Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 7: Fitrah, Aql, Naql, Science and the Origin of the Universe and Man|
Thursday, January 27 2011 - by Abu.Iyaad
Read more articles at Aqidah.Com
There have been a number of fallouts after the occurrences of the last three weeks and there are numerous side issues which have arisen as a result. From the most significant of them in our view is:
We are being informed (through email and otherwise) of what can be characterized as unintelligable expressions from self-confessed ape-descended intellects that have decided to "come out of the jungle" and into "cyberspace" onto the various blogs, forums and websites to express their inner feelings and beliefs which are like those of Usamah Hasan, if not at least sympathetic to Usamah Hasan. This shows that it is not just Usamah Hasan, and the effect is a little wider than one might think. It is clear that Usamah is just a representative example, and that materialistic theories, beliefs and philosophies of science have polluted the fitrah of many a Muslim who has had a stretch of time in the secular institutions of learning. Hence, we have the prospect of not just one but possibly scores or hundreds of Usamah Hasans. Whilst we merely joked about the possiblity of a "battle for the planet of the apes" at the very end of Part 2, it's getting a little serious now and is looking more like a potential "conquest of the planet of the apes." The whole world seems to be in a revolutionary mode as of right now, and as such, chimps with secular ijaazahs (like Usamah Hasan and Dr. Cornelius) should never, ever be underestimated. They may have recruited hundreds if not thousands into the cause.
For this reason there are certain issues which have to be addressed so as to protect and buffer Muslims from getting drawn into "ape takeover" revolutionary movements, and from being poisoned in a) fitrah, b) aql, c) aqidah and d) deen. It is clear that many Muslims are deceived and hoodwinked by that fake appearance of "objective scientific enquiry" which is amongst the greatest of the contemporary taaghoots of the Malaahidah used to fight fitrah, aql and naql. So in this article we want to explore this subject a little inshaa'Allaah so Muslims have a clear idea of where they stand. First we will develop two themes required at this point.
1.1 The Fitrah
The fitrah is the innate, intuitive disposition of each soul:
It is an inherent capacity through which truth can be realized, recognized and it is simply the soul having been programmed upon certain fundamental universal truths, from which are that whatever is muhdath (originated) must have a muhdith (originator) and the anticipation or expectation of justice (when wronged) and other innate dispositions and feelings. When Allaah took all the souls of all of Banee Aadam from the back of Aadam (alayhis salaam), he made them testify concerning that He is their Lord, (see 7:172). This is an inherent acknowledgement within the soul which does not need anything beyond itself to recognize this fact. It does not even need signs (aayaat), rather, it is an inherent, innate, intrinsic quality. This is the fitrah that Allaah mentions (فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ), "the fitrah of Allaah upon which He created mankind, no change let there be in Allah's creation" (30:30) and this is referring to the souls knowledge that all the makhlooqaat (created things) testify to and are in need of their creator (for their existence).
We want to use a variety of statements from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah at this point to help us to lay out a framework upon which to build the rest of our discussion. You need to pay careful attention to what is being said. He says in Majmu' al-Fataawaa (1/47):
And the intent here is that: The need of the created things upon the creator, their indication to [His existence] and testification to [His existence] is an innate affair which Allaah has created His servants upon, just as He created them [with an innate disposition] towards affirrmation of His [existence] without (requiring) these signs (aayaat)... and what is verified and ascertained is that the knowledge that the originated (muhdath) necessarily requires an originator (muhdith) is innate, necessary knowledge (ilm fitriyy dhurooriyy) with respect to the particular entities (al-mu'ayyanaat al-juz'iyyah)...
And another statement here as occurs in al-Jawab al-Sahih (3/202):
That the knowledge that the muhdath (originated) must have a muhdith (originator) is innate, necessary knowledge (ilm fitriyy dhurooriyy), and for this reason Allaah, the Exalted said, "ere they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?" (52:35)... And it is know by the fitrah upon which Allaah created His servants, [through] sound reason, that what is haadith (originated) does not occur except with an originator that brought it about.
He also says in Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah (1/179 - two volume edition):
... so this evidence comprises [the fact] that what is originated (muhdath) must have an originator (muhdith) and that whatever contains wisdom (hikmah) must have a qaasid, hakeem (one who desired that wisdom, and is wise).
And he says in Dar' al-Ta'aarud (4/241):
... That the actual knowledge that the originated (muhdath) must have an originator (muhdith) is more plain (abyan) and strong (aqwaa) and apparent (adhhar) in reason (aql)...
In this statement (and the one below) Ibn Taymiyyah is comparing the clarity and apparentness of this realization compared to others, such as the argument that what is possible (mumkin) needs what is necessary (waajib), which was being used by the Philosophers (like Ibn Sina), as an alternative to that of the Mutakallimeen.
