Salaam Mustapha,

21:30 Big Bang

"Do not the unbelievers see how the heavens and the earth were joined together, before We clove them asunder?And We made every living thing out of water. WILL THEY STILL NOT BELIEVE?"

This verse is adressing the secularist and atheist scientists of our day ( obviously not those of 1400 years ago!) who control the scientific establishment, supported by the secular establishment with academia, media etc behind it, which as a result make a mockery of democracy.

CLINGING TO AN IDEOLOGY AND NOTHING MORE: MATERIALISM

This the reason why the theory of evolution is kept still kept "alive" although scientific findings have clearly refuted and demolished it, as for eg Adnan Oktar with his works has spectacularly shown.

Living things did not evolve into eachother. FACT.
The fossil record and mathematics/probability of cells emerging and forming this way clearly show this.
The so-called "micro-evolution" i.e the variation in species is governed by its already existing genetic coded from the offset, and not due to later so-called "mutations". No new information is ever added which is what the theory requires.

DEMOCRACY IN SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION

I do not say let rid Darwinism fr

Dear Mustafa Akyol,

I agree with what you wrote. I know that both Intelligent Design and the God-friendly version of the theory of evolution that you mentioned above are compatible with the belief in One God.

However, intelligent design or maybe a mixture of intelligent design with more of evolution seems more compatible with the rational and, I would assert, logically proven belief in a God (I am not talking about every alleged proof that has been proposed but especially one that I assert is conclusive) who is of course conscious and of course cares about the conscious beings that He created, and not only with the monotheistic religions that assert the constant interaction of God with His creation particularly through the angels and prophets that He sent to the people in order to guide and give glad news to mankind.

Can we argue for a monotheistic evolutionism, leaving ID aside, thinking that God must have interfered in the natural universe only by sending spirits into the bodies of the animals and humans that He created and not playing with its physical design any further after the initial act of "setting the clock"? This would mean that He would not design the new living species by direct intelligent intervention because their design would already have been made in the initial act of building and setting the universe like a clock... This kind of a belief might be true but is not entirely plausible. What would be the reason to force God not to intervene any further physically, materially (rather than spiritually as mentioned slightly above) in the universe that He himself created? Is there any such plausible logical reason?

Sure, for life to be logical and livable by the conscious created beings, there must be some permament laws in the universe in which this life is located. That's why God created the permanent laws of the universe at the beginning. But later intelligent intervention by God would not spoil or violate these permanent laws of nature at all, just as conscious and intelligent human intervention in the physical design of the nature does not spoil or violate those laws...

These questions are yet to be answered, at least for me. Maybe a future mix of the theories of evolution and intelligent design will open up the answers of these questions. But in the meantime, we should not let the dogmatic materialists from hijacking biological thinking any further and purging out intelligent design just because of their materialistic dogmas.

The objection may come that I assumed the existence of God as a fact in this post but that it cannot actually be proved. Well, below is the proof inshallah. I posted it as a reply in this website, under another article by Mustafa Akyol but I think and hope that He will permit me to include it in this one too.

Best regards,
Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi

----

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.

Creationism is not science and has no place in science classrooms or publications. It is a matter of faith -if you believe creationism that's fine but discuss it in your church, mosque, home, backyard, supermarket, pub, bar, coffeshop, etc. an keep it away from schools and scientific institutions.

I have noticed that Mehmed Mustfa Hamdi has left a very misleading comment that goes like this: "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"

Math is probably one of the few branches that rely on "purely on evidence". Every mathematical ideas has to be proven. So it is nothing but a petty attempt to use math to argue for your faith based assumptions. Math always works regardless of your cultural or religious beliefs/biases. However to be agree with your faith based assumptions I have to share your faith.

The Economist once wrote (not a quote) that of the three secular religions - Darwinism, Marxism and Freudism - the last two have disappeared by now, while the first has proved to be the most stubborn.

Indeed, "Darwinism" or, to be more precise, The THEORY of Evolution has become a shameful obscurantism and yahooism by the scientific community.

Forging facts such as drawing embryo of a human and several animals to be identical and similar at certain periods (and many more forgeries) has become quite normal for "scientists" to cling to their secular religion.

Two years ago when I was doing my Masters in Economics in the US, I used to argue with professors that there were fundamental disparities in the US economy for the last two decades which would cause a deep crisis not only in America but in the World within five to ten years (seems I was too optimistic about time).

