All articles from website AboutAtheism.

net in one file (Collected on 21 Rabi Al-Awwal 1435 Which corresponds to 22 January 2014|)

Understanding the Two Definitions of 'Science' in Operation

There are two definitions of science which are in operation. The first definition of science is "observation, theorization, experimentation, collection of data, and making inferences and explanations with impartiality." This is a standard definition of science (though not the only one) and the process it represents is one from which, in a modern-context, we gain an understanding of the material world that allows us to produce cars, washing-machines, airplanes, medicine and so on and it includes investigating causes and effects and the special properties of things. This "scientific method" has been applied and harnessed to allow the beneficial interests of humankind to be realized and safeguarded through a gradual understanding of the system of interconnected causes and effects. The first definition of sciencepresupposes and affirms order, regularity and rationality in the universe. The natural disposition of humans is imprinted with this affirmation. (Read "Humans May Be Primed to Believe in Creation" see here). The second definition is "the explanation of all phenomena through natural, materialistic causes only." This is really a philosophical assertion, that only natural causes exist (because the universe is considered to be an closed system of material causes and effects without outside influence). Providing material explanations (of causes and effects) in the study of the world is not really an issue and does not clash with the Islamic understanding of how the universe or life operates, since affirmation of the ways and means and causes and effects and of the inherent properties in things that collectively comprise the "natural causes" is established in the revealed texts and is agreed by the majority of Muslims (see here, and here). So up until this point, we can accept such materialistic explanations. This is not even in dispute. However, the real intent behind this second definition of science goes beyond what we have just mentioned. it is to creditnature (physical law and random events acting upon matter) with an illusion of design that we allegedly observe when we explore and study life and the universe, and then to consider this the only "rational explanation" that must underpin all scientific enquiry. From here arises Dawkins' "blind-watchmaker", "mountain of improbability" and Hawkin's "nothing" (which is really "a law of gravity") from which "the universe can and will create itself" and so on, where we move away from empirical science and instead to

"metaphysical belief." These explanations arise and are demanded by the prior commitment to naturalism which is concealed in this second definition of science. Materialistic explanations of phenomena do not clash with orthodox Islamic belief, since orthodox Sunni Muslims (as opposed to heterodox sects such as the Ash'aris) affirm causes and effects and the inherent properties of things. Underpinning this matter is the discussion of a theological subject known as () , the issue of wisdom,purpose, causation and justification in both nature ( ) and law () . We shall elaborate upon this in more detail in separate articles, but here, it should be understood, contrary to the assumption of naturalists, that there is no conflict with materialistic, naturalistic explanations of phenomena and Islamic belief. This is because the affirmation of causes, their effects and the inherent properties of things is a foundational matter of belief for orthodox Sunni Muslims. The real issue is whether the study of a universe within which are interconnected causes and effects and entities with unique inherent properties (and thus materialist descriptions and explanations of what is observed) logically and rationally excludes the existence of a creative power that lies outside of it and is responsible for it. And the answer to that is no. Anyone who claims "yes" then it is his philosophy speaking not science, since affirmation of natural causes does not eliminate the question of how those causes came to be and operate in a law-like fashion. A further difficulty for naturalists is that if they adhere strictly to this second definition of science, they cannot make out-of-realm conclusions or metaphysical claims such as "God does not exist." This would demonstrate their contradiction and hypocrisy. This is because naturalists have asserted that all causes (to explain natural phenoma) must be purely naturalistic and locally explained (you can't have an agent acting from afar on local causes), and there can be no final (objective) goals, as in, any purposes behind the causes so identified and being studied. However, the sum whole of human experience, proves that there is certainly purpose, reason and wisdom in what we observe (such as in the clouds, the winds, the rain, alternation of night and day and all other interconnected ways and means) just like the sum of human industrial and technological enterprise proves purpose, reason and wisdom in the artefacts (washing machines, cars, airplanes) arising therefrom. However, the aim of this (second) definition is to avoid discussions of origins and final goals of cause-effect systems and to just focus on a material description of the cause-effect system itself. As long as your conclusions remain within what this field of activity defined in this way allows, then there is actually no problem at all with this definition. But as we said, the atheists and naturalists have a religion to argue for and hence, they load into this second definition of science their

