on adding further “explanations” from here and there
that would accord with your hypothesis, taking them for “Evidence”? That‟s
what it makes of you: A blind believer who can‟t see himself waking up
from a dream that he favors so much, he cannot imagine letting go of it!

I couldn‟t care less what Dr. Behe said or did on that particular event! His
personal misjudgments or anybody else‟s on this or any other matter, are not
evidence against creation! The philosophical concept he seeks to prove
should not be put to the test of „science‟ in the first place! Actually when
you listen to the statement by Rothschild in comment on Behe‟s attitude, it is
indeed no more than a cheap appeal to emotions of the Jury! He says (as
quoted by Dawkins):

―Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the
question of the origin of the immune system . . . It's our defense
against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those
books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or
speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious
medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire
intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or
medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists,
don't bother.‖ (The Delusion p.133)

What does the general meaning of learning about immune systems and how
to deal with them in medical and genetic treatments, have to do with
deciding on their “Darwinian origins”? Any sane man should see that the
two queries of research are not relevant (philosophically), and that they are
only made relevant by the convictions and beliefs of atheist scientists!
Nobody is denying them merit for discovering what they do know about
those systems; but their faith in the origins from which those systems came
from is something we do not accept! It is a claim of knowledge that is by

365


nature out of their empirical reach, and we do not care what they believe
about it! So what this man is saying is simply this: “Oh people bow and pay
homage to those scientists who serve you well and supply you with answers
along with medicine, and do not listen to anybody who wishes to falsify a
single one of their claims for whatever reason! Those are evil people who
added nothing to medical knowledge and who do not even want you to
progress in science!‖

Now what kind of an argument is this? Is this really worth the quotation?
Well, to Dawkins it is of course!

He concludes this part by claiming that there are “flaws” in the way certain
forms of life are composed! He mentions liability to certain forms of disease,
in an argument that goes in line with the way they would explain the fact
that certain individuals are born with disabilities or defects every now and
then! They claim it all to be exactly what would be expected if natural life
progressed through “evolution” not “Design”!

I say this is argument from sheer ignorance! Because as I stated in an earlier
section, in order to properly judge the perfectness of a certain given system
(which is obviously perfect with – and maybe even because of – all those
things you hate in it), you have to fully understand its purpose of making
beforehand! And you cannot possibly obtain that knowledge from any other
source but from the maker of the system himself! So what the professor and
every other atheist know not (or rather insist on neglecting), is that in the
knowledge that is evidently delivered to us from the creator Himself, we do
learn the purpose of the making of this life, the purpose of the making of
disease, pain, defection, and the exact purpose why the world has to be
exactly the way that it is! We know why there has to be mutations and
disabilities in this way that those people would claim – in their ignorance
and utter irrationality – it proves the system to have been founded on random
events and “natural selection” rather than creation!

If it were indeed the case that God meant for the world to be a paradise
where nobody suffers or gets sick, nobody dies, nothing decays or
decomposes, and we all live in eternal bliss as a single happy family; then I

366


would totally agree with your claim that this is not how you expect a
purposefully and perfectly created world to be! But how on earth do you
know that? How do you know what God meant for the world and what His
exact purpose of creation was?

He claims that the fact that the recurrent laryngeal nerve takes a
mysteriously long detour on its way to its destination; proves this to be a
waste and the remainder of an incomplete evolution from an ancestral life
form!

Now I find no shame in admitting that I do not currently know why this
nerve has to be that long and take such a strange path to its destination! We
may or may not find that out through further research, and I would certainly
do endorse such a research if I knew it would help in the purpose of
developing medical sciences that would help us cure diseases (not for the
purpose of supplying “evidence” for or against Darwinism!). However, my
position of justifiable certainty is that our current ignorance of the exact
function of this particular structure of the nerve, does not by any means give
any man the right to claim that this is a “waste” or the remainder of a
process of evolution that should have gone better!

This is indeed another Darwinian attempt to use gaps of current human
knowledge in favor of their theory! It is them, planting their own god
(Darwinian chaos) in those gaps in the most arrogant and irrational manner
of all! And when the time comes and better knowledge is revealed to us of
why this nerve has to be exactly the way that it is; they would retreat with
their pathetic god of insolence to another gap in human knowledge, the way
they claim followers of religion to be doing! Had this nerve been badly
created, with any excess or waste as they claim, it wouldn‟t have functioned
as perfectly as no one can dare deny that it does! But what should anybody
do to make them see that?

The same is to be said of other examples that he gives for what he views to
be “errors of evolution”! Just listen to this statement:

―Many of our human ailments, from lower back pain to hernias,
prolapsed uteruses and our susceptibility to sinus infections, result

367


directly from the fact that we now walk upright with a body that was
shaped over hundreds of millions of years to walk on all fours.‖ (The
Delusion p.134)

Another argument from blind faith indeed!

One cannot escape wondering, why, in the religion of Darwin, did man ever
have to become upright at all?! What evolutionary necessity could possibly
have man evolve into walking upright; what “survival privilege” do humans
have over apes because of the upright structure of their bodies? Obviously
none at all!

Well, maybe somewhere in some of their textbooks you will find a
researcher proposing an evolutionary scenario of some sort to “explain” it!
Another twisted Darwinian fiction, that is. Or when they run dry on
imagination, they would just resort to random mutation: It just happened by
chance! You know how the story goes!

My concern here, however, is in his extremely arrogant and clearly false
claim that the human body is defected, (imperfect)!

Well let‟s start where every sane researcher should start; by defining
terminology! What is a defect and what is an imperfectness?

A defect is by definition a failure to comply with the exact function or
purpose for which a particular system is made! This failure may be anything
from a minor error to total failure! So how do you know that people who get
back pain are not meant by their creator to have this pain for a particular
purpose that is part of what their bodies are made for?

It is interesting how under the very tag of evolution itself, Darwinian
researchers have come up with a new discipline that they call “Evolutionary
medicine” where they are actually examining many diseases and physical
symptoms that though they would still view as “imperfectness” they find to
be amazing survival necessities and mechanisms as they are! An archetypal
example indeed of human stubbornness and presumptuous denial! You can
see in the very language they use, the unbelievably deep contradiction and
inverse-reason in their explanations!
368


As much as you hate to cough, for example, and it troubles you and maybe
even pains you, you have to do it because it does good things to your body
(least of which is alarm you to the danger)! And so they claim that this is
why natural selection kept this “imperfectness”, and this is not how a human
designer would get around with design! I ask: Now that they understand its
perfectly balanced function, how dare they call it a “defect” or
“imperfection”?

Well, yes indeed this is not how a human designer would create a system;
that an annoyance and source of trouble of this sort would actually be made
into a necessary component of the very way the system works; but we keep
telling them: whoever said that we believe in a human designer who made
natural life or the entire Universe?

Neither the ways are analogous, nor the purpose itself! The purpose of
creation of our bodies, and every subsystem in them, is clearly not analogous
to the purpose for which any human creator would create any artifact of any
sort! We humans create out of need, we need what we create to serve us, so
the prospect of creating an artifact with a deliberately designed mechanism
of noise or self damage and decay that is in itself a necessary subsystem for
the artifact to work properly, this is not something we – humans - would do;
and certainly not in such an outstanding perfectness! This is obviously a
system that is perfectly prepared for a purpose that is far more than just
“surviving” or “breeding”! A purpose that should have those negative agents
serving it just as good as the positive ones! This is how it is made perfect!

This is obviously not the way things are in biological systems alone; it‟s the
way the whole world is! It‟s the way of the universe at large! Earthquakes,
volcanoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, floods, and all other forms of natural
catastrophes, do hit life on earth, and inflict damage (system decomposition)
to parts of it; however, scientists have no choice but to admit the sheer
necessity of the occurrence of such catastrophes the way they do, for the
welfare and continuity of nature and life itself on Earth! There is no escaping
this duality of poles: The positive and the negative, and the perfect balance
between them on all levels in this magnificent system. Thus there is no way
in the world any of these negative agents could be called an

369


“imperfectness”! How could it possibly be imperfectness, when the system
cannot work without it? There is no way this world and the life in it could be
made to do without those disasters, those tragedies that we hate and fear so
much! Without death, life on Earth will fail! Without decay, there shall be
no composition! Newborn specimens are composed of the very same matter
that is left behind by the dead, and fed into the living through nutrition!
Without those subsystems „failing‟, there shall be no life on Earth! This is
quite obviously how it is built! It‟s how it works.

A masterful system indeed, perfectly organized to be in the exact way that it
is! So instead of denying the extremely obvious, atheists should be asking
themselves: Why is it created in this particular way? Why does there have to
be pain, suffering, disaster, and death? What‟s the point of all so many
things that we hate in the world? And where could we obtain the only true,
verifiably true answer to this question? Well, first they have to admit that it
is not a question that natural sciences could answer! Higher meaning, first
order cause and purpose, can only be known by direct teaching from the
creator Himself! The purpose does indeed include and perfectly justify all
those negative aspects that atheists would whine about, and call
“imperfectnesss”! Holders of the beacon of heavenly knowledge, true
heavenly knowledge, never claimed that we humans come to this world to
live in absolute happiness! Absolutely not! Our knowledge as Muslims goes
in perfect accord with the way the world is created! We simply know what
this is all about!

Now this idea of a system that works on destruction as well as on
construction, in every single part and on every level of it, is high above our
limited creative powers as humans! And it is – as such – just the way you
would expect of a system that is perfectly created for the purpose of testing
humans for choice of faith and deeds, the way the Lord teaches.

We, human designers, would not work our way with design of a manmade
system in such a way that a clearly dangerous and corruptive agent that if
left unchecked may actually damage the entire system, would be made of
such an immense functional importance and value to that system! We
wouldn‟t place a built-in virus in a computer, keep it balanced or

370


quarantined by antivirus software, and in the mean time, give that virus itself
an important function in preservation of the system; knowing that if ever it
happened that the antiviral agent was to crash, the computer would fail! I
mean, unless we needed that virus there for a particular end, we wouldn‟t
choose to do that! And we wouldn‟t need it there because our purpose of
designing a computer does not include the option of its deliberate damage!
We will never choose to damage that machine on purpose! And if we wished
to do that, we will never bother giving the damaging agent a stabilizing
function in the design! It will just be a self destructive mechanism that
remains “off” until it is chosen to run and only then is it to be turned on! We
cannot design a machine that works in such a perfectly delicate balance
between negative forces that have the capacity to ravage it, and positive ones
that hold them back, while each of the two forces has a set of positive
functions of its own that has to be fulfilled for the sake of the general
purpose of the system!

It‟s an interesting point to make in this context; that if what we have today is
only the lucky remainder of a very long history of billions of failing species
and failing generations that were not selected because they lacked survival
equipment – or internal balance - and waited to no avail for the lucky
mutation to come about; chances are we should be stumbling upon such
“unfit” unselected freaks of nature in fossil findings much more frequently
than those “selected” fossils that we have! No such a thing was ever found
though; we don‟t see it today and there‟s no way anybody can prove it ever
took place any time in the past either!

Total and utter wishful thinking, that‟s all they have!

They would say that natural selection did not develop those balancing
agents, turning a defect into a benefit, it cannot do that! It was random
mutation that did it, and had it not done it, natural selection would have
driven the poor species to extinction because of that defect! Well, the word
“perfect” doesn‟t even begin to describe what this “random” mutation is
claimed to have “done”!

371


Look at the way a pregnant woman carries her baby. Scientists discovered
recently that a woman is capable of doing this without this serious change in
the gravitational center of her body damaging her ability to walk steadily, or
causing her to topple over, because of certain features in the base of her
spine and her hip joints that help her twist backwards for better balance as
she walks without damaging her back! It is an adaptive feature that is found
only in bipedal females. The question to the evolutionist now is this: had this
biological feature not been there in women exclusively ever since they
started walking on two rather than four (!); how possibly could the human
race survive? You can easily imagine what the fate of the species would be
if pregnancy at any point in history had a damaging effect to a female or
would cripple her body! Obviously, if Darwinian evolution was true, then
women had to have this feature developed in them prior to breeding as a
bipedal organism; otherwise bipedalism would not be selected! So are we
again reducing the story to another unbelievably lucky mutation that – for no
survival necessity at all - enabled women to move on two rather than on
four, and walk steadily with that load in their bellies?

Thus we ask: how possibly could this feature be selected for humans? Why
did this feature prevail, along with this essential change in the female spine?
Why do we not see any species of humans (like species of apes) walking on
four today? No “evolutionary” justification whatsoever there!

It is thus unthinkable that those Harvard researchers who recently published
this discovery – the special features in female spine - in “Nature” magazine
would still term it: an “evolutionary trick”! This is badly written fiction
indeed! It‟s just like every follower of a false religion would do! He would
easily twist every amazing discovery that any researcher makes giving it an
“explanation” that accords with his beliefs; and would take that for a
plausible explanation no matter how senseless and irrational it may actually
be! And when accused of that, the atheist would make the famous complaint
that his opponents are anti-science and do not wish to have this gap filled
with “science”! What Science?

To sum up I say; A fundamentally essential element in a certain system
cannot be considered a flaw of design, and as long as the normal

372


condition is not one which has the negative effect of that element up and
running all the time, but has it under a perfect balance in keeping with
its purpose; we are clearly speaking of perfectness of creation! So again,
instead of claiming this to be a defect that “Natural selection” could not get
around, we should rather ask ourselves: Why did the creator choose to create
things in this particular way!

And the answer is simply because we are here to be tested for choice. Tested
by the good as well as the bad! Part of this test is of course, infliction with
different sorts of troubles, diseases, and malfunctions! Translation (2|155):
((And surely We shall try (test) you with something of fear and hunger,
and loss of wealth and lives and crops; but give glad tidings to the
steadfast))

This test not only justifies the way the world is, it justifies the way we are,
the way we seek justice and righteousness, the reason there is such a thing as
morality, the reason there is responsibility and accountability, we are here to
choose to do right, and to be judged for it all!

The point I‟m making here is that life is not to be justified by what those
people wish it to be, but by what its creator made it for! The purpose of a
system only comes from the maker of that system, not from a user who just
opened his eyes one day to find himself using it as it is! This is the actual
reason for the quarrel between us and Darwinians or holders of materialistic
philosophies in general! They seek to deny creation so they could decide on
the purpose of life and the reason why it is the way it is, all on their own; so
they could make up whatever lie (philosophy) they wish to make and live by
whatever rules they choose, and not stand accountable for any of their
choices after their lifetimes are consumed! They know very well what it
means to admit creation! It means direct and instant submission to the will of
the creator and they just cannot see themselves do it!

Well, like it or not; it is the truth! You are obviously not in this world to live
in perfect happiness, and the more you work for pleasure the more pain you
get! And though you find it in you that you have the capacity to imagine a
place where there is no bad, no evil, no pain, no death, and you‟d certainly

373


love to go to it; you contrast that image to the way you observe the world
around you, and find it to be very distinct, very distinct indeed! Bad and evil
are overwhelmingly fundamental elements in the very fabric of this world,
not occasional failures of a place that was originally designed to be a
paradise!

Calamity is a fundamental, definitive, component of what this life is made
for! If He so willed He could‟ve easily made it into a perfectly positive
system all the way, but that‟s not how it is built! That‟s not how it works for
its purpose! There has to be a struggle! Now unsurprisingly, while
Darwinians do realize this amazing property of the system; instead of using
it as an example of how perfect this creation really is - given that its
perfectness is something that goes without any effort to see and detect - they
would ride their vehicles in the exact opposite direction and claim it to be a
sign of “imperfectness”!