The response of "scientists" was of course prideful manipulation with complex economic terms (the evlotionists use the same tactics) which in short meant that the rest of the World would continue to save and invest in America. The World, they said, owed the World, so the deficit was only virtual (?!).

You don't need to be a Noble prize winner to understand the stupidity of the still ruling economics "scientists".

I remember warning Michael Bebow on this blog to fasten his belts two years ago when the crisis was just beginning.

The unsolved puzzle for me is why it took so long for the sophisticated investors to understand fundamental disparities in the economy?!

The same puzzle works for The THEORY of Evolution. There are so many fundamental deficiencies of the THEORY which shout loud about its fallacy. Yet the scientistific community continue to impose its religion on the rest of the World.

Behruz,

I do not understand your point at all. Theories are to be tested, validated, refuted and eventually replaced by new ones. That is - albeit arguably I must admit - how science evolves and how scientific knowledge accumulates. Science does not seek absolutism. Even scientific laws include statements, such as "ceteris paribus" (holding everything constant), or under certain circumstances, such as no gravity, friction and etc. It is desirable that scientific theories can be tested, validated, and refuted. Scientific community desires such theories. That is science's strength, not weakness. Marxism was replaced with better set of theories. So was Freudism. That is how knowledge accumulates.

The fact that you expected the upcoming financial crises does not mean much to economists let alone science and scientific community. You were one of many others who also expected it - check Marx, Keynes, Minsky and etc. What makes their argument preferable over the "I believe so" is that they provided an alternative model that others could criticize through reasoning (not necessarily experimenting however). Scientific models, including those you discussed with your professors (but somehow appear to have missed the whole point) allow people to discuss and reason on a common phenomenon. You could have won a nobel price too if you could have come up with an economic model that "argued" that the fundamental premise of neo-liberal economics was wrong (too late now though). So if you think there are "fundamental deficiencies" in the Darwinian theory of evolution, please speak up. I am sure the scientific community would listen. But remember, "this does not make sense" is a great start but should not be followed by "I believe so" or the "holy book tells me otherwise".

By the way, who told you and others that Darwinism is a good theory, which meets the requirements of all scientific standards? Of course it has flaws but that is again a good thing. Unlike religion, science does not seek and provide absolute answers. It provides questionable explanations and descriptions on natural and social phenomena by utilizing what had been accumulated. Science's failure is paradoxically its success in itself but the mentality that science's failure is religion's victory is a pathetic justification for ignorance and dogmatism.

Mr. Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi,

I cannot follow your logic. The following statement of yours are simply assumptions and beliefs (of an absolutist kind), nothing more. You need more than assumptions to prove your point.

"Unconsciousness cannot create conscious beings. Meaninglessness cannot create the meaningfulness of the search for happiness and love."

The fact that science as of today cannot refute your assumptions by utilizing its contemporary tools (methodology in general) does not constitute sufficient proof for the existence of God. Same kind of assumptions were made centuries ago for the sun, moon, and the milky way simply because human beings (and the scientific knowledge) lacked enough knowledge on what these objects were, how they were created and what they stood for. In other words, it is a logical fallacy to assume that God exists simply because science fails to explain x, y, z phenomena. Is it reasonable for me to assume that I am the chosen one for one reason or another until someone else proves me that I am not? At the peril of oversimplification, your point is something like A created B (A came before B) because C cannot disprove it. I do not think I have that kind of "reasoning" or "consciousness."

In short, unknown does not automatically become a "consciousness proof" of God. I think you are oversimplifying the relationship between science and religion by reducing it down to a win-lose situation. If you perceive the relationship this way, you will be disappointed every day with another scientific discovery over a phenomenon we once thought "unknown".

By the way, science in fact explains to a large extent who was there in the beginning. They argue that it is the "unconscious, senseless, purposeless, meaningless matter and energy", some of which are not visible and sensible as you claim they are. That is all they know with what they have. Again, it is simply a theory that can be and should be replaced by a better one. You may not be satisfied with this theory. That is understandable. But the fact that it does not refute your assumptions or disprove your findings (observations and hypothesis if you are scientist) necessarily proves your point either.

Hi Mustafa

Aren’t you contradicting yourself?

You say that “you have to see that (ID) is an inference from scientific evidence”. But what can this ‘scientific evidence’ be when, in the very next paragraph you tell us that ID challenges the standard scientific paradigm that there are only “natural causes for natural phenomena”?