metaphysical, religious beliefs and display the greatest of hypocrisy, contradiction and deficiency in intellect when they say "there is no evidence for God in the natural world". I really hope you just got the point in the last sentence and note how they are construct an argument against a creator upon mere definition and word play, not through actual science (as defined in the first way). The intent behind mentioning this - and it is something to always keep in mind - is that when these atheist materialists claim science and adherence to the scientific method, we have to make this distinction so as to clearly understand the reality of where they are coming from, and not be fooled by their claim that they are following the scientific methodwhen it comes to origin of the universe and origin of life. Rather, they are holding a prior belief in naturalism, then using that to generate theories and then attempting to use the scientific method to validate those theories instead of using the scientific method upon a clean slate to lead to unbiased conclusions. Consider this: Using the scientific method (the first definition) establishes empirically, according to them, that the universe began. Pay attention here, this is known to them through the first definition of science. But, prior commitment to naturalism forces theories which try to undermine this view and its implications. This is what atheist scientists and Philosophers have been attempting and they have to bring stories dictated to them by their naturalism. Stories of oscillating universes, multiverses, self-creation and so on to make this universe insignificant or eternal. Here we have the second definition of science in operation and we are deceived into thinking that this is "true science" when in reality its just a back-door for a metaphysical naturalistic belief to tinker with the actual hard science which to them has established something atheists are troubled by. At the same time these naturalistic beliefs they propose cannot be considered scientific by the first definition of science, since they cannot directly put the core elements of these metaphysical beliefs through the scientific method upon that definition. The same can be said about origins of life, and that can be illustrated separately in other articles. The key thing here is to understand how things are running. This is just one element of many that needs to be understood to deconstruct the naturalistic religion parading as objective scientific inquiry. Regarding naturalistic causes it is important to understand that Muslims affirm them and they create no issues at all, refer to these two articles for more on the subject: Ibn Taymiyyah on the Affirmation of Natural (Material) Causes and the creed of the Naturalists (see here) and Ibn Al-Qayyim on the Affirmation of Material Causes, Forces, and Inherent Properties of Things (see here) Written by Ab Iyd on 23/12/1434H (28/10/2013CE)

Richard Dawkins: Only the 'Appearance' of 'Design for Purpose': The Billion Pound Brain Project

Note: It's a prerequisite that you understand the article "Understanding the Two Definitions of 'Science' in Operation" (see here) in order to fully appreciate what follows below. You should also note here that due to a particular understanding of how life and the universe were ordered and arranged, crude arguments from design (such as Paley's Watch) were considered to have been discredited by Philosophers like David Hume (d. 1776CE). However with the advancement in the fields of cosmology and molecular biology over the past fifty years, those arguments have now been shown to bepremature and teleological (design) arguments are becoming increasingly difficult to undermine. This is especially so as we come to realize and understand that it is "information" that is behind life (in all living cell-based organisms) and not the physical "matter" of DNA which is simply a medium for coding, carrying, conveying and propagation of information. Thus, whilst speculative explanations might be provided for the emergence of the elements that make up life (biological molecules), there is only one possible explanation for the information carried in those molecules which is clearly independent of physical laws and comprises a layer of abstraction that cannot be accounted for through mere matter alone. It necessitates a "knower" by rational necessity. The argument from design ( ) is a valid method in establishing the existence of a maker who possesses the attributes ofknowledge (ilm), will (iraadah), power (qudrah) and wisdom (hikmah) and no level of mockery and ridicule thrown at it actually invalidates it. In a separate article we will cite the basis for this from Islamic texts. The calculated mockery and sarcasm and doublespeak used against this argument is really to conceal its clarity and its great power. Many atheists openly admit it is the biggest problem standing in front of their faces, and its why they start imagining "illusions" which betray their sensory perceptions. The brain consists of around a hundred billion nerve cells and several hundred trillion interconnections. It is an "ultimate, unreplicable super-computer" and aside from its