And later (4/251):
...And this is because the knowledge that the originated (muhdath) must have an originator (muhdith) is more intuitive (matter of fact) to reason (aql) and more firmly-rooted in the heart and more apparent to the special and general folk...
There are many other statements of Shaykh al-Islam on this in most of his works dealing with the Philosophers and the Mutakallimeen, what has been presented is a sample, and we want to remain concise and make the core points to be extracted from them as part of a framework to build upon, even if there are many other statements. So we establish here that the entities all around us indicate the necessity of a muhdith (originator) and this is firmly established knowledge in the fitrah. It is ingrained within the fitrah, and it is proven by the collective day to day experience in all fields of human activity.
However, this fitrah goes beyond the mere recognition that whatever is originated must have an originator, it actually feeds into the acknowledgement that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah alone, which is the desired intent. Hence, there are certain states and feelings, that are necessary from the fitrah and which arise from it, (وَمَا لِي لاَ أَعْبُدُ الَّذِي فَطَرَنِي), "And why should I not worship Him (alone) Who has created me (fataranee)..." (36:22), and these are the likes of inqiyaad (compliance), dhull (humility, lowering), tasleem (submission), mahabbah (love) and so on.
Thus, when a person of sound fitrah looks at the mu'ayyanaat (entities) [through what we can loosely call "scientific enquiry" for now (we will touch upon this next)], then it brings about a certain world-view, upon the innately recognized truth "whatever is muhdath must have a muhdith". This is very different to the kaafir who, by definition, conceals and buries what the fitrah necessitates, and this concealment is through the speech of the heart (takdheeb, juhood) or the action of the heart (kibr, kurh, inaad) of the heart. Upon this, whatever "objective scientific enquiry" the kaafir claims to be operating up, then fitrah has already been made inadmissible to and annulled from it, and thus the conclusions from what are observed of the entities (mu'ayyanaat) in the universe through research and introspection (what they define as "science") are fed from the kufr of the heart that has already buried and concealed the fitrah. This is a very important point to understand here, a crucial one in fact, when we delve into the fight between atheist scientists who champion naturalism (natural causes explain all life) - [a complete violation of the fitrah] and those who argue for design (created entities point to design), and there are many non-Muslims whose fitrah in this regard is intact, even if they nevertheless remain upon kufr. At the same time, these "ape-intellects" we mentioned earlier who have come out of the jungle and into cyberspace, their fitrah in this regard has been corrupted and this is clearly seen and observed from their speech.
This is why Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan has stated often in many of his fatwas that anyone who wishes to study any field, even things like engineering (which appear to be neutral) and so on in the secular institutions, that he must be very thoroughly grounded in aqidah and Eemaan. And we understand the wisdom of this advice when we consider that it is not because of the actual subject content in and of itself (which in many instances is not problematic), but the underlying philosophy of science and materialist world-view upon which secular sciences have developed, are taught and understood.
1.2 A Quick Illustration of The Line of Scientific Inquiry Ordered in the Qur'an
We can give an illustration here of what is manifest in the Qur'an in abundance, namely Allaah's call to observe and introspect in oneself and the universe, and a large part of the Qur'an is like this, appealing to fitrah and aql through the command to observe and reflect. Here is one example.
أَفَلَا يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى الْإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ وَإِلَى السَّمَاء كَيْفَ رُفِعَتْ وَإِلَى الْجِبَالِ كَيْفَ نُصِبَتْ وَإِلَى الْأَرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ
Do they not look at the camels, how they are created? And at the heaven, how it is raised? And at the mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm? And at the earth, how it is spread out?
We mentioned previously that the maf'oolaat (entities, handiwork) give indication to what is maf'ool (that which has been done), which gives indication to the fi'l (the act), which in turn gives indication to the faa'il (the doer). And this is what we find in the Qur'an, and in the example above, we see the call to look at, observe and reflect over four things. The creation of the camel, the raising of the sky, the fixing of the mountains, and the spreading out of the earth. First of all note that these are not obscure things that only tefal-heads are able to theorize about in labs, rather they are in plain sight and vision of most of mankind, indicating that "scientific" observations and truths are not the exclusive right of an elitist group. Of course, the degree of introspection varies based upon the variation of each person's ability and means. The call here is to observe and reflect upon these affairs, and upon sound uncorrupted fitrah and aql, arrive at the conclusion of an originator, a masterful creator having utmost precision, wisdom, and unmeasurable creative power.
2.1 'Science' And The Routes to Objective, Certain Truth
This brings us then to "science." But before we do that, we want to make absolutely sure about the significance of what we have just discussed.