In other words, how can you make appeals to scientific evidence, when you’ve dismantled any objective measure of what constitutes evidence?

To put it another way, as far as I can work out, ID’s ambition is to convince us that the absence of objective evidence isn’t actually an absence of objective evidence!

This is a road to nowhere, and ends up with things like Michael Behe’s admission at the Dover trial that astrology falls within the ID definition of science. Can this really be what you mean?

The same atheist cliches thoughtlessly repeated throughout the internet... Realize who are the thinkers and who are the dogma-adherents.

Nyoped did not even realize that I was talking about a certain logical proof and not culture-based assumptions. It is funny how atheists and the like just stick to the assumptions that they have read in atheist books and are not open to any new ideas or to thinking for themselves but then they blame as narrow-minded those who have spent most of their time reflecting on science, religion, the meaning of life and proofs for this and arrived at the logical and rational conclusion that God indeed exists with their own mind (and these people are often people with top intelligence levels, being educated in the top universities, which mostly teach them no religious ideas and lots of atheistic and materialistic ideas).

As for Cingoz's cliche-based, uncontemplated post, he missed the point that I do not say "science cannot explain how consciousness comes into being, so consciousness is supernatural". He wants to answer that particular question because it is the question that he found a sort of answer for in the atheist books that he has read. So, he prefers to answer the wrong question instead of thinking for himself and trying to understand the point.

That the unconscious, purposeless and meaningless material universe that we can observe cannot give birth to the profound human phenomena of love, happiness and all other aspects of consciousness and altogether a profound meaningfulness regarding the nature of at least their own existence is a definite logical reality. Just as there is no way for zero being greater than one how hard some assumed scientists may work to find proofs otherwise, there is no way to prove that human consciousness can be created by the deep unconsciousness of the material universe, in whose utter lack of reason and in whose inability to judge humans for their wickedly irresponsible deeds the materialists put their trust. Both the zero-one thing and what I term the consciousness proof are logical facts dictated to us by our faculty of reason. They are not culture, they are not assumptions about the unknown.

Best regards,
Mehmed Mustafa

I have encountered some possible ambiguities after posting the previous message. I know by experience that they will be misused by people who will deliberately misinterpret them in order to justify their cliche-based materialistic, atheistic beliefs.

I wrote: "... and arrived at the logical and rational conclusion that God indeed exists with their own mind..." I did not mean that "God exists with/in their mind". On the contrary, I meant that they arrived with their own minds rather than by trusting respectable elders or authors at this conclusion. The conclusion is that God, the conscious and powerful creator of all things, indeed exists in reality and not "in the minds of" these people whom I mentioned as believing in him. So, I think I have removed a possible misunderstanding that could arise from a misplacement of the phrase "with their own minds".

The second ambiguity to remove could appear in this sentence: "...and these people are often people with top intelligence levels, being educated in the top universities, which mostly teach them no religious ideas and lots of atheistic and materialistic ideas"

"These people" whom I refer to in this sentence are not the atheists and materialists etc of the previous sentence. They are the believers who have confirmed the exitence of God as a logical reality and truth after deep and well-constructed contemplation.

Regards

Mr. Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi,

You clearly miss my point. I will put it in simpler words. Just because a statement is logical does not necessarily make it a scientific "proof". Logical statements are necessary but not sufficient for scientific theories. Your statement below is a logical one. However, it is not a scientific proof of anything let alone God. It simply is a logical statement, nothing more.
And if you insist on making more inferences based on it, you can easily add: "therefore, there must be a conscious creator." But again, that would be a logical statement and not a scientific proof of God/Creator. I do not understand why you are dissatisfied with your logical statement, and in search for scientific approval. Is it not enough for your faith?

"That the unconscious, purposeless and meaningless material universe that we can observe cannot give birth to the profound human phenomena of love, happiness and all other aspects of consciousness and altogether a profound meaningfulness regarding the nature of at least their own existence is a definite logical reality"

Also be careful with logical statements. This may be a cliche as one would expect from me but it was once perfectly "logical" to accept/believe that ALL SWANS were white simply because all our observations confirmed the case until the day someone discovered that there were also black swans out there. However, the initial statement was still "logical" but it did not reflect "reality". Do not confuse logic with proof.

By the way, I am neither an atheist nor "materialist - whatever that means." I simply do not need the seal of approval from science, whose interest is clearly in natural and social phenomena. I seek the meaning of life in other places; so should you. Mr. Akyol is right in the sense that the way this debate is framed is a lost cause on the part of religion. "Meaningful evolution" is a better approach both for science and religion. I think you should consider his recommendation.