There is evidently always a positive system and a negative system that have
to be in perfect balance in the human body in normal condition all the time,
otherwise man would become sick! And when he is meant by his creator to
get sick, his balance is determinately breached! It is caused to fail! Whereas
the system – at large - is made in such a way that it balances and absorbs this
“failure”! Thus it is wrong to even call it a failure in such an absolution! It is
only a failure relative to the individual element that suffers the decay or the
malfunction, in biological and physical terms. But as for the purpose of
creation of the system as a whole, it is perfectly justified, it is doing just
what it was made to do, and the human individual who suffers this physical
failure may indeed make those choices that would have him pass the test and
get all good out of that negative experience!

The way we move, the way we live is made in such a way that normally we
would not suffer because of the way our backs are formed (for example)!
Each one of the two “poles” of the process is made as such for obviously
very good reasons, and we do perfectly with both poles in constant balance!
Yes indeed this perfect balance could easily be shifted – purposefully so I
should say – so that a particular individual would suffer back pain under the
will of His creator! But this is not evidence against creation! If anything, it is

374


in fact evidence for the exact purpose that the creator teaches about His
creation! Had he willed to spare humans the possibility of ever coming to
suffer back pain, things would‟ve been much different in that spine, and in
the whole world for that matter! But every single element in our bodies – as
in the rest of the system - has this amazing property built in, precisely
because it was not made to run this way forever! What we hold is that this
is exactly how it is created, and purposefully so!

So fact of the matter is, this „back-pain conducive‟ structure is by all means
perfectness of creation, not the outcome of an incomplete evolution from a
quadrupedal bone structure!

Now, Dawkins concludes this part of his book with a sarcastic comment that
I really should not waste printing ink commenting on; however, it is an icon
as to how superficial an atheist‟s take on the idea of “God” is!

He says:

―Predators seem beautifully 'designed' to catch prey animals, while
the prey animals seem equally beautifully 'designed' to escape them.
Whose side is God on‖

I say, had you not been drenched up to your nose in “fairy tale” stories and
pagan mythologies of false gods, and had that not been all that you know
about “religion”; you would‟ve never made such a silly remark!

The creator obviously created animals to be just the way they are! Perfect
balance between preying and breeding; perfect balance between the skills
and powers of the predator on one side, and the abilities of the prey to
escape and camouflage on the other, not to mention the perfect accord with
external natural conditions! This is no “cruelty”! Man has always been
intimidated by the sight of a hungry predator beast ravishing its prey! Yes
indeed it is violent and bitter, and naturally this is how it feels in all species
that come at a low level in the food chain. But don‟t we all have our own
dangers and threats to deal with and our different ways to survive them?

Obviously the least amount of knowledge that this animal that you
sympathize with has about itself and about its place in nature, is that it is
375


food for this particular predator, and that it should have no bigger concern in
this life – after worshipping the creator in its own way - than making sure
not to end up as its dinner! Eat and avoid being eaten; they do accept that
code of living on this Earth, they do it as best as they could, they don‟t find
it unfair, and you most certainly have no route of knowledge to prove
otherwise!

In the Qur‟an we are taught that all animals (all species that move around:
Dawab ‫ )دواب‬are nations (peoples) like mankind!

Allah says (translation of the meanings of the verse): (6|38): ((There is not
an animal in the Earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, that is
not of “peoples” (nations) like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the
Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will all be gathered.))

They do have intelligence, proper reasoning, and languages of their own!
They do have systems of order, tribal order, and they know how to do what
they are here to do! You‟d think that science has advanced far enough for
people to actually see clear signs of this meaning in the way that animals
live and communicate! Yet, they don‟t! This is because of a fundamentally
wrong approach to understanding how animals reason and communicate,
and of course “judging” them: The accursed Darwinian approach!

Animals do have reason, languages of their own (to us they are seen to be
nothing more than a number of unexplainable noises and gestures, just as our
languages would appear to be to them), that are in full accordance both
mentally and physically with the purpose of their existence, just as it is the
case with us. So it is ultimately wrong to claim that man is more intelligent
than other living species in any way; the features and purposes of human
intelligence do not by any means compare to those of animal intelligence in
other species.

A Darwinian would easily think that since he cannot communicate with
other creatures, and cannot comprehend their means of communication, then
they must be incapable of practicing the same forms of communication
amongst themselves in ways that suit them! He would easily claim that man
is the most “evolved” species in terms of intelligence, language and verbal

376


communication! The definition man holds in his book of knowledge for
the term intelligence is a definition that is built entirely on a human
datum (frame of reference), related to human problems and human
ways, so it is ultimately wrong to apply that very same definition upon
other living beings. The fact that we cannot talk to birds or monkeys or that
they cannot respond (on the human datum of response) to human conduct
and speech does not by any means suggest that they are void of the property
of knowledge, completely expressive language or intelligence, or even that
they are lacking therein.

If intelligence is loosely defined as the way the mind of a creature deals with
different situations in which the creature is put, it is through the creature‟s
body structure that this way is executed, and it is within the nature of the
function (purpose) of being for that creature on earth that this execution is
justified and performed. This means that, intelligence of a bird for example
is measured fairly when the bird‟s behavior is compared to that of other
birds of its kind and of the same species, not to our human patterns of
interaction, response or behavior. Definitely the challenges and problems
that we face in our human life are not equal to those that a bird faces! Same
goes for apes and all other species!

Yet Darwinism has spoilt this very clear datum, (along with everything else
that it inverted really!) and turned all life forms into steps on a stair of
evolution; placing human means of communication, mentality and reason, as
datum for understanding and judging the corresponding features in every
living being, and the way they should be when they have fully evolved! You
say we are more intelligent than a monkey because for example we found
that we cannot manage to teach a monkey to talk like we do or read and
write like we do? Whoever said that a monkey should be capable of
developing those skills or learning to do them in the first place? Other than
Darwinians who believe they are only a species of evolved apes, I don‟t
know anyone else who could find any proper justification for such an
approach. There are absolutely no common grounds between man and ape in
terms of purpose that would justify our judgment of their intelligence in
reference to our human standards of intellect, the way they do, and would

377


give us the right to call them less “evolved” in terms of reasoning and
language.

Yes indeed we humans come at the top of all living beings in terms of
physical sophistication, regarding the purpose for which we were made and
the honoring that Allah bestowed upon our father. Translation of the Quran
(95|4): ((Surely We created man of the best stature)). However this doesn‟t
make humans more evolved and it certainly doesn‟t give us the right to judge
those creatures according to our datum of purpose and our physical and
mental faculties!

This is indeed a major error of reasoning that is - as we have elaborated
repeatedly in this literature - a fundamental problem with the philosophy of
Darwinian science. Do not judge a machine by the purpose and
performance of another machine, and without obtaining the blueprint
of the machine you judge! We have no right to say that a fridge is for
example less “evolved” or “advanced” than a laptop computer! Yes the
technology in the latter is indeed far more advanced – with respect to the
history of human development with industrial technology – but those are two
different artifacts that are not to be judged in terms of the way they both
serve their own distinct functions, by comparing them to one another!

This is wrong!

Thanks to Darwin, the term intelligence has always been used ever since,
according to the human reference of what intelligence is in man, to judge all
other creatures as inferior to man in terms of evolution (mentally). It makes
no sense as we have seen to take human intelligence as a datum to classify
and measure intelligence of other species, because none of them has the
same function or purpose in life, or the same tools, not to mention the
purpose and tools of man.

Human intelligence is not the datum for anything but for judging individual
levels of human intelligence. Each species has a perfectly consistent role to
play, and every creature knows exactly what it is supposed to do
(evolutionist humans not included of course!). Survival is thus not for the
fittest; survival is for those whose purpose of being on Earth continues to be.

378


As long as a species still has a role to play on this planet, it is kept existent,
and this is how Allah preserves this perfect harmony of existence on Earth,
all out of high heavenly wisdom and within a perfect unbreakable order. So
when in the Qur‟an the creator states that every single species is similar to
man in that they are peoples and nations, peoples that possess language and
wisdom, we should not deny that on the basis that we do not understand how
they communicate, how they think, or how they obtain knowledge of their
own! The very little that we have come to know by far through testing and
experimentation, is no argument against what the Qur‟an is telling us!

Actually I would say that this single verse in the Qur‟an (6|38) contains –
alone – much more knowledge about natural life than any biologist could
even begin to dream about! All those researchers who have wasted their
lives in attempt to prove something as clear as the fact that whales and
sharks – for example - do have a distinct language of their own, should find
this verse and the likes from the Lord their creator to be terminal to their
end; a prize of knowledge by all means! You now know what you‟ve been
trying to prove! So start from there, and take the right course!

Prophet Solomon and David his father were given the unique ability to
comprehend the language of birds and beasts, and in the Quran Solomon is
narrated to listen to the wisdom of something as tiny as an ant, and debate
with a hoopoe! So easily would an arrogant atheist make fun of this story,
claiming it to be just another legend by the poor people of old! But in fact,
he cannot afford a single rational proof for the impossibility of this being
true of Solomon or of the nations of ants, birds and other beasts, the way
God narrates! There is no reason whatsoever for us to view such stories as
irrational or “impossible”! They just choose to think little of it, just as they
do with every other story of religion, in all religions! And to them, I‟m not at
all making any sense when I make such quotations and study such verses!

Even though proper reason and observation tells them that animals do have
languages and tribal orders of their own, some of which are quite amazingly
complex indeed; they would easily make fun of those stories in the Qur‟an,
just because it is there in the Qur‟an! They would easily appreciate a science
fiction novelist when he imagines a time in the future when man has

379


managed to discover the languages of certain animals and find no problem
accepting the idea as science (take Dr. Doolittle for example!), but when the
Qur‟an tells them that the Creator did indeed give this knowledge to some of
His prophets, they would readily make fun of it and dismiss it as mythology
and fairy tales! What ways could you take to the mind of a man who has
blocked his heart and his senses in such a way?

So animals and beasts do have a notion of justice and penalty, and they
know about the reasons they are here, and actually the reason why humans
are here, far more than someone like professor Dawkins himself knows!
None of the pains they suffer in this world is without a code of justice by
their creator that they understand and accept! And this is why they will be
resurrected in the afterlife to be judged just like we will be judged, except
the nature of the punishment and the reward to them will be different,
because the nature of their assignment in this life was fundamentally
different!

Translation of meanings of the Quran (10|39): ((Nay, but they denied that,
the knowledge whereof they could not compass, and whereof the
interpretation (in events) has not yet come unto them. Even so did those
before them deny. Then what the consequence for the wrongdoers was!))

So rebounding to the Dawkins‟ “silly” comment on the cruelty and
wastefulness of natural life; we have all the right in the world to scream in
his face: You just don‟t know!

Those prey animals do not find the way they live: cruel or unfair! They
know what you don‟t, they are normally equipped to survive, escape, hide,
and die naturally without ever being caught by that predator! And they know
since early stages of their lives what exactly they are here to do and how to
do it! They know their creator; they have not been given the choice against
Him like we have, because they are not here to be tested with a choice of
faith! They do not dream of a paradise on Earth or anywhere, they do not
dream of becoming gods and becoming immortal, they do not dream of
ruling the entire universe! In fact, they know much better indeed than any
atheist thinks he knows about this life and what it is all about!

380


This is why I often make the remark that if one day we were given the
ability to understand the language of apes, Darwinians experimenting on
apes in their labs would certainly not be pleased with what those apes would
have to say to them! They would then wish they were indeed apes
themselves, for at least they would be comfortable with knowing what life is
all about and what exactly men are here to do with all that knowledge and
that unique power that separates them from all other species!

This is why it is a recurrent meaning in the Quran that the Kuffar (especially
stubborn unbelievers who refuse to accept the truth when they see it) are
indeed lower in rank (of knowledge) than cattle and sheep! This is true,
because they choose not to submit to the will of their creator and do what
they are made in this world to do, while beasts and cattle on the other hand
do submit to the assignment of worshipping Him! Beasts know what they
should do with their lives and they know that they have no choice but to
submit, they know they have no eternity after death, and they know that
whenever they do injustice to animals other than the ones they should prey
on (or even if they torture their preys unnecessarily as they capture them),
they would get paid in full for that! Yes their range of choice is not as vast as
ours, and it does not include choosing who or what to worship other than
their creator; but they do pay for their choices nonetheless! So do not feel
sorry for the cruel sight of a beast being ravaged by another beast! It is
not without a fulfillment of perfect justice that they do understand and
accept.

This mortal life is all there is for them; they simply know everything they
have to know! Atheists on the other hand, know not what they were created
for, they know not why they were given choice, they know not what will be
of them after death, and whatever they know of the tools and resources of
this Earth, they do not know what they should be doing with it, and when
compared to the vastness of what is there for them after death, which they
know almost nothing about; it is clearly no more than a big zero! Cattles are
thus much wiser and higher in the rank of knowledge!

((Or perhaps you think that most of them hear or understand? They are
but like cattle, nay, but they are farther astray!)) (Translation of the

381


meanings of verse (25/44)) They are lesser than beasts in knowledge! In
keeping with the human purpose they are farther astray than beasts (who are
not to blame for not doing what humans are supposed to be doing), and in
keeping with the general purpose of creation of all living beings, they are
lesser all the same because the refuse to submit to their creator the way those
beasts do!

This is no waste; it‟s a vast richness and openhandedness in creation! One
that is part of the overall wisdom and purpose of variety in nature! There are
lessons for man to learn in every corner of this Earth, there are benefits for
him to make, there are rulings to be abided with, all to be known and
obtained from no other source but the heavenly manual of life: The revealed
knowledge of the true religion of the creator.

On the Anthropic Principle

In this section of “The God Delusion” the author discusses the so called “the
anthropic principle” in astrophysics, cosmology and physics. He starts by
stating that the perfect conditioning necessary for life in the system is not
only a property of biological systems, but also – by necessity – of the
physical cradle where natural life emerged: The Universe! He realizes – as
every sane human being should – that life is the way it is not just because of
genetic factors and biological processes, but because nature at large – too –
is no other way but the way that it should be! In short, and simply put, the
principle states that for life to exist, it cannot emerge the way we observe it
under any different conditions or restraints from the way the Universe, the
solar system and the Earth are! It‟s the acknowledgment that in order for us
to live here the way we do, the universe has to be precisely the way that we
find it to be. We do acknowledge – whether we like it or not – that we come
to this world to find it – by all means – to be a perfectly prepared home for
us!

Now before I start quoting and commenting, let me point to the fact that we
humans have no choice but to follow this rationale in the way we observe
the world around us! We know that we cannot – no matter how hard we try –
come up with an alternative “design” for a carbon based intelligent life form
382


that could live under any different conditions from what we see; and this is
exactly what the Anthropic principle demonstrates!37 Our minds are built in
such a way that we cannot escape seeing the mastery of this creation for the
marvel that it really is! It is thus unthinkable that a scientist would still insist
on holding on to atheism and Darwinism even as he raises his gaze from the
microscope to the telescope, and sees the very same mastery and perfect
accord, perfect balance and completeness exhibited in the way things are
high above just as they are down below, at all levels and all scales! Yet they
are bound to sabotage people‟s reasoning all the way to the end! They have
no other way!

Here‟s an interesting quotation from two atheist authors that shows just how
desperate those people are in their search for some rational justification to
their position of stubborn denial!