To a sound fitrah, the entire universe, all of its entities (mu'ayyanaat) and all observation (nadhr) and deduction (istidlaal) and whatever would be referred to as "scientific enquiry" into living things, "nature" and the universe - then all of that constitutes the most direct and most powerful of dalaalaat (indications), aayaat (signs) to uncorrupted fitrah of the necessity of an originator. And we see that in the entirety of human experience, this same deduction is rooted in the psyche of all people, in that they operate and conduct their entire lives upon what is rooted in the fitrah, that every muhdath requires by necessity a muhdith. Their food never came on the table thanks to the mere wind. And nor did they win a job promotion through evolutionary forces. And nor did they become scholarly through random undirected processes. Within the field of all human activity, every muhdath (originated thing or entity) must have an originator (originating agent with intent, purpose), and this is a firmly established and rooted assumption and belief that all of humanity operate their daily lives upon.
2.2 Defining What is "Science" and What is "Scientific"
Darwin proposed a particular methodology that became the foundation for those after him in laying down rules to separate what they claimed was "science" from "non-science", and it was here that "science" was redefined much more narrowly than it had previously been. Darwin did have the fundamentalist Christian creationists in mind, and that bunch would pretty much annoy anyone. After Darwin came the "logical positivists" who claimed that the only statements which are true and meaningful are those that can be verified by sensory experience, and that anything that cannot be verified by sensory experience cannot be affirmed. And here came "verifiability" and "falsifiability" and references to natural laws for all explanations.
What is going on here is pretty much like the Philosophers and Mutakallimeen who said that only their conceptual tools (kalaam, falsafah, logic) are the only routes to knowing universal and objective truths. It is just like the Mutakallimeen said: It is only our proof, the proof of huduth al-ajsaam (origination of bodies), which can be used to prove the existence of a creator. So they limited the field of enquiry and the routes through which knowledge of a creator can be attained to certain areas. Ahl al-Sunnah do not restrict the proof of Allaah's existence to just one method (which is what the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, the Later Ash'aris did). There are many proofs (for Allah's existence and His Tawhid), the proof through the emergence of entities (a'yaan), the proof through transformation (e.g. development of the embryo, or the living into the dead and the dead into the living, or development and deterioration of things), the proof through fitrah (natural disposition) [i.e. demonstrating that every originated thing (Muhdath) must have an originator (muhdith) which is ingrained in the fitrah], the proof through miracles of the Prophet, the proof through the character of the Prophet, the proof through the rulings of Islaam, the proof through ijmaa' (consensus), the proof through idtiraar (compelling necessity) and so on. But this exclusivist approach of the Mutakallimeen led them to deny many truths that are known independently of their kalaam, whether that be through pure reason, or pure revelation. And this is the point we are making here about "science" which has been defined in a certain way, not for any truly "scientific" reason in and of itself, but in order to escape having to make certain uncomfortable conclusions which are supported forcefully by pure sound reason, after their acknowledgement that everything does in fact "give the appearance of design", to use the words of Dawkins, and we see in this short remark of Dawkin's the fitrah being oppressively drowned by the kufr of arrogance.
If we fast foward to today we find that philosophers of science now affirm that there isn't any specific set of criteria that can define what is "scientific practice" and what can and cannot be said to have "scientific status" and this is after their realization that many of the claimed demarcation criteria that are used to separate "science" from "non-science" would actually invalidate the scientific status of many theories and ideas which have been accepted for a long time, including Darwinism itself! Also, the logical positivism that we referred to earlier (to accept only what sensory perception captures, observational evidence) received a death blow when it was shown that the theory itself cannot satisfy its very own criteria. It died a death and atheists and Materialists were then seen walking the alleys, idling about, hands in their pockets, kicking stones and soft drink cans, playing with dogs and cats, until Antony Flew came along in the 1950s and gave them a revival through his paper "Theology and Falsification" which gave them a breath of air and a new cycle of puffed-up arrogance, these cycles tend to occur in bouts of around fifty years when the current paradigm in which they placed all hope [for an answer besides the one necessitated by fitrah and aql] changes form and starts attracting flies that want their meal out of it before it decomposes. Additionally, the idea of "falsifiability" is not what it is made out to be. There are games being played in that the core elements of most theories are not really testable or falsifiable, and so additional hypotheses are added (to the core theory) and it is the additional hypotheses which are tested (through prediction and falsifiability) and not the actual core theory which has always remained unfalsifiable and untestable. Be assured, there is a lot of "blind faith" in science labs and scientific instutions. Its simply hidden in all the fancy and technical language. But, the situation is reached today where Philosophers of science at the higher levels are coming to the conclusion that the real question is not whether a theory is "scientific" or "not scientific" (because defining exactly what that is, is very difficult and problematic) but that the issue is whether a theory is true on account of the evidence presented along with it whatever form that evidence might take, and whether that evidence provides "certain knowledge" in that matter. In other words the definition of "science" is not really the issue and arguing over what is and what is not "science" is not a useful exercise, because the sum total of what is accepted to be "certain knowledge" in all fields of knowledge has not come exclusively through any one methodological procedure that can be labelled as "science". At best, broad criteria can be applied, but they can never be absolute, because arriving at "certain knowledge" can be through many different routes and certain knowledge has been arrived at in many fields, disciplines and "sciences" through what would never meet the criteria for being "science."