Cingoz wrote: "Also be careful with logical statements. This may be a cliche as one would expect from me but it was once perfectly "logical" to accept/believe that ALL SWANS were white simply because all our observations confirmed the case until the day someone discovered that there were also black swans out there. However, the initial statement was still "logical" but it did not reflect "reality". Do not confuse logic with proof."

No, you are using a non-scientific and vulgar definition of logic. This is again a mistake that I encountered on a so-called Islamic forum from someone who claimed to be Muslim and yet tried very hard to disprove everything Islamic... Just another cliche, something memorized by the secular-minded during the secular(ist) western type of education that is imposed on all people in the modern times.

The logic that I am referring to is the conclusive type of logic, similar to but not identical with the one that is used to prove mathematical statements. (I am a former math major at university and had taken logic and deeply theoretical/proof-based math courses before both my lack of interest in that too abstract world and my health problems got me to decide to prefer history to math.)

In this sense, the statement that "all swans are white just because all the swans I have seen are white" is not a logically valid/true statement at all.

Mine is not a philosophical speculation, to arrive at the core point of our discussion; I think that what you meant is that I am just speculating philosophically. I'd argue that this logical statement is at least as certain as the rules of logic that are used in mathematics although as far as I know it does not seem to be one of them. However, this doesn't mean that I will force anyone to believe in God. Some people may believe that when the internal angles of a triangle are summed the result makes not 180 degrees but 890 degrees. But I won't argue with them any further or force them to accept the truth at all. I will just oppose them when they impose on me their (false) belief.

Cingoz,

"Theories are ... eventually replaced by new ones." That is exactly what should have happened with the Theory of Evolution long ago, but the scientific community cannot develop a new "scientific" alternative (without place for Allah). That is exactly what I meant.

Comparing again with the science of economics, it would be replacing classical economic theory of Adam Smith, with the Keynesian school, then with Monetarism, with Neoliberalism (which just collapsed) and with a new one pending development.

Experimental failures of THEORIES do not mean that the fundamentals of economics such as private property, competition, entrepreneurial risk-taking etc are failing, but the dogmatic way each school of thought relies more heavily on one of the fundamentals.

In other words, failure of neoliberals does not mean failure of capitalism, but the policies based on respective theories.

Thanks for listing me on the same row with Marx, Keynes and Minsky (whoever he/she is) :)), but as I said earlier, there were fundamental disparities which could be seen by any reasonable person.

There are fundamental deficiencies in the Theory of Evolution as well, which probably would not result in rejection of the Theory as a whole, but would seriously modify the Theory (if scientists were not so dogmatic).

Another example is the Static Theory of Universe which used to claim that matter and space existed forever and universe had neither beginning nor end. However by 1970s (or a bit earlier) The Big Bang Theory refuted the earlier theory.

The Big Bang Theory says that there was a "moment" when space, matter and time did not exist at all. All the complexity of the Universe (which is expanding and thus has an end) appeared in a moment of time.

All complex living organisms on Earth also appeared in a moment of time (according to the science of archeology/paleonthology).

That should be the limit of science – "we can explain you, folks, that the Universe and sophisticated living organisms appeared in one moment. Folks, it is not business of science to explain you Who was behind such actions and what is His nature."

Quite simple, Cingoz.

Peace,

Behruz.

Behruz,

I agree with you. Dogmatism is equally applicable to scientific endeavor. That is why there are good and bad theories. Marxism, as once a great theory, arguably does not meet the standards of contemporary science anymore on the grounds that it is too deterministic. But social science moved beyond Marxism regardless of the fact that there are quite a few social scientists (policy makers and etc.) still utilize it. Have more faith in science. Believe me. It will modify and perhaps even replace the theory of evolution. It has already been modified many times. I recommend you read Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper on the evolution of science, scientific thinking and philosophy of science. Interesting readings.

That is why I separate science and religion, and that is why the relationship between them is not a zero-sum game.