Suppose that the universe was infinite and completely random in the
large. Then our huge, apparently ordered universe could be just one
infinitesimal part of a disordered whole. We would be living in a
Humean world: we would have no reason to suppose that in the next

37
It is to be noted here that some opponents of the Anthropic Principle argue that there is no limit to the
possibilities of life forms emerging on different planets, not by necessity carbon-based, and not by
necessity in any way like this form of life that we see on Earth. They would argue that every single one of
those constants being the way it is, may be viewed as a necessary but insufficient condition for life to be the
way that it is. Well first of all, we never said that a silicon-based life form – for example – is not possible!
And yes indeed there is no limit to what life forms the creator may choose to create! But this does nothing
at all to the premise that this particular universe is perfectly suited – as it is – to this particular structure of
natural life of which we are part, in this earth that we call home! Yes every single one of those conditions is
necessary and insufficient on its own, but that‟s exactly what makes the deduction of perfect tuning too
obvious to demand arguing for! Those conditions are “irreducible” because every single one of them is
necessary, and they have to be composed in exactly the way that they are for life to be the way that it is! To
use the Darwinian rationale of probability, tell me my atheist reader; how likely is it that a single bang (a
blind explosion with no creator) would yield this perfectly organized system, and by what reason could the
process of purposeful creation and the necessary act of tuning be ruled out from such a magnificent event?
Dawkins used the Boeing 747 parable to argue that it is far more unlikely for life to emerge from a single
act of creation, than from a gradual “evolutionary” process of chance events, so I ask you now, what would
be the outcome of applying this very same parable to the singularity that is called the big bang, as it brings
together all those necessary conditions for life on this particular planet, the way that it quite obviously did?
And how could any atheist continue to stick to arguments from improbability against creation, with this
meaning in mind? As for the question of whether or not it would‟ve been better if we were (silicon-based)
not (carbon-based) – for example - with all conditions set precisely for this structure of natural life; this
judgment obviously demands a detailed knowledge of the exact purpose for which we were created, along
with the rest of the universe, and that‟s certainly a kind of knowledge that cannot be sought in natural
science, or in philosophy for that matter! You have to know what an “artifact” was made for before you
could judge if it is made in the best possible makeup for its desired function! Do you claim to have this
knowledge, my atheist reader?

383


microsecond everything around us would not go into a total chaos
rather like a puff of smoke. We of course would do well to suppose
that the pseudo-laws, the temporary apparent regularities, would
continue to operate. If they do not then no matter – nothing we do
matters. But if they do continue to operate it is as well that we plan
according to them.
Is not this a chilling thought, that our huge and beautiful universe (as
it seems to us) might be a mere speck, a mere infinitesimal random
fluctuation into apparent orderliness in what is really an infinite
chaos? The image of a monkey typing randomly on a typewriter to
produce Shakespeare‘s Hamlet would pale into insignificance beside
the awful reality. 38
Just look at the very first phrase in this „mental masturbation‟ (for lack of a
better word)! The authors start by making a preposterous assumption that
has no grounds whatsoever, and go on to “chill” their reader by the
bleakness of such an idea! I beg of my reader to be true to himself and judge
this kind of literature for what it really is: An atheist‟s wet dream! What
plausible reason does any sane human being who respects his own mind
have to suppose that beyond this perfectly ordered universe that we observe
everywhere, there is an infinite “chaos” rather than a perfectly capable
creator who is everything we should expect of the maker of this perfect
craft? How can we even begin to debate with such people?

Well they might as well start by saying: ―suppose the universe was just a
tiny particle in the belly of a gigantic whale that swims in the ocean of
infinity‖! Wouldn‟t that be a “chilling thought”? That‟s what we‟re getting
here! Suppose whatever you wish to suppose; it‟s okay as long as you do not
talk of “design” or a “creator”!

This is just what Dawkins attempts to do with this section: Do not be fooled,
people of religion, just like we managed to make up an evolutionist
“probabilistic” alternative explanation for the perfectness in biological
systems, this perfectly conditioned universe where you live is – as well – not
without an equally “imaginative” alternative that suits the Darwinian creed!
38
J.J. C. Smart & J.J. Haldane (2003), Atheism and Theism, Second Edition, UK: Blackwell Publishing, pp.
21

384


So typical indeed of a man of blind faith! It is not enough that it already took
him a huge leap of faith to let go of creation and ride against the stream of
human sense to accept natural selection as it is; he knows he has to have
even more faith in Darwin‟s theory to take its basic concepts to other places
where those concepts clearly have nothing to offer! To play the “plausible-
alternative” game in every other field of human perception and reason where
perfectness of creation is observed! It is not plausible, it is not even
reasonable to begin with, yet they believe that with further explanation of
their fiction and their corrupt reasoning, they are actually doing “science”!

Quote:

―What the religious mind then fails to grasp is that two candidate
solutions are offered to the problem. God is one. The anthropic
principle is the other. They are alternatives.‖ (The delusion p.136)

Says who? What makes it an alternative? It is you – atheists - who desire to
make in into an alternative, when every sense in every reasonable man says
otherwise! Even with the corrupt application of statistical reasoning that they
use; it is next to impossible that all such conditions, both in natural life, and
in the universe at large, would come to be in such a perfect balance and
perfect harmony for the emergence of life on Earth, and for it to progress
gradually all the way to conclude in the way we see it now! On what
grounds could they dare reject creation as improbable? He says ―Life still
has to originate in the water, and the origin of life may have been a highly
improbable occurrence.‖ … May have been?

Just take a single cell and spread the map or the sheet of all chemical
reactions that take place in it, and let‟s assume for a while that those
reactions could have been added to one another gradually in an accumulative
manner by pure chance until eventually we had what could be qualified as a
living cell! (Of course let‟s blind ourselves for now about the question of
what life is and what “chemical reaction” could have initiated it into the
cell!)! It is known that for every single one of those reactions – not to
mention the formation of the reactants themselves in the first place
(chemical synthesis) – to take place initially from its original atoms; it

385


demands a great deal of conditions that differ from one reaction to the other,
like containment, heat conditioning, catalyst agency, etc. Now imagine how
many different sets of conditions you are asking of this pointless aimless
primordial lake to have been setting and resetting every time a random
candidate for reaction was passing by, so that all by pure chance everything
is all set and the reaction just takes place, and a new part is added!

And they speak of “improbability”!

Chemists may actually dream of a Nobel Prize for succeeding in the total
synthesis of some naturally abundant organic compound in the lab! Robert
Burns Woodward was notoriously awarded the 1954 Nobel prize in
Chemistry for succeeding in designing the reaction that would synthesize
“strychnine” in the lab (a complex compound commonly found in the seeds
of a certain tree!); Just imagine the genius and precision of those conditions
that have to be prepared for that single reaction! And those people speak of
the probability of random composition of a living cell in a primordial lake?

Quote:

―But the spontaneous arising by chance of the first hereditary
molecule strikes many as improbable. Maybe it is - very very
improbable, and I shall dwell on this, for it is central to this section of
the book.‖ (The delusion p.137)

Very very improbable, he says! How much so, professor? More or less
“improbable” than – for example – there being an intelligent agent (creator)
who explicitly prepared the initial chemical conditions and maintained the
balance onwards determinately? Can you possibly give us any statistical way
of determining the estimate of the improbability so we could perhaps make a
comparison?

Quote:

―The origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative, subject for
research.‖ (The delusion p.137)

386


Correction: The origin of life is a flourishing subject for fiction and myth in
the name of science!

Quote:

―Again as with temperature, there are two hypotheses to explain what
happened - the design hypothesis and the scientific or 'anthropic'
hypothesis.‖ (The delusion p.137)

Again he makes the biased distinction between science and “design”, -
argument from atheist faith - and forces unto the reader his subsequent
philosophical position that the “Anthropic” conception is not in accord with
creation, but an “alternative to it” building upon that as though it were a
given fact! Now how high do people have to “raise their consciousness” so
they could have this clear sign of perfectness and mastery in creation tagged
as yet another “alternative of science” for creation the way he insists on
rendering it, I have no idea; but it has to be too high indeed! Let‟s see how
he will try to talk us into it.

Listen to this naive image of creation that he presents in a repulsive attempt
to make people think less of it! I quote:

―The design approach postulates a God who wrought a deliberate
miracle, struck the prebiotic soup with divine fire and launched DNA,
or something equivalent, on its momentous career.‖ (The delusion
p.137)

How funny indeed! The creator – praised be - has nothing to do with this
cartoonish image that you have been soaked into believing throughout your
entire adult life, professor! We do not postulate anything, and we have
nothing to do with your mythological faith that holds life to have emerged
by pure chance in a lake of dead proteins hanging around in abandon!

We, humans, cannot imagine a group of inanimate molecules, turning into
living cells through some “chemical reaction”, no matter how complicated
that reaction may really be! Chemistry is the discipline that studies the
interaction between different forms of matter in nature! The construction of
new bonds from old decomposed bonds between basic building blocks of
387


matter, and the phenomena that such compositions and decompositions are
parts of; this is – in simple words - what chemistry is about! So obviously, a
“chemical reaction” has nothing to do with whatever it is that turned this
group of building blocks of inanimate matter into living cells!

What is life, professor? How do you define life? Life is – as defined in
English dictionaries – the sum of all factors that distinguish a living
organism (animate matter) from dead matter! Chemistry – again – is the
transformation of elements of matter to other elements of matter, regardless
of the fact that such transformation may take place as part of the processes
of life in a living cell. I say regardless because quite obviously, life is an
additional power or governing force that runs (animates) dead matter and
runs those organic reactions themselves; a force or a factor that distinguishes
the living from the dead! So whatever that force may be, it‟s not chemical!

Furthermore, we are supposed to believe this reaction to have taken place by
pure accident at the bottom of a lake where no medium of any sort was ever
prepared for the purpose in advance, and no restrictive or conservative force
whatsoever to guarantee for any of the essential initial conditions – whatever
they may be – to remain restricted within the medium for the reaction, and
for all elements of the reaction to take none but the exact course of motion
they should be taking for the sake of this “miracle” of a reaction to take
place, and for a simple amino acid to emerge!

One really fails to decide where to begin when he argues against such
monumental nonsense! From language? From natural law? From basic
reasoning? Well, it‟s your pick!

It is enough for now to say that if anybody even as much as tries to mimic
this alleged “chemical reaction” in a lab, he is clearly fooling himself;
because they do not believe it to have had any particular conditions prepared
for it – unlike anything that we may recognize as a chemical reaction – or
anything that might be called a reaction, anywhere in our labs or in nature -,
so whatever preparations they make for the reaction in their labs, they are
defeating the very purpose of the experiment while they least know it!

388


In fact Dawkins does not even describe the experiment as chemists
“mimicking”, he actually describes it as chemists “recreating”! Of course it
is the same thing, but just look at the inevitable choice of words here! Can
he not hear himself? Recreating! So it was indeed created, wasn‟t it?

Every time a Darwinian gives an analogy for how chance could be made
part of an ongoing system, he forgets that it takes determinate planning and
design to define the exact part where “chance” is to be involved in a system
that is particularly designed for this purpose! Like we argued earlier, a
system that involves “random” processes is a designed system of random
generation; the generation of a result that is not particularly chosen by the
designer, but is prepared as part of a set of different probable choices to
which the generator is restricted by design! It is a designed system of
selection in which each item of the designed set has an equal probability of
being chosen, and only the right element stays in place. This is why
whenever Dawkins makes an example to demonstrate the way random
mutation works under natural selection; he forgets that a random generator
is – in itself – a purposeful design!

A chemist will always do what a designer does in his lab whenever he
prepares to mimic the alleged reaction in the so called primordial soup, even
if the design is a random generator! He will restrict the elements he uses,
define in advance each and every one of these elements, and hence prepare a
set of given choices of equal probability, ones that are all restricted to the
conditions and the medium that he prepared! This is by no means what is
claimed to have taken place in the primordial soup!

Like I said in an earlier section some atheists argue that if you placed a
monkey on a keyboard and asked him to type at complete random, there is
no way you could end up with a book from Shakespeare, not in a billion
years! However, if you had a system that would keep the right character in
its place once it is hit there by chance (which he believes to be the work of
natural selection in natural life), then in time long enough, the book will
eventually be written! What they don‟t realize – or they probably neglect on
purpose – is that they‟re actually talking about a particularly designed
system that has the previous information of the desired letters and their

389


places determined in advance, so that when a random generator sparks
letters at random, once the right letter hits its place, it remains there! This
again has nothing to do with the claim that natural selection has no
previously designed code, not to mention the story of the primordial soup,
because there is supposed – according to the very meaning they give to the
word Chance - to be no previous design or code of right and wrong to keep
anything anywhere at all!

Again he commits the very same crime against the rationale of statistical
improbability when he says:

―If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a
billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event
would still happen on a billion planets.‖ (The delusion p.138)

In fact, if I were him, and I looked good enough, I would not be satisfied
even with a one in a billion billion billion probability! The fact still remains
that there is no statistical way to determine what estimate of chance is more
likely, because quite simply, this is not the kind of event that could be
submitted to statistical assessment in the first place, as I elaborated in detail
in an earlier section! I just wanted to show the professor that he has no
power of argument whatsoever in this conclusion that he is so happy to have
come up with, even as we apply his own atheistic understanding of statistical
improbability!

Though he does make this confession in the very next paragraph where he
says:

―Any probability statement is made in the context of a certain level of
ignorance. If we know nothing about a planet, we may postulate the
odds of life's arising on it as, say, one in a billion. But if we now
import some new assumptions into our estimate, things change.‖ (The
delusion p.138)

And he still insists on arguing from improbability, nonetheless!

Yet he says:

390


―I do not for a moment believe the origin of life was anywhere near so
improbable in practice.‖ (The delusion p.138)

Well, believe whatever you wish to believe professor! What you believe is
insignificant to the argument; it is what you can prove that matters!

―Even accepting the most pessimistic estimate of the probability that
life might spontaneously originate, this statistical argument
completely demolishes any suggestion that we should postulate design
to fill the gap.‖ (The delusion p.139)

And whoever said that we – people of heavenly wisdom - accept any
estimate or use of probability in this area to begin with? We don‟t! Statistical
arguments on the subject matter are indeed a perfect example of arguments
from wrong application of the scientific method itself, as is the case with
every Darwinian argument in this book and in every other book!

He insists on approaching the problem of the very first origin of life armed
with nothing but “statistical probability” though he does understand that it is
not a problem of biology (and certainly not of chemistry, or even statistics as
we elaborated earlier)! He then makes one of his boldest and most fallacious
statements yet in this book when he says:

―Yet even so big a gap as this is easily filled by statistically informed
science, while the very same statistical science rules out a divine
creator on the 'Ultimate 747' grounds we met earlier.‖ (The delusion
p.139)

How unbelievably arrogant indeed! This statement is but a multitude of
outspoken fallacies accumulated over one another! At the very bottom is the
false introduction (or should I say: Indoctrination) of “statistical jargon”
itself into the argument, coupled with the ridiculous counter-logical image of
“mount improbable” above which is laid the plainly corrupt analogy of the
Boeing 747, together with the utterly false analogy of the origination of life
from dead matter to the process of creating new chemical compositions from
old ones! … An argument – in fact – couldn‟t possibly get any more corrupt!

391


I do not think, at this point, that anything more needs to be said in comment
on such a claim! And like I said earlier, the depth of corruption in the
rationale upon which Darwinism and its doctrine of “science” is founded
really leaves you wondering where to begin whenever you wish to criticize
one of their arguments in terms of reason! I leave it for the reader to see for
himself how blind devout followers of Darwin like this man really are!

Quote:

―The observed fact is that every species, and every organ that has
ever been looked at within every species, is good at what it does. The
wings of birds, bees and bats are good at flying. Eyes are good at
seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesizing. We live on a planet
where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, each one of
which independently displays a powerful illusion of apparent design.
Each species is well fitted to its particular way of life‖ (The delusion
p.139)

Unbelievable! What a sorry case of human demise! “We are surrounded
by ten million powerful illusions”! Well, in fact he has no choice but to
view all reality as an illusion! Otherwise how would he possibly pass
through to his reader the position that God is a delusion? What on Earth can
any sane man do to make this man see things around him for what they very
obviously are, and quit betraying his very own senses, his mind and his
tongue, turning everything upside-down in such a way? A powerful “illusion
of apparent design”? How do those people really believe themselves? How
do they even sleep at night?

It would be a waste of time now to exert any further comment on such a
statement! I hope it speaks for itself; loud and clear!