3. Demarcation Criteria
There is a field of research called "Demarcation" in which criteria were presented to separate what is scientific from what is not scientific but this field of knowledge essentially collapsed (for the reason just outlined), because demarcation (between "science" and "non-science") is something that cannot be achieved except by rejecting a large number of already established and accepted "scientific theories." You have to remember that there is "philosophical science", the philosophy of science, and the science that is carried out as part of "scientific enquiry." Philosophers of science discuss and debate what is science, its reality and nature, and they will come to certain conclusions, such as the one we have just outlined. However your average run of the mill scientists will continue upon the delusion that science is a restricted, exclusivist methodological set of criteria, and that it is only they and their theories which have the privilege of "scientific status" and access to sure truth. The majority of scientists today are doing "science" by choice, design and intent because their fitrah has told them that food has never ever come on the table through natural law alone, and thus to make sure food does end up on the table, they have to toe the materialist, naturalist bandwagon and operate upon that same definition of science to keep with that rigged set of possible outcomes and conclusions. Scientists are generally paid either by private corporations or governments that toe the same materialistic, naturalistic world-view (at least in the West). If you want to read more on this topic of "demarcation" refer to the paper by Larry Laudan called, "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem."
Some of the main demarcation criteria used to separate "science" from "non-science" include:
- Must explain by reference to natural law (i.e. a theory or phenomenon must be explained through natural law). But note that natural laws cannot explain anything since what are deemed to be natural laws are only [mathematical] descriptions of what are observed, not an explanation of what is observed. For example the law of gravity only describes what happens, it describes gravity in action, it does not actually explain gravity. Describing and explaining are different things.
- Must only involve what is observable
- Must be testable
- Must make predictions
- Must be falsifiable
- Must provide a mechanism
Now, as we said, if you apply these criteria you are forced to expel many accepted theories and laws from being scientific! All laws of physics are mere mathematical descriptions (of what is observed), they do not constitute explanations. Further, laws are not the same as causes. Also there are many fields of science (like historical sciences) that don't need explanation through natural laws. Darwinism would also be ruled out as a "scientific theory" because "common descent" is not an "explanation" through natural laws. It is nothing but a hypothetical pattern that gives a historical account of certain data. In other words, "common descent," a past (hypothetical) historical event is doing the actual explanation (of the observed data), not any natural law. Mutational events are not observable as they are too slow to be observed out in the field. Also no mechanism is provided for actual transformation of a species to another. And the proposed mechanisms are not testable either. And that's aside the fact that Darwin's "warm little pond, the soup of life" is absent, so it can't be observed or subject to testable predictions. Also, most theoretical physics would have to be expelled from "science" because they are working with entities that can't be observed and many sciences have to infer the invisible from the visible, and they are always inventing new (and yet unobserved) particles, forces and fields as "theoretical explanations" (and these are not "natural law" but hypotheticals).
What we find in reality then is that there is some circular reason at work here, which involves a certain definition to ensure a favoured theory remains "scientific" when in reality, even by the criteria laid down for demarcation between what is "science" and "non-science", it fails. Basically, this is what they are saying: Listen up Schmuck! This is science because we've defined it to be so, so whatever does not fit into our definition is not science, now scram!. So in other words knowledge and truth which is "certain" is only what fits into this definition of science and everything else is speculation, not because it is speculation in and of itself, but because this particular definition of "science" has made it so, and this to anyone with sound reason, is pure baatil (falsehood). To show you the hypocrisy, when faced with the prospect that life is possible on earth because of dozens of physical or cosmological parameters are precisely calibrated, one example of which is the force of gravity which must be fine-tuned to 1 part in 1040 (according to them), and you have equally small values for the other parameters, how do arrogant atheists account for this? Easy, the multiverse theory, atheists can pull out multiple universes from their posteriors as quickly as you can blink, and next thing you know, with trillions and trillions of other universes besides ours, the probability of life somewhere (as in here) has magically been increased and it does not seem far-fetched after all. So there are an almost infinite number of universes, but ours just happened to be the one where all these parameters happened (by chance) to be at the values where life became possible. And this is treated as a "scientific theory." This, by their own standards is not "scientific", its actually a metaphysical belief that does not meet the demarcation criteria listed earlier. Are those universes observable? Testable? This is no different to saying, "God is behind this universe and all life in it." So what makes one scientific and the other a fairy-tale?
