« Time For Erdoğan For Self-Criticism | Main | Inherit The Turkish Wind »
March 8, 2009
Darwin Year Is Not The Year of Atheism
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
As you might have already known, the year 2009 is also the "Darwin Year." It is the bicentennial of the birthday of the great British naturalist, and sesquicentennial of publication of his famous book "The Origin of Species." Hence we hear a lot these days about evolution, its history and, most important of all, its meaning.
That meaning is what makes the theory of evolution interesting to most of us. Unlike other theories of science, such as the one on plate tectonics, Darwin's idea deals with essential questions such as where we humans came from. That's why various ideologies, ranging from Marxism to racism, have tried to make use of Darwin's theory in order to vindicate their philosophical claims. But none of these philosophical claims have been as ambitious and persistent as the one advanced by the atheists. They claim to know that there is no God, and that Darwin's theory makes that presupposition highly credible.
The Fitness of the Environment
In other words, atheists -- at least the most evangelical of them, such as Richard Dawkins -- interpret Darwinian evolution in an atheistic framework. This often leads religious believers to take a defensive, or sometime offensive, stance against evolution. Atheists respond by referring to the classic science-versus-blind-faith clich. And the vicious cycle goes on.
Yet it is possible to get out of that cycle. For that Darwinism does not vindicate atheism. What it refutes is not theism (faith in God), but only a literalist interpretation of Scriptures.
Let me explain. From the atheist's perspective, what Darwinism does is to explain life on Earth as the products of two basic dynamics: natural laws and random happenings. (French atheist Jasques Monod had called them "chance and necessity.") Once they explain the emergence and variety of life by these two factors, they believe, they will take God out of the picture.
But let's wait a minute, and take a closer look at natural laws. These are the constant rules that govern the physical universe: Water freezes and boils at certain temperatures, certain chemicals react with each other, and apples fall down from trees. We all know that. But there are two good questions that we should ask: Why these laws exist in the first place? And, moreover, what would happen if they were different?
The first question led philosophers throughout history to infer a "Law Giver." That is, of course, a speculation. That's why the second question might make more sense, because it can help us understand whether there was a purpose behind these laws, or they just popped up out of nothing, accidentally, giving us an accidental universe.
The first modern scientist to address this question, as far as I know, was Lawrence Joseph Henderson, whose 1913 book, "The Fitness of the Environment," examined "the biological significance of the properties of matter." Looking at the amazingly "well-fit" properties of water, and other elements of the environment, he concluded that they were surprisingly "bio-centric." In other words, if evolution were a four-billion-year-long show, its stage was perfectly prepared.
The idea took a new dimension when astrophysicist Brandon Carter proposed the idea of "Anthropic Principle," in 1973, at a symposium honoring Copernicus's 500th birthday. Copernicus had shown that we humans were not at the center of the universe, but Carter's findings were suggesting that we are actually at the center of its purpose. Because all the constants of the physical laws of the universe were "just right" in order to allow the emergence of life. If the nuclear forces were just a little different, for example, there would not even be atoms in the universe, let alone planets, trees and people. Same "fine-tuning" was found in gravity, magnetism and chemical laws, too.
As the evidence for the Anthropic Principle piled, many physicist started to the doubt and even reject the materialist conception of cosmology. "It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe," said Paul Davis, a British astrophysicist. "The impression of design is overwhelming."
A Fine-Tuned Universe
Now, in such a "designed" universe, biological evolution does not imply anything other than the unfolding of a cosmic plan for the making of life and its amazing diversity. Philosophically it doesn't really matter much whether a specific group of reptiles evolved into birds, or some hominids slowly turned into Homo sapiens. What matters is whether there was a purpose behind all this. And the "new physics," to use Davies' term, strongly suggests that there is indeed such a purpose.
Therefore, unless your idea of "creation" is an extremely literalist one which makes you expect a divine hand coming down from the sky to instantly form a new species, you should be fine with such a predestined evolution as a believer.
That's why the Darwin Year is not the year of atheism. Atheists might like to think so, but theirs is wishful thinking, not a realist one.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at March 8, 2009 8:35 PM
Hi Mustafa
Iâve never understood why the Anthropic Principle suggests design. Surely, a supernatural designer makes, not obeys, natural laws? If God wanted the earth to be half, or twice, the distance from the sun as it currently is, but all life on earth to be unaltered, then presumably that would be entirely simple for Him to contrive?
If we believe in God then the characteristics of the natural world give us no information whatsoever because God can construct them in whatever manner He fancies. If there was life on every planet, or half of them, or any percentage, a believer would just as readily conclude that God was the cause.
On the other hand, the universe has precisely the qualities you would expect if it were a product of chance and necessity.
Posted by: Duncan Marr at March 9, 2009 9:49 PM
The Atheist argument is that there is no evidence of God therefore belief in God is a fallacy.
Atheists believe in stone cold evidence ie. the Scientific method. Darwinism- the theory that modern biology is founded upon- has evidence supporting it.
Therefore inevitably Darwinism and Atheism become intertwined.
Darwinism is heavily associated with Atheism because of its incompatability with the major Abrahamic faiths. In Abrahamic religions it is said God had some dust or mud and said "let it be!" and man was formed and then a woman from his ribs. In Darwinism Humans gradually evolved from primitive forms of life.