Quote:

―The anthropic principle is impotent to explain the multifarious
details of living creatures.‖ (The delusion p.139)

392


Absolutely wrong! It is your own personal knowledge that is seriously
impotent in this concern! Every set of living creatures is created for a
purpose that serves – among other purposes - the exact mission of man on
this Earth, so apart from the only true source where this knowledge is to be
obtained, (The manual of mortal life so to speak: The Qur‟an) you can go on
forever blowing soap bubbles in the air, making as many more arguments
from incredulity as you wish! It will never take you anywhere near the truth!

See how he keeps reciting it to himself:

―We really need Darwin's powerful crane to account for the diversity
of life on Earth, and especially the persuasive illusion of design.‖
(The delusion p.140)

We really need not count the number of times he praises Darwin and natural
selection as he proceeds with the book, it is obvious enough! Well, I really
would have no problem with that, if he ever managed – for once – to put
forth between every two successive times that he does it, a single reasonable
argument that makes it worthwhile! I mean, I – too – have praised my
prophet and the body of knowledge that I claim to have been delivered to
him from the creator himself, more than once, and I have no problem doing
it over and over again as I proceed; but it is always in proper context and not
for the effect of hypnosis; I am not using emotional effects and poor
repetition of such statements, and I‟m not short of profoundly rational
argumentation as I go on presenting my case!

A statement as such is obviously the empty attempt of a helpless man to
convince himself of the validity of his chosen faith, and of the idea that
everybody else who objects to it, is fooled and is incapable of properly
understanding Darwinism! So typical indeed! If this is an argument, one
really needs not say anything more in response to it than this: ―I find
creation (design) to be far more persuasive indeed, and I find Darwinian
evolution to be the only real illusion here”! So we rest our case there and the
debate is over! Nothing further needs to be said! His own struggle to have
himself convinced that Darwin‟s ideas could be more persuasive than – or at

393


least as persuasive as - the rational default conception of creation, is really
his own personal problem as a Darwinian, not ours!

Quote:

―We can deal with the unique origin of life by postulating a very large
number of planetary opportunities.‖

Now this is how he seeks to get away will probabilistic argumentation in the
subject matter! He is trying to make the impossible improbable, and
hopefully less “improbable” than what he claims creation to be! By
impossible I mean the blatantly irrational position that such an unparalleled
perfect process of origination of life on Earth could come about by chance !
So easy indeed is the claim that “we can deal” with the unique origin of life
by supposing a multitude of other planetary “opportunities”! But on what
grounds of reason is it plausible or even explanatory? This is how it works:
Let‟s dream that there are indeed billions of other similar planets, many of
which could host an initial event of origins of life, and we will feel much
more secure about denying the creator in this one where we live! Easy now,
isn‟t it?

It really amazes me how such a line of (wishful-thinking) argumentation has
come to gain considerable weight in atheistic literature, even in the writings
of (full-time) academic philosophers, not laymen or amateur philosophers
like Dawkins!

In his book (Arguing for atheism: an introduction to the philosophy of
religion), author Robin Le Poidevin pushes the idea of „possible worlds‟ way
too far indeed, as he argues in favor of atheism! He seems to apply this
hypothetical concept in his argumentation based on a deeply confused
conception of the idea of multiple worlds possibly existing in the same
context that we call reality (though he asserts them not to be coexistent in
space and time!) on one hand (the so-called modal realism), and the rhetoric
presumption of different possible worlds (different possible realities of
which only the current world – as it is - is the one that really exists and we
legitimately call reality) on the other. The first hypothesis holds that reality
is vast enough to include a countless number of other possible worlds

394


(existing in parallel, one way or another), one of which only happens by pure
chance to host our universe as it is! The other hypothesis of possible worlds
that he uses repeatedly in his objections against both the cosmological and
the ontological argument is the proposition of a totally different reality
where things that we only think of as possibilities or necessities in this
world, would be “realities” in at least one of those possible worlds! Though
they are clearly two fundamentally distinct assumptions, the author keeps
shifting from one of them to the other without any plausible justification,
until eventually he argues that (modal realism) or the model of (many worlds
in parallel), or rather the controversial nature of its proposition, ‗diffuses the
fundamental questions of existence‘! What questions? And since when was
the mere fact that a certain hypothesis has provoked “controversy” or debate
among certain philosophers, evidence enough for any degree of plausibility
to this hypothesis? Are we arguing from “controversy” now?

Well, whatever the case may be, one universe or a million; the creator is the
only conceivable stop to the regress and is by necessity all that the human
mind demands for explanation, and all that it needs as an ultimate source for
the only reasonable answer to all other (first order questions) any man can
think of! Furthermore, applying - at least - the principle of Ockham‟s razor
here, such an “explanation” of many worlds shouldn‟t even stand a chance!
Instead of having to account for the origins of a single world, you now have
to explain (according to your conception of an explanation) an endless array
of parallel worlds! So how does he even dare claim it to be a “trivial”
explanation, or a “disappointingly simple” answer to the question?

Now I cannot claim to disagree with him on particular objections that he
raises against Anselm‟s version of the ontological argument, or even the
three versions that he discusses of the cosmological argument for that
matter, but again the problem is with the way atheists draw conclusions from
such partial objections as though by picking on the way this or that
philosopher phrased his arguments for the existence of God, the rational
necessity of the first cause would be inverted! This is not how a truth seeker
should work his way through the subject matter, if indeed he is in search for
the truth!

395


Again I remind my reader that even the very meaning of truth itself could be
questioned by such twisted forms of counter-argumentation! And indeed
that‟s almost what we get in Le Poidevin‟s book (Arguing for Atheism), as
he makes yet another appalling use of the “possible worlds” plot in
trivializing even the natural urge to seek an “explanation” for the world
being the way that it is, and for us being born in it!

Let me quote: 39

By this point we have become quite familiar with talk of possible
worlds. I now want to show that such talk allows us to construct a
very simple, indeed disappointingly simple, answer to our
fundamental question, ‗Why does the universe exist?‘ However, to see
how the explanation works, we have to rephrase our question as
follows: ‗Why is the actual world one which contains a universe?‘ The
‗explanation‘ now goes as follows. The set of all possible worlds
represents the full range of logical possibility. Anything that is
logically possible will be true in some possible world or worlds. The
existence of a universe is clearly possible, since it is actual.
Consequently, some possible worlds contain a universe, even though
many do not. Whenever the phrase ‗The actual world‘ is used by us, it
denotes the world we happen to be in, just as whenever we use the
word ‗here‘ it denotes the place we happen to be in. So the question
‗Why is this world one which contains a universe?‘ just means ‗Why is
the world in which I am located one which contains a universe?‘, and
that question hardly seems to deserve an answer. For, of course, the
world in which I am located is bound to be a world which contains a
universe. The very posing of the question presupposes the answer.
What a cheap trick! How is any man who respects his mind supposed to
even go through such kind of arguments and give them any degree of
credibility? It is supposed to be readily sufficient that he describes this so-
called ‘explanation’ as trivial, for us to not even bother reading it to
begin with! And yet he maintains that it could suffice as an explanation in
the place of (God), or at least challenge it, because according to him, if – a

39
(Robin Le Poidevin (1996), Arguing for Atheism: an introduction to the philosophy of religion, USA:
Routledge Publishing, pp. 34-35)

396


big “if” indeed – we were to view the world in the context of all other
possible worlds, we would not need to ask the question why this world has a
universe while others do not! Now not only is this mode of thinking
laughably unjustifiable and meaningless, it kills the very meaning of “
explanation” that we are compelled to seek in this context, by giving you
virtually nothing at all! It‟s like saying to someone who asks you: “why are
you here?”; “Well, the question of why I‟m here is meaningless, because by
virtue of logical possibility, I could be in an endless number of places right
now! But since of all places I actually happen to be here, then this question
hardly seems to deserve an answer!”!

Quite brilliant indeed!

Just look at the analogy he gives for this toy of “possible worlds” he enjoys
playing with in this literature!:

A simple analogy may help to make this argument intelligible.
Imagine that you are sitting in one of a hundred rooms in some office
building. Some of these rooms are occupied, some not. Reflecting on
this, you ask yourself, ‗Why is this room an occupied room?‘ The
answer is not hard to find. Consider the meaning of ‗this room‘.
Which room is referred to by ‗this room‘ obviously depends on the
location of the speaker. As we might put it, ‗this room‘ just means
‗The room where I am located‘. So the question ‗Why is this room
occupied?‘ just means ‗Why is the room in which I am located an
occupied room?‘ and the absurdity of the question is at once
apparent. Any room in which I am located is ipso facto an occupied
room, so in that sense the fact that this room is occupied needs no
explanation beyond a brief summary of what is meant by the phrase
‗this room‘. Similarly, the fact that the actual world contains a
universe is answered quite trivially, by a summary of what is meant by
‗the actual world‘.‖
Well how about asking: Why do you happen to occupy this room and not
another one? Or even better: What on earth are you doing in this building at
all? Doesn‟t this sound more relevant to what the fuss is all about?

Instead of treading around in the meaning of the term “this world” which is
obviously irrelevant to the question that asks about the world we know in
397


particular not some fancy array of other possible worlds (!), a sane man who
respects his mind and who is honestly in a quest for the truth, should rather
examine the meaning of the word “why” here, and the nature of the
explanation it is seeking! Even now one will not fail to argue against this
author here that we still need to know why he happens to be in one of the
possible worlds where a universe exists (i.e. why he began to exist at all)
rather than otherwise!

So what is this really, if not a hopeless attempt to just blast a smoke bomb in
the minds of those who find themselves naturally compelled to hold the only
reasonable answer to the question of origins and purpose of the universe
(which is the only acceptable meaning of “why” in this context as should be
clear from the outset)? One could easily write volumes with loads of such
senseless objections and manipulative assumptions to fume the clear truth, or
to – at least – convince atheists that it is questionable and vulnerable to all
kinds of objections there can be; but then he would only be fooling himself,
wouldn‟t he?

The thing that really gets on your nerves is that right after this joke of an
argument, the author admits that this trivial explanation is “suspicious”,
because obviously those other rooms do exist, some of which are occupied
while others are not, whereas the assumption of other possible worlds is only
imaginary! Well then what is the point or the value or even the relevance of
raising such a silly and utterly vacuous hypothesis of “possible worlds” at all
in the first place? A pathetic attempt by a stubborn atheist to forge all forms
of philosophical escapes from the grasp of the clear truth, even if he had to
trivialize or „diffuse‟ the very question itself! That‟s all it really is! That‟s all
you really get out of atheistic literature! Some authors (philosophers) are
only more experienced and better trained with this hideous craft than others!

In short, the scheme of “possible worlds” or “parallel worlds” or whatever
you wish to call it, boils down to this: Assume that there are other worlds
where all other logical possibilities do take place, and you will see that the
creator is not logically necessary and is not even an “explanation”! So please
tell me my respectable reader, does this even qualify for an argument?

398


Now, bouncing back to Dawkins‟ version of the „possible worlds‟ arguments
(which is basically another form of his argument from improbability), we
find that he speaks of “planetary opportunities”. It must be clear by now that
no matter how many “opportunities” you postulate for the conditions
necessary for the origination of life taking place elsewhere in the universe,
the basic problem remains the same! This is why we keep saying that
probability is out of the question!

As a matter of fact, keeping up with his probabilistic reasoning, I can say
with confidence that the exact opposite to his conclusion will be achieved
from that, just as we argued earlier in this literature on the rationale of
“mount probable” in natural selection! That is, if it is improbable, highly
improbable, that only a few of those perfectly organized conditions for the
emergence and preservation of life could be harnessed together in one planet
in the universe and configured as such all by chance; then how much more
improbable do you think it would be that those conditions may be gathered
on a few other planets (not to mention a billion planets!) elsewhere in the
universe, also by pure chance? Exponentially far more improbable I should
say!

Think about it! Suppose it could happen only once in a billion that a single
planet becomes as perfectly conditioned for life as planet Earth, then it could
happen only once in a billion billion that two planets become as perfectly
conditioned for life as planet Earth! So what is it that he thinks the
Anthropic principle is doing for his case?

In all cases, one can‟t help wondering, billion billion what exactly?
Universes? Or cases where a universe came to exist from the same “random
origin” as ours and ended up with a planet like ours? Billion billion similar
solar systems? Planets? What is your sample space for probability here and
how do you define it in the first place?

Inverse reason my kind reader is indeed a sickness to the human mind that
needs to be cured; not a privilege of “consciousness raising”, and most
certainly not the way “Science” should work!

399


It is amazing how he proceeds from there, giving examples of what he
believes are gaps in the origins of life that are even far more improbable than
the reactions in the alleged prebiotic lake; he makes the example of the
origin of the eukaryotic cell, the origin of consciousness, and so forth, saying
that this should actually render the process far more improbable! Now at this
point, one would expect the man to recoil to commonsense and start refuting
the „Chance‟ event principle that he believes in!

Far from it! Instead he dives even deeper in his “inverse rationale”!

He says:

―One-off events like this might be explained by the anthropic
principle, along the following lines. There are billions of planets that
have developed life at the level of bacteria, but only a fraction of these
life forms ever made it across the gap to something like the eucaryotic
cell.‖

So instead of solving the problem of improbability, he so merrily floods it
out, making it billions of times larger! How he could possibly fail to realize
this meaning is really beyond me! He feels that he needs to assume – totally
unjustifiably - a really huge number of “Attempts” at originating life in the
universe, so he could fool himself – for lack of a better word - into believing
that the fact that it only happened on Earth alone in this way in a lucky
sequence of random events, among billions of similar cases where things
didn‟t work out; is no big deal! This is the stance of someone who just
insists on denying the obvious, and plunging into an infinite world of
imaginary nonsense; there really is no point in debating with such a
mentality, is there?

Here‟s your probabilistic argument professor: (Fallacy) x (Fallacy) x
(Fallacy) x … = Fallacy that is too false to refute!

Just listen to him as he says:

―Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major
infusions of luck, with anthropic justification.‖

400


This composition “anthropic justification” – not to mention the archetypal
problem of “luck” - is used here in an absolutely opposite connotation to the
very meaning the word (anthropic) should convey! That is, for a justification
to be “anthropic”, it is by definition one that explains things in a way that
favors (or appears to favor) man, and shows everything to be exactly the
way it is on Earth for the sake of man (anthropos)! The universe can be in no
better way for man to live and prosper! Again, be my guest and look it up in
any dictionary!

The “Anthropic principle” as first suggested in 1973 by astrophysicist
Brandon Carter meant just this: That man is privileged on Earth, and that
everything seems to be working in his favor as a species! 40

Yet again Dawkins battles his way against the stream and again produces a
composition that applies language and even scientific jargon in the exact
opposite direction to the very meanings that it is supposed to give!

He then concludes with this:

―But whatever else we may say, design certainly does not work as an
explanation for life, because design is ultimately not cumulative and it
therefore raises bigger questions than it answers - it takes us straight
back along the Ultimate 747 infinite regress.‖ (The delusion p.141)

Again, he runs and runs and keeps falling back to the very same objection
against creation that he thinks makes plausible grounds for his faith: that
„design‟ raises bigger questions than it answers; namely, the corrupt
argument from “infinite regress”! It turns out that all he really has to hold on
to, and would keep repeating over and over as a basis for his position in
rejecting the creator; is his irrational belief in the infinite regress and the
stupid question “but who created God?”!

40
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic principle)

401


On the so called Cosmological version of the Anthropic principle.

Naturally, the author realizes that his problem does not end there, at the
initial “reaction” that supposedly got the engine of life started by pure
chance; it goes back to the origin of Earth itself and the rest of the universe,
because clearly, the entire universe – not just natural life and ecological
conditions on Earth – has to be no other way but the way that it is, for the
sake of life to flourish and for man to live the way he does! So he finds he
has no choice but to take the corrupt reasoning that we refuted in the
previous section, to another level!