What we are pointing out then, is that science has been defined in a rigged way to automatically give "scientific status" to certain favoured theories over others and then to give the illusion that "science" has absolutely proven them and that there is "consensus" on these theories and so on. Of course there will be consensus where the boundaries have already been set upon a rigged definition. Unfortunately, many Muslims are conned by this, and after a three to seven year stretch in academia, they come out like Usamah, claiming "science cannot prove God" and "science is only what is falsifiable" and so on, so these people have been had for sure, they've had their minds toyed with, and both their fitrah and aql has been sand-papered (in some cases, to oblivion).
4.1 atheists and Believers
It is pertinent here to give a couple of illustrations so that we can apply the concepts we have laid down in whatever has preceded. We will use two: the origins of the universe and of course, the theory of evolution. These are chosen as they are directly connected to the saying of Allaah, "The creation of the heavens and the earth is indeed greater than the creation of mankind, yet most of mankind know not." (40:57, see also 79:27), and we discuss them in the same order as occurs in the verse, for a particular reason.
4.2 The Origins of the Universe
There is a conclusion reached by scientists that the universe had a beginning, and cosmologists and physicists generally agree upon that. Its point of origin is commonly referred to as "the Big Bang". This theory states that the matter of the universe was a single, dense, extremely hot mass which exploded and from this resulted the universe (and stars and planetary bodies) through expansion and cooling. This theory is not the only one though and it does have flaws.
Now, that this theory that it indicates the universe had a beginning is problematic. Why? Because if the universe had a beginning, that it had an originating cause naturally follows, because it is impossible for something to come out of nothing and for something to bring itself into existence from pure non-existence. Alarm bells ring. The connection between something having a beginning, being originated (muhdath) and what brought it about (muhdith) is intuitive and innate to the soul and to reason and it is corroborated through the collective human experience, in the sum of all human activity, that effects can't be their own causes. Universes don't bring themselves into existence from non-being and nor does dog poo mysteriously appear in parks all across the world through self-creation or non-cause. Add this to the issue of fine-tuning and you have a huge problem.
From this point on we can see how cosmologists, physicists, philosophers and their likes tried to treat this problem of the universe being finite (having a limit) in time. A lot of them, like Einstein, were operating on the assumption that the "blueprint for the cosmos" they were seeking would indicate the universe is eternal. That's why it is said that Einstein did not like an expanding universe (it implied that the universe was not eternal). These scientists were trying to find an "ultimate blueprint" for the universe which could be expressed in mathematical terms, to reduce it all into a single equation essentially. The "Big Bang theory" made that difficult and these physicists made attempts to get rid of the unwelcome implications. The atheist is in fact a faithful believer. The atheist has psychological reasons to believe in his theories, not rational ones, because the most obvious and plain theory (what is originated must have an originator) is the one he is trying to fight all the way through. It's constantly forcing him into a sweat. He's always having to change his underwear, and he's not getting too much sleep either.
From here, we can look at the way these people tried to tackle the awkward and huge problem staring them in the face. In fact, they are trying to deal with two major problems The first is getting around the problem of the universe having a beginning. We can't have that, it's only good for the "religious nutters". The second is to deal with the problem of the universe coming from what they refer to as a "singular mass." So where they want to lead to is to speak of the universe being eternal (solves the first one) and to try to get the universe to come out of nothing, and by nothing (solves the second one). So the belief and psychology comes first (kufr concealing the fitrah), then science is layered on top of it, not the other way around. Enter the likes of Stephen Hawkins and richard dawkins and all the other "sagacious believers" amongst the physicists, cosmologisits and so on. From what they brought in order to conceal, drown and fight the fitrah, aql and authentic naql includes:
- The universe was "self-creating" (tell a nine-year old child that the fridge in the kitchen self-created and check his or her response).
- There was a "sea of infinite potentiality" from which the universe came to be, just another way of saying "it came from nothing" with "infinite potentiality" being a way of fleeing from saying "it came from an originator." It's like saying the glass of water on the table came from of "sea of infinite potentiality" to avoid acknowledging that someone may just have put it there.
- "Parallel universes" [multiple realities] (Shrodinger's Cat!), meaning there are many worlds, which is a way to explain the problems they encountered in quantum mechanics, which is a field of science underlying quantum cosmology which is the "science" trying to explain where the universe came from and how it runs.
- Finding a "wave function" that runs through the entire cosmos to prove it came from nothing. It's just speculation, and this so called "wave function" can't be seen, measured, tested. This is "religion" disguised as "science."
- Our universe emerged from a much smaller universe called a "de Sitter" universe (which itself is eternal, or one of many universes)
- Aliens from another universe evolved (through a type of Darwinian evolution) to such an advance state they learned how to create universes, and after many attempts found a way to create one in which life became possible. These aliens then went around seeding life on planets. We are not taking the Michael here, some of these "religious nutters" do propose this as a plausible explanation. Many thanks obviously go to Hollywood for taking this mainstream and giving those atheists a helping hand. Fiction can be turned into fact through entertainment more easily than torturous papers in academic journals.