Mr. Mehmed Mustafa,

But I am not trying to force anything on you. Personally, I do not and should not care (no offense) what you believe in. I am basically criticizing your “conclusive type of logic” that you use to prove God, and argue that it does not prove the existence of God simply because it is based on the implicit assumption (acceptance) that “unconscious, purposeless…cannot give birth to … love, happiness…” You accept this statement as “true”, (assign it a value of 1), and make another inference that will necessarily be true by implication - "therefore, there is God/creator/etc"

In this case, you assume that X (unconscious) cannot give birth to Y (conscious) from the get go because there is no case that you know (or anyone else knows) that can refute this assumption. Your whole argument in fact is based on the alleged lack of proof (and the possibility) that unconsciousness can create a living conscious organism. So when any theory let alone the one on evolution tells you that there is in fact evidence where dust/energy/particles (unconscious) may have created living organisms (conscious) you reject it because it violates the fundamental assumption of your logic. In other words, your assumption becomes your belief because you make it “true” by accepting that it is true in the beginning, and when you believe that it is not possible to refute this assumption then it becomes a dogma.

You cannot apply the mathematical logic in this case because mathematical logic is based on 1 (something exists), and 0 (it does not exist) in the nature. Therefore, mathematical theories are grounded on a very straightforward logic of existence that can be tested and refuted. It comes from our conceptualization of nature in fact - the material world that you criticize in some sense. I can put an apple (call its existence “1”) next to another, and clearly conclude that there are two “1”s, which I will call “2”. Or you can call them “I, II, III, IV and etc.”. All of them are based on the same simple logic, and that is why mathematics is universal regardless of different symbols used.

Your logic on creationism is not and cannot be based on such grounds. Despite your denial, your logic is based on natural observation (remember the Swan example). It is therefore rational and logical to assume so but your assumption does not necessarily prove anything unless you accept the assumptions as true.

In short, your logic is not a mathematical logic. You make it so, and make yourself believe it. Do you know how easy our life would be if we could apply your logic in every scientific discipline? You could have won a Nobel price too. But of course, if you make yourself believe that everyone is wrong because they are the product of a secular educational system then your logic again becomes truly flawless.

By the way, what is your obsession with secularism and religion? I think it is affecting your judgment.

Same old creationist tripe. Someone above said 'This the reason why the theory of evolution is kept still kept "alive" although scientific findings have clearly refuted and demolished it, as for eg Adnan Oktar with his works has spectacularly shown.'

Would you be so kind as to name the peer-reviewed journals Oktar published his scientific findings in? You know about the scientific method, and peer review, right?

Cingoz,

Appreciate your thoughts. The problem however is that modern scientists have made the relationship between science and religion a zero-sum game.

Of course, clerics (primarily the Christian) are also to be blame for that, but science and religion used to be complementing each other during the Islamic Golden age.

Yet, nowadays, we are still living the conflict and failures of the Catholic Church with the scientific community of early Renaisance.

Peace,

Behruz.

Why do Muslims have to reach back to the Golden age to name any accomplishments? Maybe there is a lesson in all this.

Dear Cingoz, in the examples that you have given you seem to continue with the same mistaken understanding of the reasoning of my "logical proof". I don't say that the creation of the universe by an unconscious universe is wrong because something similar has not been observed.

My argument is simply that because of the inner quality of consciousness or sentience, we can all comprehend that it cannot be created by unconsciousness and meaninglessness etc. I absolutely object to the argument that it is not reason telling this but philosophical speculation. Reason or logic indeed denies that suggestion of consciousness being born out of unconsciousness, though not in a mathematical way. Perhaps some people who are more intelligent or knowledgeable than me can expound on why reason denies this, but as for myself at the moment just as I know that one is greater than zero as an axiom, I also know that consciousness was created by someone who is also conscious, and beyond that, has the power to give consciousness to His creation.

You wrote: "In short, your logic is not a mathematical logic. You make it so, and make yourself believe it."

Dear Cingoz, I have at least tried to state that this logic of this proof is not mathematical, but that there is a likeness. I wrote, as you can verify above (I didn't embold the part that I'm now embolding, though): "The logic that I am referring to is the conclusive type of logic, similar to but not identical with the one that is used to prove mathematical statements."

What I meant by "similar to" was the similarity in the degree of conclusiveness. Mathematics and even logic itself are based on axioms that are evidently logical truths and cannot be proved by other logical rules. They are simply true as dictated by our mind and the whole of logic and mathematics are based on them. This is how a simple human mind like mine dictates one/me the initial consciousness of existence, or rather the consciousness of the "Being", whom we of course name God, who was at the beginning of existence. However, as I said above, others who are or will be more intelligent and more knowledgeable than me would perhaps provide non-axiom logical proofs to the same effect. Finally I'll repeat what I wrote above: However, this doesn't mean that I will force anyone to believe in God. Some people may believe that when the internal angles of a triangle are summed the result makes not 180 degrees but 890 degrees. But I won't argue with them any further or force them to accept the truth at all. I will just oppose them when they impose on me their (false) belief.