The anthropic principle and the facts that we do observe that clearly
demonstrate how the Universe is perfectly suited for our favor, should – at
least – hint the mind of an honest seeker of the truth towards questioning the
rationale upon which “Scientific” theories of cosmic and biological origins
are founded, and the fallacy of the way that the origins of both man and
Earth are easily taken by those scientists to be analogous to certain events
that we see take place within the Universe and on Earth as parts of the
already created system as it is! He should at least realize that there is much
more to those initial events of origins than anything he has ever seen or
could possibly imagine! But for a scientist to take the anthropic principle
itself and force it to serve this obviously corrupt reasoning of his, and to
come up with the conclusion that it is – the principle itself in its very
meaning – falsely interpreted into perfectness and purposefulness of
creation; this is by all means an outrage!

It is supposed to be quite enough for any sane man to think properly and
make good sense of things, to listen to this statement:

―Physicists have calculated that, if the laws and constants of physics
had been even slightly different, the universe would have developed in
such a way that life would have been impossible.‖ (The delusion
p.141)

And though he admits it, he insists on driving it all in reverse!

Take this quotation for example:

402


―The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the
fundamental constants of the universe so that each one lay in its
Goldilocks zone for the production of life. It is as though God had six
knobs that he could twiddle, and he carefully tuned each knob to its
Goldilocks value. As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying,
because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of
calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to
be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers
itself, and that's very improbable indeed - which is indeed the premise
of the whole discussion we are having.‖ (The delusion p.143)

Twiddling with knobs? You really think that our prospect of the way the
almighty creator established the universe, is in the image of a human
twiddling with knobs? What blame should we take if all that those people
have ever learnt about the creator had come to them mostly through fairy
tales, pagan mythology and TV cartoons?

Then again he falls back to the very same objection which he admits to be
“the premise of the whole discussion”! And as though it is enough for a
claim to be established as a fact, only through mere repetition, ambitious
appraisal, and confident gestures, he makes – again - the conclusion:

―It follows that the theist's answer has utterly failed to make any
headway towards solving the problem at hand.‖

Utterly failed?

Oh yes indeed! Whatever you say professor!

Quote:

―Maybe the psychological reason for this amazing blindness has
something to do with the fact that many people have not had their
consciousness raised, as biologists have, by natural selection and its
power to tame improbability.‖

Here is a man who speaks to you, my kind reader, from the other side of
rationality! A man who has happily had his consciousness “raised” and

403


believes he knows the psychological explanation for the „blindness‟ of all
those humans who have not yet had Darwin raise their consciousness! Oh
humans how blind you are! Go ahead and seek salvation in Darwin! How
could you go to bed every day without seeking the rational refuge of
Darwinism that biologists have found? How could you possibly think and
reason your way through in your daily affairs without reforming your
consciousness with Darwinism? How could you even believe your own
senses when you are still so blind as to view the mastery of the making of
the universe as proof for creation? I pity you with all my heart!

I feel I need to ask of my reader to have patience and longevity as he
proceeds with reading this literature, because I really cannot afford to make
it any thinner! The gap between the grounds of true wisdom and meaningful
knowledge on one hand, and this “circus” that dominates scientific academia
in the west today on the other, is so vast that it really deserves no less than a
book of over a thousand pages to explain it in fair detail! My aim here is not
just the refutation of Dawkins‟ arguments, as I have mentioned repeatedly! I
may find myself tempted to repeat certain arguments in different wording for
the sake of the context and to better explain it, so please do not be bothered
by such repetition! You will see that it helps.

I pray to the Lord Allah – praised be His name - that every honest seeker of
the truth who reads these words right now – from whatever discipline or
doctrine or background he may be - would not put down this book without
having his life and his view of the world and of himself seriously shifted
back towards wisdom and truth!

Amen.

The professor proceeds to mention the Darwinian explanation that is given
by an evolutionary psychologist for the reason why people tend – according
to his claim – to “personify” everything around them! He speaks of the
reason why we tend to ascribe „human‟ attributes to anything that moves
before us, and claims that it is because the risk of not doing so is higher – in
evolutionary terms – than otherwise! This is obviously a corrupt
understanding of the way even animals view moving things around them!

404


Every member of a mobile living species that has perception of some form,
knows how to make a clear distinction between its prey, its predator, its
mate, other fellow members of the tribe and living beings from other
species! They never mistake a wind driven leaf – for example – for a
predator!

Moreover, we humans do have the capacity to recognize purpose and
meaning, and we have the capacity to identify a deed for what it is, an event
that by necessity demands a willful doer! This is not some childish tendency
or evolutionary leftover; it is a linguistic necessity! We humans identify
willful agency in causation just like we naturally identify reaction as an
event that demands an action, and effect as an event that demands a cause! It
is a property as fundamental and definitive to human reasoning as every
other property of the way we think!

So to easily render this human capacity of identifying purpose and
identifying every event in nature for what it is (the deed of a willful doer); as
the mere remainder of some sort of ancient evolutionary necessity in man is
to approach different features of human consciousness and reason in an
unjustifiable way that stands on no grounds but plain Darwinian bias!
Humans are perfectly justified in thinking this way! They have always seen
it to be quite logical and intuitive! Every event we observe is the outcome of
a cause. This cause is part of a chain of causes that ends inexorably at the
first cause, the willful and purposeful creator and sustainer of it all. Yes at
some points on the chain of causes we may observe other willful causes (like
humans or beasts), but the fact still remains that all causes lead to the first
essential cause, who must have had the will and intent to set it all up, and to
put everything in place. Only atheists seek to deny and refute the first cause
with all its necessary faculties! It‟s their choice of faith!

And though some philosophers have chosen to label this natural property of
attributing meanings that are common in humans to the creator and to other
forms of causal agency in nature as „anthropomorphism‟, it is not really a
(morphism) at all! It is quite reasonable that we humans would assign
properties to inanimate things that share a common meaning with certain
human attributes! We do that all the time! So if this is what you call

405


anthropomorphism then all humans are anthropomorphists by nature! Every
time we say (for example): “The computer is running the program”, we use a
meaning that is commonly attributed to humans to describe something that
the computer is doing, yet we know that such linguistic use doesn‟t – in the
least - imply that the machine is animate or has its own will and human-like
consciousness! Whenever we say “the ball has broken the window” we don‟t
accuse the ball of having its own will in breaking the window and causing
the damage! We‟re not assigning any additional human meanings to it in any
way! The mere fact that the meaning we described it with is shared by
humans, does not necessitate or even suggest exceeding the threshold of
describing the event – or the property - in the right words!

So when we describe the creator by meanings that are necessitated by reason
itself, or meanings that are attributed to Him in His authentic scripture, we
are not in any way suggesting anything more than the linguistic threshold of
this particular meaning; we do not in any way suggest that other human
features or meanings should follow in attribution to Him from doing so! The
fact that pagans actually merged the divine with created beings (not only
humans), and thus ended worshipping human figures, even beasts and rats,
not just picturing the creator as a human being; this doesn‟t abate the
necessity of attributing all authentic attributes to the creator without
exceeding them to other humanlike meanings as though the mere attribution
of them should allow for analogy and claiming further similarities!

So again, when I say the ball broke the window, I‟m not by necessity
implying or suggesting that this inanimate object is in fact animate or
conscious or “human”! Unlike atheists, we humans normally know how to
make sense of what they observe, and to tell animate from inanimate things!
And it is not due to a psychological problem that healthy people see creation
beyond this world! It is the way our minds are built!

He quotes J. Anderson Thomson in a letter that he wrote to him saying:

― 'The legacy of that is the default assumption, often fear, of human
intention. We have a great deal of difficulty seeing anything other
than human causation.'‖

406


It is actually YOU who have a great deal of difficulty accepting the natural
way our human minds operate! Why? Because it offends your faith, that‟s
why! Because as an atheist, you do not believe that people should be
thinking the way they do, with regards to the creator, or feeling the way they
do towards religion, and if one day you could actually cut off that part in a
man – whatever it is - that defines his spiritual intake of life, and his natural
acceptance of his creator, you would so happily do it!

Are we really supposed to believe that humans – as a kind - suffer from a
psychological trick of some sort that fools them all into believing the world
to be the work of a perfect creator?

It has become quite clear that since Darwinians knew that people would
naturally reject the corrupt logic of Darwinism as it is, they decided
they had no choice but try to have them believe that the problem and
the delusion is actually in human nature itself, in their own minds and
the way they „evolved‟, not in Darwin‟s claim! So the rationale we‟re
facing here goes pretty much like this: You cannot fully understand or
accept theory X, because according to theory X – itself – you are not
sufficiently evolved (mentally) to do that! So if you wish to accept X
(despite its apparent irrationality and inconsistency), you have to presuppose
the validity of X itself!

In his arrogant foolishness the atheist would look down on his opponent and
say: ―Oh the poor fellow! You don‘t comprehend my argument because
you‘re suffering from a problem that is inherent in every human being‖! It‟s
only natural then that they found no better playground to forge such a
destructive philosophy than the field of theoretical psychology! Hence the so
called; evolutionary psychology! It is a Darwinian‟s attempt to explain
aspects of the human psyche according to Darwinian evolution, so that a
Darwinian reply is easily pumped in whenever normal people wonder why –
for example – they find it ultimately rational and intuitive that there has to
be a masterful omnipotent creator to which they should pay homage and
submit, or why they feel great satisfaction in religion and spirituality or why
they seek morality and justice, and ask questions of the afterlife, and so
forth.

407


The claim that man at some point in history could not make the distinction
between a friendly man and a hostile one, not to mention making the
distinction between a shadow and a burglar (according to the example he
gives here) is indeed too ridiculous to even mention!

To speak of “fear of human intention” as though it is some intrinsically
human property is actually a delusion in its own right! It is a property that
can neither be demonstrated in a man – except for a seriously paranoid man
indeed – nor in beasts! Yes we do fear the unknown one way or another, but
we do not “humanize” those things that we fear by necessity, nor do we fear
the intentions of every next man that we know not, by necessity!

Let us first determine what exactly is meant by the term (human causation).
If by human causation you mean the ascription of any given event in reality
to a doer (a being) that is willful – in meaning – and possesses a multitude of
attributes that are shared – in meaning – by humans; then you‟re talking
about a fact of language and reason that defines the very way we humans
perceive reality. The very meaning of the word (Cause) leads the human
mind to a (causer) by necessity of language. At some point (end of regress)
there has to come a willful causer who does those things in reality for a
purpose! This fact is seen clearly every time we humans use the
composition: (X caused Y). If X is dead matter, then we still need to know
who caused X! And thus we find ourselves regressing the question to the
point where we come to the inevitable meaning that a supreme creator did all
that, all the way down to X and Y, all willfully and purposefully, and is to be
praised and glorified because of that. There‟s no escaping the meanings of
making, selecting, creating, running, keeping, controlling, composing,
decomposing, balancing, giving life, taking life … etc, in human perception
of the world and the way that we see it work! It‟s not just (causation) here
that we do when we inquire about the willful source of all that; it‟s a
statement of the overwhelmingly obvious that needs not be argued for! It
follows naturally from the way both human language and reason work! It‟s
not just „intuition‟ like Darwinians would easily call it in such an air as to
belittle it or make it sound trivial or rationally insufficient for
argumentation! It‟s the way language itself works!

408


Yes we do seek those immediate causes for a direct physical explanation that
tells us certain information about the way this event was caused, but this
doesn‟t tell us who caused it all, which remains to be a question that every
reasonable man demands an answer to! And clearly enough, by “who” we
are inquiring about a “personal being” that has a will and a purpose because
this is the way we are built to think about such meanings that reality triggers
in our minds as we perceive it! It thus becomes pathetically senseless when
an atheist seeks so hard to convince people that their minds are actually
playing tricks on them when they work this way, in search for an uncaused
cause (which must be willful and personal by necessity of being uncaused)!

So when we see determinate creation and functional composition running
like clockwork in nature, we have no choice – rationally and linguistically,
not just intuitively – to ascribe this to a “willful and capable creator
composer” – not just a „causer‟ - that must have done all that for a purpose,
and that cannot by any means be “human”! We are speaking of certain
attributes of ability, wisdom and knowledge; meanings that by necessity of
healthy reason – not just intuition - have to be there in a willful creator, –
regardless of the “how”! We do that naturally! However, like we argued
earlier, it does not follow by necessity from this ascription and assignation
of necessary (or other heavenly revealed) meanings, that this creator be a
“human figure” or “humanlike”!

So again, if by “human causation” Dawkins means certain attributes that
could be shared in meaning by humans as well as other non-human doers;
then this is true, and it is the outcome of proper reasoning and semantics
performed naturally by every healthy human mind! It is the way our minds
work!

Atheists would usually fool themselves into believing that they are justified
in this rejection by the widespread pagan nonsense among “theists”! So an
atheist would refuse a rationally sound conclusion and even take it for a
defective form of reasoning, on the grounds that he sees the overwhelming
majority of theists in the world actually worshipping human – and even
animal - figures! But does this give him an excuse to make such utterly false
and extremist conclusions? Absolutely not! Because he knows that Muslims

409


do not do that! And if he presumes people to have a tendency to paganism
because of this property in man, then he obviously does not understand what
he is talking about.

Pagans forged this imagery of their deities not because man is naturally
inclined to think this way, and to make up “anthropomorphic” gods! This is
not true! Pagan religions were – in their origins – monotheistic, with people
well informed about their almighty creator through selected prophets and
messengers teaching them about God! However, it happened at a certain
point in history that people were fooled into honoring their sages by means
of honoring statues of their images! Gradually, certain philosophies emerged
in those nations that – coupled with the wastefulness of men and the loss of
heavenly knowledge amongst them – raised those statues to more than
honoring; to worship!

Extremity in position towards those idols (the individuals they symbolize)
then started to accumulate even further! And what started as a baseless claim
that the spirits of those dead people heard people‟s prayers and mediated
their appeals to the Lord; ended in the claim that they were actually sons of
God or even His own physical manifestations or „avatars‟! And from there,
further philosophies broke the boundary between the Lord and His creatures,
and beyond the concept of the physical manifestation of “God” in this world
(and by physical and material in this respect I mean the created material; the
creator they claim turns Himself into or mixes with the material that He
created!); there emerged total pantheism (that matter itself is in reality
nothing but Him!), panentheism, and similar philosophies, along with all
trinities and councils of gods ever known in the history of pagan religions!
Myths were easily forged, manipulated, accumulated, rationalized, argued
for and against, constantly spreading and branching through time and space!

In addition, certain earthly properties and philosophies of pagan practices
and rituals were always specifically appealing to the masses; properties that
make it really tempting for people to accept! They sanctified unabridged
sexuality, gave to the human body a share of the divine; to female genitalia
in particular, and turned group sex into an act of worship, in the house of
worship itself! A religion with very little taboo and very little restraint on its

410


followers, and such extremely seductive conception of sexuality and
indulgence in the pleasures of the flesh, is certainly one that appeals more to
the masses; to that part of humans that desires to have no limitations or
codes of obligatory control to their physical instincts and desires
whatsoever! It is the same reason – at the other extreme end - why atheists
hold on so tight to their faith despite the sheer fundamental problems that
they do realize in it! It tempts them by the idea of liberation, it liberates them
from any law, commitment, or ritual that other religions exhibit (or at least
they hope it does).

Paganism is indeed appealing and is currently spreading in the west all
anew! I mean many people may actually choose to convert to paganism and
practice witchcraft just to enjoy ritual nudity, the ceremony of sexual
intercourse and ritual orgies with the priestesses and fellow pagans in the
temple for free! Of course it is so pleasurable when this is what your religion
teaches you, rather than a religion that condemns such practices and makes
one feel guilty about them! In paganism, it‟s not the search for the truth, the
nature of the deities or the answers to big questions that appeals to people by
necessity; in many cases it‟s the way of life that tempts them!

This story of emergence, spread and philosophical growth of paganism
across nations of old, is narrated in Muslim authentic scriptures, in the story
of the nation of the sons of Noah; the story of the first gradual deviation of
an originally monotheistic nation into paganism and polytheism.