This is only a selection, and we are only limited by the rate at which these sagacious atheist believers are able to pull out theories from their posteriors in order to fight fitrah and aql.
Now, along comes Hawkins (the real smart dude in the wheelchair he wasn't always in), he is another sagacious believer who believes that the answer is "out there" and even if Spock never found it, someone eventually will. Here's Hawkins' deal, as in his method of trying to get rid of the universe having a beginning (and the very awkward implication that goes with it): As you move away from the "big bang", you speak of things taking place "after" one another. As you move towards it (i.e. go backwards in time) you speak of things taking place "before" one another. All of this leads back, according to the theory, to a single mass and a universe having a beginning in time (as per what is already known). There are mathematical schemes that are able to describe all of this (as in the physics of the universe as it goes backwards). Behind it all are clear mathematical equations that characterize these things and they are firmly determined and can't be altered, and they are based upon a fixed scheme of mathematics in which there is order. You can't change 1,2,3,4,5,6,7... into 5,3,7,2,1,4,6... because that is how things are. So Hawkins comes along and says that there was a point when we move back towards the "big bang" where the mathematical scheme of things changed into something else (from what we currenly know and have), into some imaginary (that means "fairy-tale") scheme of mathematics where things are not sequential and where we don't have a "before" and "after" (as we do in the mathematics and physics based upon real numbers). Bang! Pow! Whapp! Zappo! Holy Atomic Pile Batman! We've just got rid of the universe having a beginning. Now, there is no before, before a before. We're just swimming in an endless ocean of space and time [having physical mathematics different to ours where there is no "order" and "sense" and no "before" or "after"]. Next we can say this version of space-time has always been there, but at some point just happened to give way to a new scheme of physical mathematics that allows the universe (as it is now) to come to be.
Now that we've got rid of the "big bang" problem, as in "a beginning", the next part is to demote this universe and not make it so special at all. So it becomes just one grain of the billions of grains of sand in a beach, what's so special about that?! And that is the next part of the sagacious atheist believer's "science." When we add all of this together, the following is the atheists credo of quantum cosmology which by their particular definition of "science" has "scientific status":
Our universe emerged from a smaller circular mini-universe having space-time, its called a de Sitter universe and it existed in a place where there was no space and no time (as we know it). Ok, we know this is hard to understand and hard to believe, but that's just how it is, and you've got to believe it, because science is telling you so. This mini-universe did not come from anywhere, and you may find this hard to believe as well, but please, just have faith in it. And to reassure you, our "wave function" which helps to explain the cosmos says that this de Sitter universe was "probable, possible" (i.e. mumkin), so if it was "probable, possible" we can assume (with a bit of faith) that "it actually was." Now that we have given you solid proof (as in what has just preceded) that a de Sitter universe actually existed, what happened is that this de Sitter universe evolved into ours through inflation for no particular reason. These things happen.
The way all of this is arrived at is through circular reasoning, where you assume that a certain type of universe existed, and lo! your mathematical calculations show that the very type of universe you were looking for is actually there because it has been shown by your calculations to be "probable" and then you leap from "probable" and assume that it was "actual." You can understand now why Stephen Hawkings is a much liked figure amongst atheist philosophers, scientists and Darwinists. But as you can see, this is religion disguised as "science." It represents a more deeper issue of the battle against fitrah in the name of "science." What it really is, is kibr (arrogance, pride) juhood (rejection), inaad (stubborn denial) trying its best to conceal, cover and drown that fitrah and the aql sareeh (sound, uncorrupted reason) flowing from it, which are both in complete conformity with naql saheeh (sound authentic text).
There is also another approach we can speak of here which is that we mentioned earlier how scientists have determined around 30 or 40 odd cosmological constants or parameters which indicate an absolutely unfathomable degree of "fine tuning" in the universe, one that allows life to arise and exist. From them are the gravitational constant, the nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, the speed of light, and even ratios between these forces like the ratio of electromagentic force to gravitational force and so on, and they are fine-tuned to a flabbergasting degree of precision. This is also a big problem for the sagacious atheist believer because of the inevitable question: Who ordered all of this? And why O why do these laws follow such strict obedience? This is why we also see the race to find a single universal constant, to essentialy reduce the universe and make it as simple as possible and definable in a single universal equation or constant or wave function or whatever. The aim behind all of this activity is to disguise what fitrah and aql clearly recognize to be design and intelligent agency. Their "science" is all about making what is incredibly improbable, complex, to be not so special and not so improbable after all. So as we said before, this is the psychology of kufr, giving rise to a rigged type of "science", the aim of which is a ferocious war against fitrah, aql sareeh and naql saheeh. Behind it is money and politics and a world-view built upon this psychology permeates academia, giving an air of "consensus" in "scientific" matters. You only progress in the church of science by demonstrating your devotion to its credo.