functions that help maintain life, it is designed to manage feelings and emotions and to think, reflect and make choices. Orthodox Islamic scholars explain that both the brain and the heart collectively provide the faculties of emotion and intelligence, through which man knows, reflects, desires and makes choices. "The origin of observation and reflection is in the brain and the origin of desire (iraadah) is in the heart... and all of that begins in the brain (then going to the heart, with desire stemming from the heart) and then its effects rise up to the brain, and thus it originates with the brain and ends back with the brain." (Ibn Taymiyyah in Risalah Fi al-Ruh wal-Aql, p. 54). According to Richard Dawkin's the brain (a biological system) only "appears" to be "designed for purpose", an obviously false claim, it is designed for purpose in the view of all reasonable people whose faculties of sensory perception do not suffer illusions. However Dawkins has a mental and psychological problem in that he cannot trust his own senses, he sees design and then it becomes only illusory. The innate disposition (see article), sensory perception and reason of all humankind inclines towards the view that design (by its very definition and application) is always deliberate and intended, and thus they cannot escape from giving teleological answers to describe what is observed. In fact not even Dawkins can escape from using teleological language (see article, at very end). In trying to escape from this obvious self-evident reality, a broad, large-scale war is in effect against the identification of design and purpose in what we observe of living things (a matter which is plainly obvious), and the ridicule of anyone (and everyone) who unfortunately sees "design" and "purpose." Hence, people like Dawkins are very careful to use words such as "illusion" "appearance" of design and attributes it to "blind forces" and "undirected processes", so as not to affirm actual design which by definition requires a knowing, willing, able agent - which clashes with the religion of the naturalist, materialist. So the real question is, to what or whom can actual "design" and "purpose" be ascribed? And all people of sound intellect will say "to a knowing () , willing () , able ( ) agent", and that is by definition and it is a rational necessity and the most basic and elementary form of intuition. The article below is an interesting one through which some of the points just made can be further illustrated. A related article is "Humans May Be Primed to Believe in Creation" - (see here) which you should also read in conjunction with this one. The Billion-Pound Brain Project To the right is recent news article published on the BBC website (original). Its a 10-year long project dealing with neuroscience, aiming to "understand" the human brain.

Scientists (thousands of them) are from 135 institutions, and a sizeable majority of them will probably share the view of Richard Dawkins that biological systems only give the "appearance" of "design for purpose." Billions are being pumped into this project. It aims to first develop the technology needed just to create a simulation. The technology has to be first created and this type of creation requires knowledge (ilm), will (mashee'ah) and power (qudrah). These hundreds of scientists will be designing and creating this technology for a purpose. The Human Brain Project is an attempt to build completely new computer science technology... The scientists involved accept that current computer technology is insufficient to simulate complex brain function. But within a decade, supercomputers should be sufficiently powerful to begin the first draft simulation of the human brain. This project has been likened to the Human Genome Project, The HBP can be viewed as the neuroscience equivalent of the Human Genome Project, which involved thousands of scientists around the world working together to sequence our entire genetic code. That took more than a decade and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. In the genome project, thousands of scientists used "advanced technology" to sequence the complex "operating systems" and "information processing systems" that run cell operations enabling life. A fair share of them who are committed to Materialism probably felt very proud of such a great achievement and of the knowledge, skill and wisdom they demonstrated in the task. Yet alongside that they deny any knowledge, skill and wisdom behind what they studied. But hold on... ...whereas that involved mapping every one of the three billion base pairs found in every cell that make up our entire genetic code, the Human Brain Project will not be able to map the entire human brain. It's simply too complex. The brain has around 100 billion neurons, or nerve cells and 100 trillion synaptic connections. Instead the project aims to build a variety of computer simulations. Scientists at the University of Manchester are building a model which will mimic 1% of brain function. All this sophisticated technology, designed and created by intelligent, knowing,willing, purpose-

driven, wisdom-seeking humans will only be able to mimic 1% of brain function which came about through "random processes through the blind forces of physics mimicking design" and not through a knowing, willing, all-wise, all-powerful agent. The technology needed to study the entity (the brain) was designed and created for a purpose but the actual entity being studied (the brain) by its own like (the brains of the scientists involved) came about through undirected processes and only gives the appearance of design for purpose? Steve Furber is then cited, I've spent my career building conventional computers and I've seen their performance grow spectacularly. Yet they still struggle to do things that humans find instinctive. Even very young babies can recognise their mothers but programming a computer to recognise a particular person is possible but very hard. To get computers to recognize people requires complex "programming" and even then it's very hard. But what is the real reason why this project has been given so much funding and importance? The scientists believe unlocking those secrets would yield major benefits in information technology, with the advent of so-called neuromorphic computers machines which learn like the brain. It is to design and create (for a purpose of course) more sophisticated neuromorphic computers which learn like the brain. But Professor Makram makes it even more clear, With this knowledge we could produce computer chips with specialised cognitive skills that mimic those of the human brain, such as the ability to analyse crowds, or decision-making on large and complex datasets. So that we can produce (design and create for a purpose) computer chips withspecialised cognitive skills, ability, analyse, decision-making. Now, that an entity created with these features is concrete evidence in and of itself for the (attributes of) knowledge, ability, will and power of its creator (whose existence thereby is also established by necessity) is axiomatic (self-evident) and a rational necessity (that does not even require experimentation). There is not a single atheistic argument that invalidates the previous sentence. "If nature is so 'clever' as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world's finest minds can unravel only with

difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings of nature are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?" (P. Davies in Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory, 1984, p. 235). Note that many atheists who make the likes of these remarks of plain admission still try to find ways to ascribe this to "nature" or "physical law" and flee from the obvious.