Now the reason I brought this up, is not to argue against this claim
concerning “human causation” here! It is rather to clarify that paganism, and
the fact that pagan theists all worship “humanlike” images, sometimes even
“beast” images, is not in the least due to that alleged „psychological
property‟ or inclination in man, but rather due to a gradual process of
religious and moral degeneration and accumulation of innovations,
philosophies and fallacies throughout successive generations.

With the pass of time, less of the prophetic truth is inherited, and more
manmade fallacies and philosophies are made up and passed on in its place!

411


The story of religion is indeed fundamentally distinct from whatever atheists
think they know!

Now directly after the previous quotation Dawkins comments: ―We
naturally generalized that – (he means‖ human causation‖) - to divine
intention.‖
So I hope it is clear now how vacuous and childish this argument really is!

Quote:

―Hard-nosed physicists say that the six knobs were never free to vary
in the first place. When we finally reach the long-hoped-for Theory of
Everything, we shall see that the six key numbers depend upon each
other, or on something else as yet unknown, in ways that we today
cannot imagine.‖ (The delusion p.143)

Just look – my respectable reader – at how blind faith leads the way to
forging actual mythology in the name of science, even against the very way
our human minds work! What is this statement here really, what does it do?
Nothing but an atheist‟s attempt to give his followers a fool‟s hope that the
time will come in the future when a new Darwin will emerge in physics and
make up yet another counter-rational proposition that kicks creation and
perfection out of the origins of the cosmos once and for good! “Hopefully
the long sought (theory of everything) in physics will do this job for us, and
raise our consciousness even higher! So keep dreaming folks!‖

Now this statement is in fact – and against all that he hoped for - a gift that
he gives me, holding that all six knobs were interdependent and were never
free to vary! He does not realize that this makes it all the more impossible to
claim that some of its laws and values may have been tuned – by chance -
prior to others, or that some other universes may have failed where this one
succeeded! You are of course free at this point to laugh your guts out at this
striking oxymoron (tuned by chance)!

Einstein is famously quoted to have said: “Did God have a choice in creating
the Universe?” Of course, it is of no concern to me here the true nature of
Einstein‟s faith; though of Jewish origins, he definitely did not die a Jew!
However, what comes to my attention in this quotation is the fact that people
412


as bright as that man, could really be so blind in approaching the
metaphysical and the Big questions of life! He died a blind man because he
sought the truth from his own mind; his own creation! The truth is not a
relative or subjective prospect, it is what it is; the truth! It has to be obtained
from its right source by virtue of evidence, not invented! It is not to be made
up by a „genius‟ mind!

It does not take a genius to obtain those answers, but an honest heart in an
unbiased search, to find the truth wherever it may be (no search actually
even needs to be done at all as you will realize proceeding with this book,
and as I will discuss in Volume two)! And if you have that heart, you will be
guided, regardless of your IQ! No consciousness raising, no unanswerable
riddles at the core of the faith, no mysteries and no need for science of any
kind! Every question that a man needs to know about his creator and the
reason He created him, does have a perfectly clear and easy answer that goes
in perfect accord with commonsense and proper human rationality, for every
healthy human mind to easily comprehend and willingly and lovingly adhere
to. Just let go of your biases, be truly willing to let go of it all and you‟ll see
you don‟t even have to search at all to find it!

Any honest seeker for the truth should at least start by admitting this fact: If
we were indeed made by a perfectly wise creator, then we must expect His
message to be as simple as it takes for the simplest human mind to
understand it and have the human soul enlightened by it. After all, he is
supposed to have created us all for the purpose of living by that particular
message! So it should be the easiest, the clearest, the steadiest and the
straightest of all ways known to man, always in the middle between every
two opposing extremes! It should be the best and most effective and
economic “operating system” for the human machine, so to speak!

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, but he refused to admit a fact
as utterly simple as this! He did himself a great injustice by all means! I say
that because I know the Lord is just, He is merciful, He would lead every
honest seeker to the truth! Had Einstein been a true seeker for the truth in
this particular matter (the biggest matter of all), he would have been guided
to accept it like all those who did! It was always there before his eyes!

413


So what limitation of “choice” is Einstein talking about?

When man searches and examines the Universe, and he sees that the more he
knows the further he realizes that it couldn‟t possibly be made in any better
way for the sake of man and other living beings on Earth to live in this
particular way, how can he possibly dare say that the creator must have had
no choice but to make things the way they are? We, the limited humans, are
bound to see perfectness in no other model of matter and mortal cosmic
system but this very one that we observe! This is how we are made. Does
this mean that the almighty creator who made it, couldn‟t possibly create
another universe with totally different systems and orders for a different
purpose with totally different forms of life, who would also fail to imagine
any better universe? Certainly not! It doesn‟t by any means restrict Him! It
only restricts US! It shows us that we have been made with this particular
mind, with this rationality, to only come to this particular conclusion every
time we approach the problem: It‟s absolutely seamless and it really couldn‟t
possibly be made in any better way! It‟s our human modeling of reality that
is restricted as such, not the powers of the maker of both reality and the
human mind that models it!

What those people forget – or neglect deliberately - is the essential meaning
of purpose and function beneath this magnificent process of creation! Once
you have that particular purpose in the picture, you realize what is why, and
see that things are the way they are because this is the best way for them to
be made for the sake of the purpose that He chose for His creation! And this
is indeed what perfectness means!

((Did you think that We had created you for naught (no purpose), and that
you would not be returned unto Us?)) Translation of the Qur‟an verse
(23|115)

((We did not create the heaven and the earth and all that is between them
in vain (in play))) Translation of verse (21|16)

So, it is not that the creator- praised be His name - had no choice, it is
because of His particular choice of the job that this universe should do, and

414


the purpose that defines our own existence in it; that He made it in this
particular way, and no other!

So when we read the atheist author making this comment:

―It will turn out that there is only one way for a universe to be. Far
from God being needed to twiddle six knobs, there are no knobs to
twiddle.‖ (The delusion p.144)

We realize immediately the magnitude of the “crime” that he is really
committing against himself and his readers! Every believer in the creator
believes the universe to be made this way for the good of man (which is,
despite the author here, the core theme of the anthropic principle!)! So
obviously any “twiddling” should spoil the system, and remove it from
hosting man the way it does; because it is already made as perfect as it
should be! This is why there can be no tolerance for any form of “twiddling”
in the first place! So I ask: by what proper reason or scientific integrity does
this understanding lead us to denying the creator instead of glorifying Him?
The absolute inverse of the way a healthy mind works!

This is – by every meaning in the word – a crime! An act of piracy!

At some point they find they need to argue for an infinite number of
universes covering all logical possibilities so that probability may help them
support their beliefs, and here they find they may need to claim the exact
opposite for the sake of their faith; that there are indeed no other possibilities
for a universe at all! So which way do you wish to have it guys?

It never fails to amaze me how atheist philosophers would easily accept the
idea that our universe may be one of billion other universes (multi-verse), or
even that we may have been planted on it as the experimentation of a
superior (more evolved) alien species, or something of that sort, and at the
same time, dismiss as “fairy tale” the idea of a willful supreme creator that is
unparalleled, and un-created! It is even more amazing that they accuse the
idea of a single masterful unparalleled creator of provoking the question “but
who created God” while they do not suffer answering that very same
question in the proposition of the superior alien nation (for example), not to

415


mention other regressive stories of cosmic origins that exclude creation!
Whatever answer they seek for the question of origins apart from creation is
not an answer at all, it only pushes the question further back!

So it‟s quite obvious that they‟re deliberately resorting to any escape
strategy or any fantasy that would leave them free from the consequences of
having to believe in an almighty creator in the beyond! They are indeed
driven in their selections of faith by nothing other than a persistent rejection
of “submission” to the will of that creator! They are willing because of it to
go to far extremes striving against basic axioms of human rationality! You
can see this clearly in every single statement in this book (The God
Delusion)! It reeks with it!

Dawkins then goes on to explain how he finds no problem accepting the
“model” of recurrent cycles of the universe crunching and expanding (the
serial big crunch model)! He knows as well as we all know that there is no
way any such theory could ever be proven or falsified by any means of
science that we humans know! Yet, he chooses to grant it the name of
science, and have it – or the other “parallel megaverse model” - for faith in
what was there before the origination of the universe as we know it only
because he hates to admit the creator! He might as well choose any other
“theory” (actually: myth) in its stead, for no justification or proof
whatsoever; only a personal preference of faith!

Suppose that, for example I chose to believe that the universe is actually no
more than a huge software program on some alien computer machine; even
better; it is only a composition of particles at the subatomic level of an atom
in a grain of sand in one planet hanging around in another amazingly larger
universe; how could he possibly prove me wrong, on the grounds of his own
selected theory? He cannot! All he would have to say is: “this is very
improbable”! According to what exactly was this probability estimated?
Nothing at all! Just his own personal faith; his previous choice of theories
for faith that is expressed in an unverifiable estimation of statistical
probabilities in areas of human knowledge that have nothing to do with
statistics whatsoever!

416


In fact, I think I should not use any more of those rhetoric stories like the
“grain of sand” example I just made, lest one of them comes to the liking of
some poor atheist theorist here or there, and so he picks it up, creates some
theoretical model for it, and the next thing you know, you find it published
in some science magazine as yet another “theory” on the „origins of the
universe‟!

What the professor is doing here is pretty much like selecting a garment in a
clothing store! He chooses whatever he likes! First he picks the suit, then he
searches for a matching tie, then a shirt and a nice pair of socks, and finally,
the most suitable pair of shoes that goes well with the combination! There
you go! You have made yourself a handsome set of „scientific‟ beliefs that
suits your taste just fine!

In a footnote he says:

―Susskind (2006) gives a splendid advocacy of the anthropic
principle in the megaverse. He says the idea is hated by most
physicists. I can't understand why. I think it is beautiful - perhaps
because my consciousness has been raised by Darwin.‖ (Delusion
p.145)

Oh yes indeed it has been raised! High enough that you can now pick the
most “beautiful” theoretical “tie” to match your theoretical “tuxedo”, make it
all look whichever way you like, and call that science!

By that, (that child-in-a-candy-store model of forging faith) he so arrogantly
holds the position of denying the creator!

Now look at this statement:

―Nobody understands what goes on in singularities such as the big
bang, so it is conceivable that the laws and constants are reset to new
values, each time.‖

Sheer contradiction; even in the same statement! (Nobody understands… )
vs. (so it is conceivable that…)! Since nobody understands, thus it is
conceivable!

417


If indeed nobody understands what goes on in such a singularity, one the
likes of which we have never witnessed, then how – on Earth - could we
conclude that the laws and constants were reset to new values there? This is
like saying: Since I do not know or understand what happened last night,
then it is conceivable to me that X and Y happened last night!

We should understand that a serious process of change – naturally unlike
anything we‟ve ever seen or could possibly imagine – must have taken place
there, to create the system that we currently observe as the Universe! But the
reason we Muslims know that a change must have taken place is because
this is what we are told in authentic scripture, not because astrophysicists
and cosmologists suggest it! We have clarified repeatedly the fact that no
humanly affordable analogy could be made between the process of creating
a machine, and any of the processes that take place within the machine
itself! So whatever it was that really took place in that unique event, is by
necessity incomparable to anything we have ever seen, or can possibly use to
establish a proper understanding of it!

Thus we say that all we can afford to do – as humans – to learn anything at
all about those origins, is take the news that we were given from the creator
Himself as it is – after proving it to be His -, and ask for no more! We should
stick to revelation as the only authority of knowledge in this respect, and ask
for nothing more than it tells us concerning this singularity!

We – humans - have no right to object to some authentic story of creation or
of the events at the Day of Judgment – for example – just because they draw
an image we have never seen anything like! Of course it must be a unique
un-analogous event! We do admit that it has to be unlike anything we have
ever seen or experienced in this world, we even find that to be a rational
necessity! Yes the story has to be rationally possible of course, but it is also
– by necessity – incomparable to anything we have ever seen in this
Universe!

An example to this arrogance of theirs is their objection to the scriptural
story that the Lord created Adam from dust and clay, and created Eve from a
rib in Adam‟s body! Amazing? Oh yes indeed! One would certainly love to

418


see something like that as it happens! However, we do recognize the rational
necessity of its being out of reach of human analogy! It is not just another
part of the ongoing chain of human birth by reproduction that we see every
day; it is the very top of the chain of human existence; so it has to be
different; fundamentally so! But can you dare say that the way it is said to
have happened in scripture, is rationally impossible? Absolutely not! That‟s
the point! We need to prove that this is indeed the word of God, and then we
have no choice but to shut up and listen!

Another famous example to atheistic arrogance is their ridicule and
objection to the story of the virgin birth of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon
them)! A creator who has shown us such grandeur and richness in creation,
and has shown us species multiplying through a dazzling variety of means of
reproduction, some even without any form of sexual reproduction
whatsoever, how could it be “impossible” for Him to create a child in a
woman‟s womb without intercourse with a male, when He chooses to do
that? It is an utterly arrogant and unjustifiable position to reject this story on
the grounds that it is rationally “impossible”! No it‟s not! Because we are
speaking of an omnipotent creator who has already created – with ease – all
this unbelievably complex and perfect place that we call the world, with
everything in it! So how does anybody dare make such an objection? What
monopoly of observation, analogy or imagination does an atheist think he
has to apply upon the way the creator created life in dead things, so that
when he listens to an authentic narration where God says that He created
Adam with his own hand and blew His created spirit into him, or that He
created him out of dust, and said (Be) and he was, he‟d instantly jump up
and say: “This is impossible”? On what grounds of reason could he possibly
build such an objection? On the very little in this world that he – the human
– can observe and analogize? And whoever said this has anything to do with
anything that is taking place anywhere in this world as it is, to begin with?

Another example is their objection to the story of resurrection of mankind on
the Day of Judgment! They would say: How possibly could all humans who
have turned into total dust, in layers and layers of Earth, ever since the dawn
of mankind, how could they all be rebuilt and from pure dust, the way it is

419


told in scripture of Islam? Well, whoever said that we, humans, should be
equipped - by creation - with the means or the powers to imagine and
explain how the Lord will do that when the time comes? Whoever said that
we should be equipped with the means to understand how the Lord created
life from dead matter in the first place?

This is the very argument the Lord makes in the Qur‟an when He says:

Translation of meanings of verses (36|78-79): ((And he (the infidel) coined
for Us a similitude, and had forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who
will revive these bones when they have all rotted away? Say (addressing
Prophet Muhammad): He will revive them Who built them the first time,
He is Knower of every creation))

Translation of meanings (17|51): ((…Then they will say to you: Who shall
bring us back (to life)? Say: He who created you the first time...))

They dare analogize the creator to His own creation, and forget that it was
He who made them the first time, and it should not be difficult for Him to do
it again in whatever way he chooses, in another singularity that takes place
after the universe as we know it is terminated! So what rational impossibility
could they even dare speak of here? When the scripture tells them that on
that day, on Judgment day, they will have their mouths shut and their very
own limbs made to speak and witness on their deeds, they object saying this
is impossible! How do they dare? The answer comes to them in the very
same manner:

Translation (41|21): ((And they say unto their skins (when the Lord makes
them to speak): Why testify ye against us? They say: Allah has given us
speech; He who gives speech to all things, and who created you all the first
time, and unto whom you are returned.))

As dazzling and strange those events narrated here naturally sound, none of
them is rationally “impossible”! Yes we‟ve never seen anything like them,
but this doesn‟t make them impossible! Nothing about them could give any
man the kind of argument that would entitle him to claim those texts not to
be the words of the creator!

420


This is why scholars and sages of Islam („Ulema) always explain how it is
that authentic scripture in Islam is only in perfect accord with rationality and
that though scripture may include puzzling things that are beyond our
imagining, the likes of which we have never seen, it never includes
meanings that are beyond what is rationally possible!