We could go on and on, and start discussing string theories (again just another attempt to continue that "pursuit" of finding an answer besides the obvious) which require 10 dimensions, or 20, or 40, or even infinite dimensions (instead of three or four), until we come to a stage when these people started saying that there is something wrong with the universe, because our string theory is telling us so. In other words, because string theory does not fit the universe, the universe must be botched, because our theory can't be wrong. Hence, there must be multi-verses out there (i.e. gazillions of universes) and string theory accounts for all of them as a whole. And as for the laws of this universe (which don't fit with string theory), they are one miniscule aspect of gazillions of physical, mathematical possibilities that our string theory accounts for. If you noticed, we just entered the world of Peter Pan. So just like man was created through Darwinian Evolution, then likewise our universe (in which there is life) also came about through a type of "Darwinian Evolution." There's more and more - we don't want to put you through the expense of buying pop-corn - but you must have got the idea by now as to where the movie is going.
Finally, "quantum cosmology" (i.e. the "science" that deals with the problem of the universe) is not an observational science and relies upon the creative invention of lots of unseen particles and forces and includes a lot of mathematical metaphysics.
Please note the difference between hard physics that deals in real things and between the "quantum cosmology" and its creative speculative theories that could well be used for a modern edition of the Brother's Grimm Galactic Fairy Tales.
4.3 The Origins of Man
If you are perceptive enough, you will be able to extend the observations about the origins of the universe and the way scientists and philosophers have tried to tackle it, to the issue of the origins of man and the way Darwinism has been used for the same purpose. You should get the idea now of how the psychology of kufr is operating against fitrah and aql, under the guise of "science." Darwinism is playing the same role for man as the roles that all those theories and explanations [that emerge from the posteriors of atheists] play for the universe - all in order to escape from the conclusions demanded by fitrah and aql, by what the collective human experience necessitates, in all of its day to day activity (the muhdath requires by necessity a muhdith). But there is a difference. In Darwinism, things are a bit more concrete and there isn't the luxury of the magical act of producing new theories. They're pretty much stuck with "natural selection" working on "random mutations". Hence, the field of "scientific" activity of the sagacious Darwinian believer is restricted to only two things. The fossil record and genetics, which feed into the ideas of speciation and transitions. Biological Darwinians must envy the physicists. Physicists have long been able to pull theories from nowhere and make them believable [through complex language to make them appear all scientific of course]. The Darwinists are not so lucky. They are stuck with natural selection upon random mutations. That's why its all or nothing. It simply must work. It is also why the idea is defended with a vengeance, despite the fact that it is nonsensical, has little evidence and consists of empty assumptions with irrelevant evidence and the purported evidence is never forthcoming. The fossil record flatly contradicts Darwinian Evolution, that's why you see little mention of the "Cambrian explosion" in the textbooks. These days there are biological "big bang" theories where diverse species suddenly show up at advanced levels of complexity, in stark contradiction to Darwin's "transitions", the claimed tree-pattern (of Darwin) can't be reconciled with the actual facts on the ground. The use of "intermediate forms" is just word play. You can create any theory by invoking imaginary "intermediate forms." Random mutations have not produced much in millions of fruit of flies which always remain as fruit-flies. Six thousand years of breeding (artifical selection) within domestic and farm animals and they appear to be the same, and no bacterial species has changed into another. Has "natural selection" been measured, tested, observed? What exactly is it? Computer simulations trying to demonstrate natural selection through random mutations are rigged, they require intelligent intervention for them to be considered successful. Darwinism is a theory lacking facts, facts that are promised to appear soon, but never turn up and in reality it is just "a creation myth" which tries to explain the origin of life by saying "nature created it". Essentially, the qualities which have always been given to God, were just given to "nature." Hence, we see evangelical religious nutters like richard dawkins on a life-long mission to promote the astounding creative ability of "natural selection", yes, these religious atheist fanatics believe in a god, they just call in "natural selection", except that their god does not have any will (iraadah), nor knowledge (ilm)... and so on.