Thank you for behaving kindly enough in this discussion. I apologize if I've unintentionally been less kind than you.

Best regards
M.M.H.

Emre,

The scientific method itself was invented by Muslims.

If you are a self-hating "Muslim", i.e. you reject any contribution made by Muslims, including Mr. Adnan Oktar, I can refer to Michael Behe. He has quite a few "formally" scientific articles on the deficiencies of the Theory of evolution.

What do you mean by "Muslims have to reach back to the Golden age to name ANY accomplishments"? If you ever worked in a multinational company you would have found out that there are a lot of Muslims contributing to the "Western" successes.

Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians alike have been contributing to the "Western" accomplishments in all spheres of life including science since 1950s. There is a word - globalization…

If you would like to hear of exclusively Muslim accomplishments, please refer to Islamic Republic of Iran’s achievements in rocket science. Persians have just launched an indigenously-made satellite, despite 30 years of toughest sanctions.

Have you heard of exclusively "Muslim-made" (Iranian) drones spying US war ships in the Persian Gulf and US bases in Iraq for more than half an hour before being detected? Have you heard of "Islamic" nuclear bomb or "Islamic" rockets capable of reaching all targets within the Middle East including Israel’s nuclear facilities?

The mere fact of US army’s reluctance to wage a war against Iran is a proof of "Muslim" accomplishments here and NOW!

Happy Nowruz,

Behruz.

Above I seem to have typed: "I don't say that the creation of the universe by an unconscious universe is wrong because something similar has not been observed." I actually meant to say: "the creation of conscious beings by an unconscious universe"

I am not a self-hating Muslim. And I am not aware of any scientific contributions by either Behe or Oktar. Please name a few of their peer-reviewed articles.

"If you ever worked in a multinational company you would have found out that there are a lot of Muslims contributing to the "Western" successes."

This only proves that Muslims can work when ripped out of their natural domain. Left to themselves, they plunge into the darkness. What is the scientific output of Saudi Arabia, for example?

And as for Iran, the Ayatollah himself encouraged freethinking people to leave, saying "Iran was not for them".

I am saddened to read that these weapons of destruction were the first things that came to your mind.

1. A peer-reviewed article on calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed:

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke (2004). "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues". Protein Science 13 (10): 2651–2664. doi:10.1110/ps.04802904. PMID 15340163. http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/short/13/10/2651

Have you ever heard of a BIAS by the scientific community? For instance professors Stephen Walt (University of Chicago) and John Mearsheimer (Harvard) were not able to publish their article, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, in a US political science magazine. The article of the two most renowned political science professors was published in the London Review of Books and not in the US (initially)!

2. I worked for a Turkish company (Enka) here in Moscow for a short time. Still have friends working there. Well, self-hating "white" Turks fire their employees for praying in dormitories at night (do not mention prayers during the working time)!

If not Turks whom I met at "Turkish" schools, I would have strong allergy against Turks.

My university in US had a prayer room in its library, an active MSA (Muslim Students Association) and a mosque adjacent to the campus. My current workplace at the leading Big-Four auditing firm has two (!) prayer and contemplation rooms. By the way, we are tenants of the above-mentioned Turkish firm which would fire people who would dare to ask for such a prayer place.

"Muslims can work when ripped out of their natural domain. Left to themselves, they plunge into the darkness."

We plunged into the darkness because of letter-worshipping clerics (such as those in Saudi Arabia), secular dictators (such as Mubarak) and self-hating Muslims (such as kemalists).

The pluralism and freedom practiced in the West, especially in America, as well as Western multinationals, make people of all races and creeds flourish. That is why, Emre, AKP wants to be part of the EU and your fellow kemalists not.

3. Please let us not play a role of a greenpeace-type pacifists, Saudi Arabia and even Turkey have not been able to develop indigenous weapons because that requires huge scientific infrastructure – universities, research institutes, laboratories, committed and highly educated leadership and youth, time, patience, resources. Islamic Republic of Iran has managed to accomplish high levels in science and technology with the aim of obtaining defense capability.

Such achievements have double purposes as any major technology (Internet, GPS and any other technology were initially developed for defense purposes).