Look at how Dawkins then re-iterates what he thinks is an argument from
(anthropic principle) applied to a serial multi-universe model this time rather
than a parallel one! He says:

―Once again, the anthropic principle does its explanatory duty. Of all
the universes in the series, only a minority have their 'dials' tuned to
biogenic conditions.‖

And once again we say: This is not the anthropic principle “explaining”
anything, this is the very same attempt to ascribe outstanding
perfectness in creation to chance (or chancoid!!) events applying a false
understanding of statistical improbability to a fictional story that is
nowhere to be found but in this sick Darwinian imagination!

When he says:

―It now looks as though our own universe is destined to expand
forever.‖(Delusion p. 146)

I can‟t help wondering now: Why doesn‟t this observation strike him, in the
same way he chose to believe – and against all reason - that all creatures
only “look as though” they were created when in fact they are not? Because
if it is so, then your consciousness should be raised high enough now that
you can easily take the exact opposite to what anything at all “looks” as
though it is! And then we have to ask you: What sense could you ever make
of any observation that you see anywhere? In reality this preposterous
approach to explaining reality proves to be – to use Dawkins‟ idioms - a “get
out of jail free card” for any theorist to make up any proposition he likes
best, and claim it for a plausible “explanation” no matter how anti-rational
its very foundations may really be, and regardless of the fact that it will
never be proven or falsified empirically; and when asked he simply says:

421


“Darwin has raised my consciousness! Go get your own consciousness
raised and then we may debate!”

It does not surprise me at all that he then goes on to display another theory
that appeals to him all the more: (The Lee Smolin‟s multiverse model), one
that is actually orders of magnitude more inane than the theory of evolution
by natural selection! It mixes both the parallel and the serial models in one
model, adding the theoretical mystery of the “black hole” to the mix,
proposing it to be like a womb where the birth of new “universes” takes
place in some form of physical and cosmological heredity (!), offering a
soup of theory that looks pretty much like Darwinian evolution! No wonder
then that Dawkins likes it!

From the very same source of mythical nonsense comes this theory that
actually raises Darwinian evolution with all its logical scandals to an extra-
cosmic level! I suppose we now have to search for the thing that runs the
whole process for the sake of its continuity, the way they believe genes do in
natural life! Too bad we have never seen a single universe other than our
own! And it‟s only too bad that we couldn‟t possibly think of a place where
we could dig out the buried fossils of a dead universe! But never mind that!
Just enjoy the show!

I‟m really sorry that this is the kind of debate we are forced to make with
people who profess to be people of science, seekers of the truth! So sorry
indeed!

He does in fact realize the “extravagance” and sheer “craziness” – for lack of
a better decent word really – of such ideological prostitution that he‟d rather
resort to and take for a faith than admit the creator! He knows that even by
his own reasoning of what “an explanation” should be like, this nonsense
does indeed raise a great deal of difficulties that cannot be found in the
concept of creation! So in attempt to find himself a way out of this position
he has got himself into, what does he do? He rebounds – again – to the
corrupt and clearly biased use of “improbability” and claims that none of
this nonsense that he holds here is any more “improbable” than the creator!
And of course he does not miss a chance to remind us that have we been but

422


a little bit more (consciousness-raised), we wouldn‟t have had any difficulty
accepting these assertions!

―The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God
hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is
one of statistical improbability.‖ (Delusion p. 147)

Oh Really? „Genuinely extravagant‟ and „apparently extravagant‟! Sounds
so easy now, doesn‟t it? Well prove it then! Prove it by means of statistical
improbability! I dare you to do that! I give you and your followers ten
billion years from today to come up with a statistical proof for this
courageous assertion (according to your own conception and application of
statistical improbability)!

So easily could anybody claim that event X is more statistically improbable
than event Y, when both are fundamentally out of reach of any human
process of science or statistical inference of any form to begin with! So
while „Y‟ is apparently extravagant when in fact it‟s not, „X‟ on the other
hand is „genuinely‟ extravagant, so let‟s take Y for the truth! This is the level
of argumentation we are dealing with now!

He then makes a ridiculous sarcastic image of “how” the creator may be
keeping all elements of the system from going astray, keeping (electrons) for
example from losing perfect accord with what they are all made for:

―It is because God constantly keeps a finger on each and every
particle, curbing its reckless excesses and whipping it into line with its
colleagues to keep them all the same.‖ (Delusion p. 148)

What an impudent childish complaint indeed! It‟s like a little kid making all
forms of false excuses to escape doing his homework!

Of course this has nothing to do with the way the Lord does what He does! It
is not our fault that you have been fed since early childhood, the image of
Zeus throwing lightning bolts from above the cloud, or that of the white
bearded guy in the renowned Michelangelo painting on the Sistine Chapel
ceiling, stretching his arm to reach out for Adam! It is not our fault that this
is what you think that all people of religion believe the creator to be like !
423


The creator is the supreme keeper of the system at the far end of the chain of
causes and governing laws, from beyond the universe itself!

We cannot know how He keeps it all the way it is from where He is; we can
only see a small part of the chain of causes from its other end; from where
we stand! The end that we can observe and comprehend! Every law of
nature we have ever discovered is but a small part of the chain, as seen from
our end! What is there beyond the universe is not within the domain of our
observation or analogy! The more we learn about nature the further we
realize that what we still do not know, is much more than what we have
discovered! And yes we still have a lot more to learn, but none of that which
we know, or will ever come to discover about the way we observe nature to
work, has anything to do with the way the Lord almighty keeps it all and
runs it all under His dominion of power from the other end! This is all no
more than the “top of the iceberg”! Everything we can observe and
rationalize in nature is made as such so that we could learn it on our own,
and make benefit of it for the sake of the purpose of our being on this Earth;
but there will always be a place where no man can go or can even begin to
imagine or analogize to anything he has ever seen or known!

We are definitely not speaking of a cartoonish image of some human figure
that is sitting against a control panel above some cloud, running the system
as such! We are not speaking of a gap somewhere in this created universe,
where a created creator is doing what he does! Far from it! Praised be the
names of Allah!

So the question of complexity – as in created systems – is not applicable to
Him in the first place! He is not „simple‟ or „complex‟ because neither of the
two meanings should apply to Him! He is not “made of parts”, and He
certainly does not submit to the laws of the universe that HE created! When
will they ever manage to get the creator - in their notion - out of his created
universe, and quit picturing Him by analogy to His creatures in such a way?!
The claim to “explain” Him is – by necessity of healthy reason – false! This
is, in reality, the basic rational remedy that Darwinians do need! We are not
asking them to counter their intuition, or to reverse their rationality, the way
they are asking all of us to do; we are asking them to come back to their

424


senses! To fix what they have corrupted! To simply acknowledge that the
omnipotent creator is not a creature! He is not to be tested or reasoned the
way we study any of His creatures! Period!

Is this meaning so difficult to understand?

The Lord as we know Him is not ―simultaneously keeping a gazillion
fingers on wayward Electrons‖! Our faith in the creator does not – by any
means – lead us to such nonsense!

Again he whines about the simplicity of the argument of creation, and that
nothing is easier than saying “God did it”! Well yes of course nothing is
easier! And yes of course “God” did it all! But this – as we have explained
in an earlier section – does not leave a noble and wise researcher in natural
sciences without a good cause and a wise objective for research! It puts him
on the only right track with his process, gives him the right end, and keeps
him occupied only with research that really helps people and improves their
lives! Natural causes on Earth are to be examined and researched by the
tools of natural sciences for the sake of achieving actual verifiable benefit to
man, not for the sake of giving him some philosophical nonsense to believe
in regarding the origins of life and other bigger questions! This is what
science is for! It‟s about time that scientists learnt the limits of their tools!
Whatever it is that is out there beyond the universe, or that is responsible for
our origins, cannot be known by doing “science”! But only under the power
of their blind faith do they refuse to accept this perfectly rational limitation!

It‟s like a plumber who insists on fixing a broken wristwatch applying his
craft and his tools as a plumber! Those tools just don‟t work there! This is
not the kind of questions the answers to which we should be doing natural
sciences to obtain!

So if the professor will not be satisfied with his practice of science unless he
uses it to obtain answers that cannot be obtained by means of empirical
research; then he‟d better find himself another job, because he obviously has
a serious problem in understanding the nature and limits of his craft!

Quote:

425


―A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the
individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple‖

Well sure He cannot be “Simple”! We never said He is “simple”! We do not
say He is “complex” either! Both meanings are characteristic of a created
system of His composition! This is the scale of analogy that we humans
apply to created compositions and systems that we observe in the world
around us! The creator is not a created thing! So the measure of simplicity
and complexity does not apply to Him! Period.

In fact, it is no surprise that Dawkins did not understand the argument he is
trying to respond to by those words! By “simple answer” we mean an
answer that fits easily and perfectly in every healthy human mind! And
that‟s exactly what the true answer to a question like: “who made this world
the way it is?” should be! It is simple because knowing it and accepting it
does not demand of a man to search for tools to study the creator Himself the
way any created thing could be studied! It rather has him convinced – as a
rational necessity - that the creator cannot be analogized to any of His
creatures, and that He – in Himself – is not a problem for science to solve!

This is another sample of his “whining” against the creator (that‟s what it is
really, nothing even remotely close to rational argumentation!)!

Quote:

―Worse (from the point of view of simplicity), other corners of God's
giant consciousness are simultaneously preoccupied with the doings
and emotions and prayers of every single human being - and whatever

intelligent aliens there might be on other planets in this and 100
billion other galaxies. He even, according to Swinburne, has to decide
continuously not to intervene miraculously to save us when we get
cancer. That would never do, for, 'If God answered most prayers for a
relative to recover from cancer, then cancer would no longer be a
problem for humans to solve.' And then what would we find to do with
our time?‖

426


Does this man not understand the meaning of the word “omniscient”? Does
he not recognize the rational necessity of the creator being as such: Infinitely
capable? And yes, He decides on who should get cancer and who should not,
and who gets cured and who does not! The whole thing is up to Him! His
choice to have a man cured is not intervention! It is His choice to have all
related natural causes in the universe that have to do with the healing of a
man “tuned” particularly for this man to be cured! Now let me elaborate this
meaning a bit further my kind reader, because it holds within it a graphic
demonstration for the rational necessity of the Lord‟s control over all
existence, its fate and its destiny, in addition to the rational necessity of His
oneness, praised be His name!

When we say the creator chose for X to be saved from cancer, we are not
speaking of a fairy with a magic wand that came down from heaven and like
in the cartoons she just touched the sick man and he was instantly cured!
Absolutely not! What happens to a man who is chosen to be cured, is that all
universal causes necessary for his healing are made to collaborate in just the
right way for him to be cured! However, sometimes people appear to have
been cured miraculously, this is of course a relative aspect that comes from
human inability to detect or follow the causes that lead – by the decree of
God - to healing! We only know just a few causes here at our dim end of the
chain! The most immediate ones so to speak! Thus when we give a sick man
the cure, we are supplying only part of the causes that should all be
orchestrated in perfect harmony for that man to heal! And this orchestration
in its totality, from top to bottom, is not up to us! We can only afford to use
what we have known – by experience – to work as a cause, but the whole
thing is up to the Lord Almighty!

So what the Lord normally does is pass His decree of your healing as swiftly
and easily as every other natural event takes place in the Universe under His
previous will! Everything is already running by His control and His will
alone, at all times! All people‟s prayers are heard by Him, simultaneously!
He is not like creatures, with limited perception; He is not limited to
perceive the sight of one thing at a time, or the hearing of one thing at a
time! This is a limit that He imposed on our senses and perception by

427


creation; it does not apply to Him. His sight and hearing, along with His
power, and all other attributes are perfect, and unlike any creature, no deed
distracts Him from another deed, no sight distracts Him from another sight,
no sound distracts Him from another sound!

So everything that He wills and does is part of the way He runs the entire
universe, regardless of how mundane or extraordinary it seems to us
(according to our relative level of knowledge and experience of
observation). We may see some of the causes (direct or indirect) or we may
not! In all cases it all runs after nothing but His will!

Even an action as simple as holding this book in your hands to read it,
demands the orchestration of an endless number of causes, only very few of
which you know of and can afford – normally – to control! You have to set
proper lighting in the room, stretch your hands out and hold the book so your
eyes could start reading. But as simple as this action is and as limited as its
causes appear to be, we may argue that among its causes, are all factors that
contribute to its taking place the way that we desire, like, for example,
security from an event that would prevent the action of reading from taking
place! For example, whatever functions take place in your body so you could
stretch your hands out and hold the book may simply be seized when you
least expect! And while you know how to move your arms, and they would
normally obey your command, you do not have any control upon the
multitude of systems that would normally work in your body involuntarily
every time you issue such a simple command from your brain to your arm!

Now it is important to understand that the motion of more than one particle
in nature would normally be cause for a lot of things (ends and purposes)
that the creator wills to happen simultaneously! A man may be saved from
the very same car accident that kills his friend! The same car accident may
be cause (among the causes) for the loss of a man‟s money in repair! It may
also be cause for the promotion of a heroic police officer and the tragedy of
a fireman, not to mention the destruction of a store‟s façade! It may also be
cause for two men to meet in the hospital and make an agreement that
changes the path of both their lives! So we say that this set of particles
(constituting the event of the accident) was made by the Lord as part of

428


countless sets of causes that intersect in it, for a variety of effects that are all
willed and perfectly determined by the creator, to go in no other way but the
way they did! This is not limited by a single event in nature, it actually
necessitates that every element in every system in nature be directly or
indirectly affected by other elements of other systems through intersection of
causes and effects all across the universe! He – and only He - willed for all
that, and He caused for it all, simultaneously!

This concept of distinct indirect causes was approached by chaos theory
mathematicians as they spoke of what they termed “the butterfly effect” or
“sensitive dependence on initial conditions”. It‟s a novel attempt to model
what is in fact no more than the tip of the tail of a huge elephant! The term
comes from the idea that one small butterfly flapping its wings in the air,
could eventually have a far-reaching ripple effect on subsequent historic
events, like for example causing a chain of events that ends up in a hurricane
somewhere else in the world! The idea is indeed difficult to grasp or
imagine, but it is true nonetheless! There is an essentially delicate balance in
the universe between all forms of events that take place in it, so that
everything goes under total control, and in no other way than the exact way
it is supposed to go! The creator of the universe does – by necessity of
reason – have the dominion on all that; on every single thing in it! There can
be no room for chance or unexpected results there; no event could take place
without a fully known and previously determined purpose by the creator, or
else He loses His rationally necessary dominion! As we have seen, every
particle is made to move on a particular trajectory in space-time for a huge
set of purposes, all are effects that its simple motion is supposed to be part of
the set of causes for! Perfect determination on all levels is absolutely
essential for life to proceed the way the Lord Has chosen for every single
thing in it, because obviously they all affect one another!

Every event that takes place anywhere in the world, changes the structure of
countless systems, causing future impacts that no human can possibly expect
or predict! And this is exactly the very core of the idea of the butterfly
effect.

But we are not talking about a human creator; never forget this meaning!

429


You are not living in a vacuum! You are in constant interaction with
everything around you! There are systems decaying inside of you, right now
as you read those very words; leaving output from your body to nature, and
the other way round! There is energy moving in and out of you at all times!
There are waves, fields, charges and fluids in constant motion! The moment
you move your hand to – for example – open a door, a displacement of air
takes place around it that may be cause to some effect that you in the least
expected! As for the creator, He should know it in advance; not only so, He
should actually have it as a predetermined cause for every effect that it
yields in the future, from now and on to the end of this world; just as He
made the simple motion of your hand a cause for the opening of that door!
Of all that, you know nothing but the very simple fact that you are opening
the door! Something you easily do every day!

So little do we know indeed!