In the inset column to the article we read something astounding, But it will require an exaflop computer - 10 times more powerful that the Chinese supercomputer running at full potential - to even begin to simulate real-time brain activity. It is thought the first exaflop computer, capable of a billion billion calculations per second will be developed within a few years. But using current technology a computer that powerful would require much of the output from a power station. By

contrast the human brain needs just 30 watts; the energy to run a light bulb. A human brain needs only the energy of a light bulb to operate whereas the billion pound brain would require a huge power station, and even then it can only do 1% of what the brain does. Richard Dawkins, the militant atheists and hundreds of thousands of apparently intelligent scientists believe the brain was not "designed and created for a purpose" by a knowing, willing, able, powerful being. Rather, it was created by random, blind, undirected processes. They claim that this is rational and to suggest otherwise is irrational! All of their sayings ultimately reduce to rationally nonsensical claims, tautologies or contradictions such as "life was created by nature", or "matter organizes itself to create intelligent things", or "entities create themselves." No sound and rational mind can deny that there is definitely "design" and "creation" in what we observe. We see events of creation (or transformation) taking place around us all the time. From sperm and ovum to embryo to fetus to human, from seed to flower and plant and fruit, from egg to larva to pupa to butterfly - and underlying all of these processes is information, prescriptive information carried through the medium of DNA in genes. No sound, intelligent, honest, reasonable person can deny "design" and "creative process" in what is observed. The dispute is really about to whom or to what is this obvious design and creation ascribed. Atheists ascribe design and creation of that which is greater (the human brain) to chance ("random undirected processes") and necessity ("laws of the universe") and they ascribe the design and creation of that which is inferior (technology for the billion pound brain project) to their ownknowledge, wisdom, will, desire and power and they boast and feel proud of their achievement. This indicates that inferring a designer from undeniable evidence of design is a rational necessity. It is a self-evident truth. Faced with this, atheists like Dawkins, due to their prior commitment to naturalism, offer the following in order to undermine what is actual design and then ascribe the "illusion of design" to undirected processes. (in The Blind Watchmaker): "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results ofNatural Selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design" and also "All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their

interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural Selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose at all." Note that the explanatory power of "natural selection acting upon random mutations" is being challenged and is becoming an increasingly discredited assertion in explaining the entire process of evolution. Evolutionary scientists are trying to move away from the "modern synthesis" as it is called to a more broader "extended" theory in order to provide more explanatory power. Putting this to one side, the point here is that a prior commitment to naturalism is what has forced this explanation from people like Dawkins, its the only logical explanation if you commit to naturalism. Blind physical, purposeless forces of nature create what appears to be designed. Thereafter "science" is defined very narrowly to exclude anything that is not based on this belief. (next pics been cut in separate pieces in order to be presented in full)

Note: It is impossible to account for the brain through "natural selection acting upon random mutations" as there is not enough time (2 billion years) to allow such an organ to develop through that mechanism (through random undirected processes acting on chance mutations). This realization has dawned upon many in the scientific world and that is why you will see these evolutionists differing with each other about how best to move evolutionary theory forward. The views of blind-followers of neo-Darwinism (like

Dawkins) are being critiqued by others who are focusing on alternative explanations for diversity, away from thegene-centric theory and they speak of "self-organization" or "symbiosis." It should also be understood that there is a "Darwinian Evolutionist Religion" which has its "High Priests" and dissenting voices will be quickly disciplined. This is why other competing or even non-competing naturalistic theories to the modern synthesis (natural selection with random mutations) are finding a hard time in gaining (funding), acceptance and sway and their proponents are often ridiculed and characterassassinated publicly in the press and in journals. Many are proposing a new extended evolutionary synthesis which moves away from a gene-centric view. This is because they recognize and know for sure that "natural selection acting on random mutations" simply cannot explain the diversity in life. It is probabilistically unfeasible and practically impossible and undemonstrable and all real-life examples they bring to justify this religion are examples of adaptation within a species type, a form of evolution which no-one denies in any case. It is the extrapolation from these clearly observable adaptations and changes to the grand "blind watchmaker thesis" (blind, random, directionless, purposeless processes created living diversity) that is the subject of contention and differences about this have appeared even amongst evolutionists themselves as has preceded, as many of them challenge the explanatory power of this thesis. Written by Ab Iyd on 05/12/1434H (10/10/2013CE)