Darwinism certainly does not rule out Theism; especially Deism. But the idea of Science is to prove questions about the universe and life. God can't fit into that because there is no evidence. One could make the argument everything has a creator, but then who created the creator? With this it is clear why Atheism and Darwinism, and in general, Atheism and Science go hand in hand.
Posted by: Muratcan at March 10, 2009 1:53 PM
"If we believe in God then the characteristics of the natural world give us no information whatsoever because God can construct them in whatever manner He fancies..."
Indeed, Allah can create natural laws in whatever manner He fancies. Sometimes He, the Almighty, changes them in specific circumstances - miracles of Prophets, peace be upon them, or babies falling from trees uninjured :)
Yet the information about natural world is crucial - people of understanding see signs of Allah's existence, His Greatness, His miracles!
Only fanatics and arrogants of believers see no interest in researching natural laws, simply because they believe in God and seem to have no reasons for admiring greatness of Allah through exploration of science.
"...who created the creator?" Unfortunately modern scientists are arrogant and prideful people who think that discovering natural laws (created by Allah!) allow them to claim that Allah does not exist. How pathetic!
Most of the greatest scientists such as Khwarizmi (farther of algebra), Avicenna (farther of medicine), Biruni (farther of astronomy), Jabir Ibn Hayyan (father of chemistry), Omar Khayyam, Isaac Newton, Einstein, even Darwin believed in God!
What modern scientist can claim to have contributed equally or more than the above-mentioned scientists?! Yet they remain arrogant and prideful!
Who created the Creator? What is He like? Come on donât be kids, âscientistsâ! Can a computer understand its âcreatorâ by zeros and ones?!
We can only talk about QUALITIES of Allah: the Self-sufficient, the Most Merciful, the Most Kind, All-Hearing, All-Present, the Most Just, the Most Generous, the Most Loving, Without equal, Without origin, Without end, Unlike anything else that exists!
How beautiful are Allahâs qualities!
Posted by: Behruz Himo at March 10, 2009 6:31 PM
Muratcan, I am sorry but your assertion that there is no evidence for God is so naive and not much reflected-on. It is mostly based on the commonplace cliches of the current atheistic dogma.
You should first understand that not all science is observation and empiricism. First and foremost, mathematics is not based on observation for the most part and is just a development of the inherent logical ideas dictated to us by our genes. But it is a science and the science that is much more exact and undisputable than all the empirical sciences, whose theories are often largely modified or abandoned altogether in time. Then you will understand that to prove God we need not observe Him.
As can bee seen, seemingly abstract ideas inherent in the human mind often present more accurate information about the reality of the cosmos than the empirically studied natural sciences can.
So, the proof below (and maybe others that I am not yet fully aware of) does prove the existence of God without doubt.
Before I cite something that I posted in my former website in English, which I am trying to prepare with the new one inshallah (=God willing/if God so wills), I should explain this basic thing that you and many others, even religious people, get wrong.
You think that the basis of the argument for the existence of God is that everything must have been created. So, you respond by saying that then God would have to have been created too. In this way, you think that the argument for God's existence is invalid. However, in fact this is not the more intelligent basis for the argument for God's existence.
The basis of the argument is not that everything must be created to exist. It is this basic question: Something must have existed "in the beginning" for other things to exist. This is the matter and energy that we already know by observation according to the materialists, or at least an earlier form of matter and energy as is proposed nowadays because the materialist viewpoint was modified somewhat after the solid finding that the universe is expanding and therefore had a beginning point in time --very possibly some 18 billion years ago.
The initial form of existence according to the monotheists, however, was a superiorly conscious being, not the unconscious matter and matter-like unconscious beings. This initial being especially the monotheist believers call God --or Dieu or Allah or Theos in other languages.
Do you understand now, Muratcan? The most basic of the questions is not really whether everything must have been created to come into existence. It is rather the question of what or who existed in the beginning: something unconscious and devoid of intelligence, or a conscious and intelligent being. This is the question.
Now, I will quote the rest of what I call the "consciousness proof" from another blog commen that I recently wrote. I hope you will find it beneficial:
For all the other things in the universe (or maybe the universes, depending on what you understand of the term universe) to exist, there must have been a form of existence "in the beginning". According to the materialists or naturalists or however we name them, this initial, primordial form of existence was nothing but the matter and energy of the empirically observable universe of ours --or an initial form of it that existed at the moment that the theorized but well-evidenced Big Bang started the universe that we live in.
According to us monotheists, the primordial, furthermore initial and eternal (in the future as well as the past sense of the word) form of existence that existed right in the beginning of the universe was a powerful and conscious being whom we call God, rather than the unconscious, senseless, purposeless, meaningless matter and energy that we can observe with our physical senses and with our scientific experiments that are based on our physical senses.
I have already alluded to that rational proof of God's existence and creatorhood that I am talking about. The unconscious, senseless, purposeless universe with its matter and energy and without any capability to see or show any meaningfulness to anyone can simply never give birth to the conscious beings who feel love, happiness, pain and a profound meaningfulness. Unconsciousness cannot create conscious beings. Meaninglessness cannot create the meaningfulness of the search for happiness and love. That's just against basic human reasonableness, like the impossibility of "zero" being greater in size than "one". That's what our reason dictates us to know.
Posted by: Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi at March 14, 2009 5:39 PM
"Unconsciousness cannot create conscious beings."
You omitted the proof of this assertion. Please restate it.
Posted by: emre at March 22, 2009 12:20 AM