((They will ask you concerning the Spirit. Say: The Spirit is by command
of my Lord, and only little knowledge have you (all) been given.))
Translation of the meanings of the Qur‟an verse (17|85)

Now with further insight, we should come to the conclusion that there can be
only one almighty, omnipotent, willful creator who runs the entire universe
according to His will, and His will alone, in any given instant of time. It is
rationally impossible that there be more than one! This is because the nature
of the universe and the way it runs, necessitates that the will of the creator
for a certain system or portion of the Universe, does not contradict, or stand
in the way of His will for another system! His will for a certain child to be
born, does not come in the way of His will for a certain man – for example –
not to have children! His will for a man to die in an accident, should not
come in the way of His will for another man to come out of it alive! By
coming in its way I mean that all particles in the universe should work in the
way that only leads to both events taking place the way He wills
simultaneously! Of course I only chose to speak of two events for the sake
of simplifying the picture! So, if there were another authority with a separate
will sharing dominion and control over the Universe with Him, The system
will certainly fail, or it will have to split, for there will be a conflict of will

430


that cannot be tolerated in such an unbelievably sensitive system! And that‟s
exactly what the Qur‟an tells us.

Translation of the meanings of the Qur‟an (21|22): ((Had there been other
gods beside Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) would have
been disordered...))

Translation of the Qur‟an (23|91): ((Allah has not chosen any son, nor is
there any god along with Him; for then each god would have assuredly
championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly
have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege.))

You pray for your god to bring you victory on your enemy, and the enemy
prays to his god to make him the victorious one! What shall be of that? You
pray to your god to heal you, and he wills to answer your prayer, but that
would cause something to happen against the will of another god! What
would be then? Those are only examples to bring the image closer to your
mind, for in reality, as we have stated earlier, every single event that takes
place anywhere in the universe, has to be in perfect accord with the will and
purpose that is intended for every other event, because it does have an
impact on it, one way or another!

So I ask my kind reader to reread the last quotation by Dawkins about “God”
and the way he thinks he “intervenes” with nature, one more time, and judge
for himself the level of ignorance we are forced to deal with in response to
this literature of his!

You may laugh as you wish then when you read professor Dawkins
exclaiming that certain author X ―mistakes what it means to explain
something, and he also seems not to understand what it means to say of
something that it is simple‖!

So unbelievably arrogant and ideologically flat is his discussion of the being
of the creator! What could you possibly know about that? And where could
you possibly obtain such knowledge? Reason has it that His essence be
unlike anything at all!

431


((…Naught is as His likeness; and He is the Hearer, the Seer.))
Translation of verse (42|11)

It is indivisible, yes, but not because it is an exceedingly complex system,
but because quite simply, it is not a created system that we can analogize to
any system that we see! It is not something that we even have the right to
call a system to begin with! His being is not a “composition” of parts! Yes
He does have a face, a hand, and even fingers, as it is narrated in Islamic
texts, and as we explained in an earlier section, but these are not “parts”, in
the sense that our organs are! We do understand the meaning and the deeds
that those attributes do, but we have no right to analogize them to any
created equivalents of any sort! Yes Adam was created after the image of the
Lord, but this is only in the meaning, in the fact that he shares the meaning
of many such attributes of the Lord! And while they are composed parts in
Adam, they are nothing like that in God! The Lord has eyes and He can see,
and so does Adam, the Lord can hear, and so does Adam, the Lord has a face
and so does Adam! It is especially glorified as an attribute to the Lord, and
so is the face to a man! This is what is meant by the image in heavenly
scripture! And had Christians not wasted the actual words of God, they
would have found solid verses like the one I just quoted from the Qur‟an,
directing their understanding to the truth regarding the being of the Lord and
the truth regarding His attributes!

None of these meanings that Allah attributes to Himself necessitates that the
He be in any way analogous to His creation, or be in the form or “physical
likeness” of a creature! We do not know and cannot possibly know or
imagine how He knows all that He knows and does all that He does the way
He does, simultaneously, but that certainly does not contradict or inhibit the
rational necessity of His being the only being capable of doing it, and the
necessity of His being un-analogous to anything that He created!

So, people of science, dare not speak of your creator like you speak of a lab
rat! Praised be His almighty being! Desist before it is too late, when no
regrets could do you any good!

432


The professor then concludes with the story of a certain Cambridge public
event of which he was part, and describes how frustrated he was that the
audience was religious, and implied that they were all stubborn, insisting on
“arguments from incredulity”! He goes on describing futile details repeating
the very same arguments from improbability that he has centered his entire
case upon! He makes it clear that he is ready to believe in any “god‟ just as
long as it – in itself – could be explained by perhaps some Darwinian story!
He complains of opponents calling his position a “nineteenth century”
position, and claims that such a comment should not come from people who
are embarrassed to mention that they still believe in miracles like “virgin
birth”! He blatantly calls it absurd and irrational! And since we have fairly
demolished this position on the course of the previous part, perhaps even
more than once and with more than a single argument, we find it wasteful to
readdress it again here!

So, to sum up, I found it would be best to skip commenting in detail on that
part, and even the conclusion by which he concludes this chapter!

Instead, I will make my own conclusion to this part, from whence we
conclude this volume as a whole.

433


Conclusion

1 – I find it unbelievable that any sane man should really have to respond to
such a statement: “The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of
design to actual design itself”! It‟s just like complaining from man‟s “natural
temptation to attribute the appearance of daylight, to daylight itself”! We
have – I hope – written enough in the radical demolition of such anti-rational
nonsense. Nothing more needs to be said!

2 – The author keeps revolving over and over again around the very same
unreasonable and age-old complaint: “But who created the creator?”, and I
believe I have responded to that false question eloquently.

3 – The argument from improbability (or what he calls „the Ultimate 747‟) is
a clear demonstration of how the doctrine of Darwinism is founded on
inverse rationality, and on a false application of different tools of
mathematics and statistics!

4 – I have explicitly demonstrated the magnitude of irrationality and inverse
reasoning even at linguistic level that the Doctrine of Darwinism fosters and
builds upon!

5 – The sheer corruption in his use of the Anthropic principle in proposing
(multiverse) models, thinking that in doing so, the improbability of the
singularities at origin of the universe not to mention natural life, would drop!
(A clear example of what Darwinian philosophy does to a scientist!)

6 – He ventures into cosmology and physics, even chemistry, trying so
desperately to make up some “gap filling” “explanation” that could appeal to
the reader to accept in place of the rational imperative of creation! He fails
to realize that instead of explaining what has to be a starting point (a
singularity) he actually regresses it into another part of another evolutionary
chain of some sort; which shows that the best way he can think of to explain
“origins” is actually to kick it up in regress!

7 - The conclusion he makes is: there was never any first origin; there was
always a universe, or a series of universes, recurring infinitely in the past as

434


into the future! So typical of an atheist indeed! Actually so typical of any
materialist philosopher! He simply cannot allow himself to accept the idea of
a first transcendent origin to the whole thing; so he has to keep the regress of
material causes going back to eternity despite everything that he sees that
tells him otherwise! There has always been matter, and matter is all that is
there in existence! Make up whatever story you wish to ―explain‖ it, but
only make sure that it doesn‘t have a point where there has to come an
external un-analogous source beyond it all!

Of course there‟s more than these seven points that the reader will conclude
as her reads through, and I suppose he may find himself eager to know more,
and will have many questions triggered in his mind; so I ask him to wait
until he‟s done reading both volumes, for there‟s much more that I still have
to say in volume two. It‟s not only a detailed response to the rest of
Dawkins‟ book, as my reader shall see.

In conclusion of this volume, I leave it up to you now, my reader, to judge
the kind of literature that atheistic argumentation makes, and to take even
deeper insights into the fundamental fallacy of Darwinian philosophy, and I
pray that you can see things the way all healthy people do, not the way the
Darwinian doctrine does to people! Amen.

435


436


Epilogue

―They‘re there because they‘re there because they‘re there because they‘re
there! ...‖

This was the remarkable comment that Dawkins made in one of his 1991
Christmas lectures (lecture 4 of the series: Growing up in the universe) when
he was refuting a little girl‟s answer to the question: “What do you think
flowers are for?”! This is the kind of consciousness raising that he was
teaching to those poor kids in the audience that day, as opposed of course to
acknowledging that “The creator made things the way they are for a
justifiable purpose, one that we should seek to learn from Him”! No, he
argues, nature is not the way it is for our purpose as humans; because it also
works good for the needs of every other being on Earth (hence the title of the
lecture: The ultra-violet garden!) So the conclusion is: all living creatures are
just viruses the programming code of which “Just happened” to give none
but the command: “Copy me”, and that‟s all that life is about!

This is how he teaches them to approach the Big questions of the world
around them! This is what children are taught in elementary schools under
the tag of science and biology! ―It‘s there because it‘s there!‖ If this is not
direct atheistic indoctrination, and assault on all human knowledge, then I
don‟t know what is!

Based on this intellectual “vomit” of argumentation that we have seen in
chapters 3 and 4 of (The God Delusion), Dawkins believes he has come to
the conclusion that there is “almost certainly” no God! After all this long
struggle of his against basic reasoning and A-priori rationality, all that he has
to offer us is the conclusion that “God” is very “unlikely” to exist!

He really expects people to let go of their commonsense and their very grasp
on reality itself for the sake of such a radically corrupt application of
“statistical probability”! He really thinks that people would spoil their
minds, twist their own tongues, and go against the clearest and the most
obvious conclusion of all humanly affordable conclusions, all on the grounds
of comparative “improbability”! And for the sake of what? The comic book

437


image of a “mount improbable” that is – according to his own use of
probability - orders of magnitude more improbable than the single act of
perfect creation! And the idea of “universe reproduction” and natural
selection among “universes” as explanation for the way our universe is so
perfectly tuned in favor of man! The idea that those unbelievably perfect
“singularities” that gave rise to both the origination of this Earth, and the life
on it, as improbable as he says they are, all took place by pure chance, and
might have all – to certain degrees - taken place on billions of other planets,
but only this one was “lucky” enough to have everything as perfectly
adjusted for our human life as it is!

All that, and he denies the creator on the basis of “improbability”, and the
arrogant position that unless he could put the being of the creator Himself to
a simulation or into a test tube, he should not accept His existence!

What could you possibly do to such a mentality?

If he believes that belief in the existence of an almighty creator is to humans
at the rank of a “theory of science” or comes from a “hypothesis” that a man
once came up with and had people believe it, in the sense that they chose to
adopt it only after the postulation of a theory, and a vast process of gathering
of “evidence”, and production of likely explanations that serve the theory - a
position that is built and rebuilt entirely on arguments from statistical
improbability –, then it is he who is in deep delusion, and he certainly does
not accept the way human reason works! This is not how humans come to
the natural conviction of the existence of a supreme creator! They do not
“come to it” actually, they come with it; they are born to find it there at the
bottom of their souls!

Yet he asks them to close their eyes, neglect the very obvious light of the
sun, and start gathering things that may make them “feel” – in their
deliberate blindfold – as though there is no daylight at all, and that it is only
an illusion that this is how things appear to be! He seeks to have them
believe that it is very “improbable” that this light they see shining down on
the face of the Earth, is indeed the light of the sun, coming down from that
huge “lamp” of fire up there in the middle of the sky! He works to convince

438


them that they may indeed need to have their “consciousness raised” for
them, so they could make such a leap against the stream of their own human
perception and reason!

This is what he‟s really offering you, my reader! In order to get you out of
your naturally justified belief in the creator, and to convince you that His
existence is “statistically improbable”, he knows he has to get you out of
your commonsense, and invert your entire rationale as a human being! And
that‟s exactly what this part of his book was about!

So in short I say:

1 – The existence of the creator was never a theoretical assumption; it is
natural axiomatic reason, natural language and intuition, and any
attempt to deny it is as false – linguistically - as suggesting that Disorder
= order (design = non-design), and as false – mathematically – as this
expression: 0 = 1, or in Darwinian terms: (given enough time, 0+0+0+0+
… +0 = 1)

2 - There‟s absolutely no empirical observation that could ever tell us
any factual information about the historical origins of natural life or the
universe! Uniformitarianism is a philosophical position that we are only
inclined to accept when no reliable evidence of otherwise could be
established! It definitely has nothing to do with those singularity events
at the origins of the system! It will always remain to be a hypothesis to
help produce theory on progression of events in nature! It should never
be taken for argument against any form of evidence that suggests
singularities on the path of natural, geologic, or cosmic history,
especially when the evidence for such exceptional events is authentic
scripture!

3 - As for “forensic” theorization, we have already explained in detail
how irrational and pointless it is to place the compilation of forensic
evidence “explanatory theories” in support of a fundamentally flawed
theory that comes in opposition to what is supposed to be “A-priori”
rationale and even linguistic necessity!

439


Forensic science applies probabilistic theorization based on models and
patterns of previously observed and studied cases of human behavior
(or any other observable recurrent phenomena for that matter) within
rules of this system we observe, and this clearly does not apply to the
singular story of emergence of natural life on this Earth (or the rest of
the system itself).

4 – Chaos and random are only in the eye of the limited human
beholder; whereas the system is obviously too perfect for us to even
grasp; no purposeless or “chance events” could – at any level of rational
or linguistic integrity - be introduced at any point to the history of
natural life, at its origin or afterwards!

5 – Statistical improbability does not apply to primordial events or the
question of origins, and even if we were to apply it – following the false
atheistic conception of improbability – we would easily blow the
Darwinian myth out of the water! This is because not only does it defy
basic reason and rational necessity; it actually backfires in the atheist
face on applying this very understanding of probability itself!

Natural science has no impact whatsoever, positive or negative, on the
question of whether or not the creator exists.

------------

In the next part – to be discussed in volume 2 - Dawkins moves on to
“entertain” us with his view on how religion “originated”, (by natural
selection of course!) and starts his blind campaign against what he views to
be the corruption caused by religion, on the hope that by destroying
Christianity and perhaps a couple more religions as well, he could have his
reader convinced once and for all, that there is no creator to submit to, and
that He has sent nothing at all to mankind!

440


441


Written by;
Abulfeda‟ Ibn Mass‟oud
Abulfeda1431@yahoo.com

Finished on the
Nineteenth of Ramadan 1430 (After Hijrah),
September 9, 2009

442


443


Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
Chapter One ............................................................................................................................ 16
Thomas Aquinas … ............................................................................................................... 23
omnipotence ..................................................................................................................... 37
omniscience ...................................................................................................................... 37
goodness ........................................................................................................................... 38
Creativity of creation (design), ........................................................................................... 38
Listening to prayers, forgiving sins ..................................................................................... 39
And reading innermost thoughts ....................................................................................... 44
On the Ontological argument! ............................................................................................... 79
On “The Argument from Beauty” .......................................................................................... 95
On the Argument from Personal Experience .......................................................................... 98
On the Argument from scripture! ......................................................................................... 106
The scholarly approach to understanding religious scripture ................................................ 115
On the Argument from Admired Religious Scientists! .......................................................... 134
On the Pascal Wager! .......................................................................................................... 140
On the Bayesian arguments ................................................................................................. 150
Silly objections to creation .................................................................................................. 156
Chapter Two.......................................................................................................................... 166
The delusion of improbability! ............................................................................................ 167
“You do not know the first thing about Natural Selection!” .................................................. 195
Fundamental semantic corruption and Wordplay! ................................................................ 200
What “explanation” … ?! .................................................................................................... 229
Natural selection as a consciousness ERASER...................................................................... 259
Reducing the Irreducible, denying the undeniable! ............................................................... 277
The worship of Gaps, you say?! ........................................................................................... 311
On the Anthropic Principle .................................................................................................. 382
On the so called Cosmological version of the Anthropic principle. ....................................... 402
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 434

444


Epilogue .............................................................................................................................. 437

445

Blasting The Foundations Of Atheism

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Blasting The Foundations Of Atheism (20)

More from Islamic Invitation (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Blasting The Foundations Of Atheism