Now we don't want to make this any longer than is necessary. We can simply explain how fitrah and aql would interpret the fossil record, genetics and the diversity in species, broadly speaking:
The fossil record, molecular cell biology and knowledge of genetics, DNA etc. all collectively indicate - [through extrapolation from the collective experience of the entirety of humanity in terms of the basic principles upon which all their activitites are based, that whatever is originated must have an originating agent, and that detection of the past activity of an intelligent agent is easily deduced from the presence of artifacts and remnants; and through the same standards of evidence used in disciplines such as all forensic and historical sciences] - that by necessity there is an originator for all living things, and that both the diversity and homology (resemblance) in things, indicate a sole originator. That this originator is also known to be one by virtue of the fact that we see a uniform design in all living things (DNA), and that this uniformity indicates a masterful creator with far-reaching wisdom because each living thing or species is made to be of benefit to another in terms of sustenance (or otherwise), and thus its biological structure, mechanisms, must allow its desired purpose in that (other entity) for which it is of benefit (and serves as sustenance) to be realized. Thus we see that small cell organisms are sustenance for higher level organisms, and we can continue all the way up the heirarchy of beings until we come to man. All have similar underlying code and biological constitution and mechanisms because there is an interdependence, we see each and every thing has its sustenance, "There is no creature except [that the provision] of its sustenance is upon Allaah" (11:6). We see similarity in genetic information and the expression of proteins, enzymes, and other molecules etc. between species because there is an interdependence of sustenance between them all, with humans being at the top of the heirarchy, and all things are subjected to his use. We see resemblance, in large or small amounts, between species, and this is because species resemble each other in the habitat, environment, food that they share. Hence, similarity in the DNA and genetic code. Further, all creatures exist in nations and communities, just like we do, and hence, the similarity in the underlying code that provides the propensity, adaptability, dynamicity that living, survivng and propagating in such contexts and environments requires. It is sounder in reason to assert that all of this came from a single, masterful, originator, because of the sheer complexity, ingenuity, skill and mastery that one cannot fail to notice, than to assert it came through undirected natural processes labelled as "natural selection" acting upon "random mutations."
Now, we could make a much larger meal out of this one, like we did above with the origin of the universe, but if you have got your head screwed on right, by now you should be able to extrapolate and understand what is going on. Basically, we have a religion which is founded on aversion to fitrah (and aql). It is founded upon a psychological state, then given legitimacy through rigged definitions of "science", the tool of inquiry used to feed into that psychological state chosen by that "sinful lying forelock". "Science doesn't do God" it's proclaimed, "And when their Messengers brought them clear proofs, they exulted in the knowledge they possessed" (40:83). It is not because science can't do God, it's because science is rigged so as to remove it from the domain of what is necessitated by uncorrupted fitrah and sound, uncorrupted reason.
So the con continues and Darwinians, like their physicist and philosophical counterparts from the hosts of Iblees are chasing that elusive universal theory, that equation (that can do away with the "beginning" of the universe). Likewise, that missing link, that transitional form, and trying to get around the fact that most mutations are neutral or detrimental and couldn't possibly explain the origin and diversity of life and so on, to all the other questions which increase by the day as we learn more and more that we know less and less. All of this is hardcore religion. It is faith in the existence of an answer, this answer is their deity in truth, and it is what they are pursuing and living for. Now again, we could have said a lot more here and really put the boot in good and proper in the issue of Evolution and make a mockery of it all, but this article's length is limited by the database field so it can't get much longer. Perhaps we can deal with Darwinism in detail in a separate article. Our point here has been to simply highlight what is really going on at a much higher level. Sometimes it's hard to see things for what they are because things are in your nose and you can't see the whole complete picture, unless you stand back a mile or go up a mile.
The aim in this article was to show that there is not really an issue of "science" and "non-science" that is just word-play, a matter of definition, it is a side issue, a diversion, smoke and mirrors. The real issue, as in what is really going on, is the desperate attempt to flee from the obvious conclusion as necessitated in fitrah and aql upon the sum total of human observation into the horizons (of the universe) and into the human self, "We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'an) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?" (41:53). All scientific inquiry into the origins of the univers and the origins of man is founded upon the psychological need to find answers other than the ones which are obvious and necessitated by the same logic, inference and reason used in the sum of all human activity. Scientific atheism is a religion which has carved out its own tools and is constantly on the quest for that elusive answer which is never forthcoming. Unfortunately, many Muslims, after having been through secular institutions, have had their thoughts and perceptions polluted and they don't realize what the bigger picture is. For this reason, we sincerely advise all Muslims to be cautious and not to be deceived by the great amount of arrogance and deception at play, and the so called claims of consensus, and advise them to give serious study to the Islamic aqidah, to gain a thorough firm grounding in it before they embark upon studies in secular institutions, where there is an incessant war against fitrah and aql in the arena of the two most biting questions, the origin of the universe and the origin of man.
- Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 7: Fitrah, Aql, Naql, Science and the Origin of the Universe and Man
- Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 6: Usamah's Lecture 'Islam and the Theory of Evolution'
- Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 5: Takdheeb of Allah and His Messenger Can be Excused Through the Angle of Ta'weel and Ijtihaad?
- Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 4: Scholars Verdicts on Belief in Darwinism
- Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 3: Looking at Usamah's Citations of Evidence
- Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 2: Analyzing the Merger Between Darwinism and the Qur'an
- Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 1: General Observations