Mr. Fethullah Gulen’s contribution to your country may have risen Turkiye to the highest levels of scientific and technological superiority if not enka- and ergenekon- type paranoid Turks ...

1. That article does not mention ID or Creationism; why did you choose it? Still, it's much better than the Web logs I'm used to seeing as references, so I'd like to thank you for citing a real paper.

2. Kemalism is secular. There is no reference to Islam in the constitution. The only reference to religion is to state that there should be no religious discrimination. This is a cornerstone of its philosophy and you should know this. Would you want to live in a country that dictated the "right, official" religion? I want the state well away from my personal life.

3. Gulen's contribution to the country is to turn people's brains to mush. This is a mindset that causes the minister of state (Mehmet Şimşek) to blame women for unemployment (it's their fault for taking the men's jobs!) What superiority are you talking about?

Turkey has a strong weapons industry (what do you think all those engineers do?) but, unlike you, I'm not boasting about it. Turkey has a strong military and doesn't need to pound its chest to prove it.

Behruz,

This is a little off the topic but I could not help commenting on it.

Fettullah Gulen and his leased movement (very similar to Adnan Oktar) feeds on ignorance and illiteracy as well as opportunism guided by economic interest. He is technically a self-declared quasi-prophet although per Islamic teachings he cannot claim so. From an academic and scientific point of view, he has nothing to contribute to the scientific community. But that is not his mission either. His primary mission is to convince his largely illiterate followers in very plain language that science and religion/Islam and democracy/tradition and modernity/East and West are not necessarily incompatible; Islam is a religion of tolerance and not of violence and etc. In other words, given the contemporary political circumstances and the Islam's nature of state, he is a necessary - albeit arguably - political tool to prevent the radicalization of Islam. Just like every other political tool, he also has an expiration date whether he likes it or not.

However, these custom designed political tools are inherently dangerous and destabilizing. Once they are created, they often mutate and devise their own purpose and mission when new circumstances no longer require their existence.

Personally, I think Gulen is an insult to the Islamic community. Does Islam, the last and by implication the best religion as Muslims argue (based on the claims that it was unaltered, universal, simple, and etc.) need the guidance and teachings of Gulen? Is the Islamic community that desperate? Unfortunately, it is, and that is a bigger problem with serious political and social repercussions that requires some serious thinking on the part of all.

To Emre,

The typical dogmatic, ideological (materialism) blind attachment and undemocratic mentality and mindset of the Secular establishment and one of its most important tools, the scientific community, which it controls using so-called peer-review papers, journals etc, which you and many atheists and secularists thumbsuck, and draw vain false comforts from.

Richard C Lewontin from Harward Univ,admits and puts into words what is blatingly obvious anyway:

'It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. MOREOVER, THAT MATERIALISM IS ABSOLUTE, SO WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.'

So there you have the much repeated myths that Religion and Science are incompatable and that Intelligent Design and Creationism is not science, exposed and refuted.

All that is needed now is an honest and democratic attitude in the scientific community, so that the myth and deception of evolution can be publicly announced and officially relegated to the trash heap of history, where it truly and firmly belongs. Pseudo-science is evolution, not I.D or creationism.

Yusuf Morreale says that "Pseudo-science is evolution, not I.D or creationism" and that "so-called" peer review is undesirable.

I'd enjoy seeing you back up these utterly ludicrous claims. You can start by explaining what is "so called" peer review. Do you suggest that they don't actually review the works? Do you have a better way of ensuring errors don't creep into publications? If so, I'd like to hear it. Which field of scientific enquiry are you familiar with?

Yusuf Morreale,

Of course you can introduce anything divine to science as long as it follows a scientific methodology. It is too long to explain what scientific methodology is but I can give you a quick explanation of what it is not. It is any argument that does follows this logic: "I cannot explain lightning and thunder; therefore, it must be God who is throwing at us lighting because he is mad at us."

Just because Dr. Lewontin advocates moving beyond the material world does not mean that he is advocating for abolishing of every scientific standard.

By the way, what do you mean by "honest and democratic attitude in the scientific community"? Should they vote for what is scientific or not? or should they vote for the findings? or should they vote for the the existence of God? Instead of voting for the findings, can they not vote for whether they have a problem or not in the first place?

Someone came up with the idea that Islam is in fact compatible with democracy, and now the Islamic community wants to vote for everything. I guess that is the new buzz word.