Humans May Be Primed to Believe in Creation

Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Corroboration and affirmation of a Maker is firmly-rooted in the hearts of all men and jinn, it is from the binding necessities of their creation, necessary with respect to them..." (Dar' al-Ta'aarud 8/482). And "Affimation of a Creator and His (absolute) perfection is fitriyy (innate) and dhurooriyy (necessary) with respect to one whose innate disposition remains intact (safe), even though alongside [such an affirmation] it has many (other) evidences for it (as well), and often when the innate disposition is altered or in certain situations that arise (affecting this innate disposition), many people may be in need of such (other) evidences." (Majmu al-Fataawaa 6/73). AlRaghib al-Asfahani said, "A generalized knowledge of Allaah, the Exalted (the Maker) is

firmly-rooted in the soul, and it is the knowledge of every person that he is made (produced)..." (al-Dharee'ah p. 199). There is an innate and intuitive element inherent in every person that automatically recognizes the rational intelligibility of the universe. For this reason, not even an atheist can escape using teleological language in describing life and the universe. This innate, intuitive element is known as the fitrah and it has been alluded to in the Islamic texts ( ( ) 30:30). Ibn Taymiyyah said, "The basic foundation of the knowledge of a maker is innate and necessary. It is more deeply rooted in the souls than elementary knowledge of math such as our saying "one is half of two" and elementary knowledge of natural reality such as our saying "a body cannot be in two places at the same time." (Majmu' al-Fatawa 2/15-16). As an example, when Richard Dawkins says, "The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machinecapable of writing a book" then Dawkins knows deep in his psyche that what is organized, with intricate architecture and precision-engineering is proof-positive of a precise, organizing architect, one just follows from the other by innate, intuitive and rational necessity. However, man may have reasons to escape uncomfortable conclusions, and these reasons can be many, wealth, status, arrogance and so on. As a consequence he belittles his intelligence, betrays his innate intuition and pursues blind watchmakers and mountains of improbability, and rather than accept that it is more reasonable and sounder in intellect to accept that what is designed comes from the actions of a designer than it is to accept that what is designed comes from blind, purposeless, random, directionless events, he considers it the other way around. For neither intuition (fitrah), nor sensory perception (hiss) or reason (aql) allow preference of the latter over the former. However, through question-begging activities, all atheists operate on the presumption of naturalism, materialism being the only truth, and from this starting point philosophical and scientific activity is used to justify this prior metaphysical assertion. In doing so, they betray their innate intuitive cognitive faculty yet despite attempts to conceal and drown it, that innate intuition still pierces through nevertheless in the (teleological) language they are forced to use to describe life and the universe. So whilst their sensory and intuitive faculties see clear design, their arrogance (prior commitment to materialism) forces it to become an "illusion" and "appearance" only. It is from this starting pointthat naturalist theories are offered.

Humans May Be Primed to Believe in Creation To the right is a New Scientist article published in March 2009 and is one of a series of articles that appeared regarding the belief in a creator being "hard-wired" or "innate" to

humans. You have to read many of these articles very carefully to pick out things which are hidden or are between the lines, especially the subtle bias, assumption as fact, dismissal of fact and false arguments of appeal to authority to explain away or belittle what the uncomfortable findings indicate. The article starts out by an observation from study leader Deborah Kelemen, "collegeeducated adults frequently agree with purpose-seeking yet falseexplanations of natural phenomena." So we are dealing here with reasonably educated and intelligent adults who despite having been previouly taught that Darwinian evolution explains life, they frequently agree with purpose-seeking explanations of natural phenomena. Notice her qualification "...yet false..." more on this later but for now note the fact that just because (in the design of the experiment) a false purpose is suggested for a particular phenomenon does not mean that there is no identifiable meaningful purpose at all for that phenomenon. To argue that adults agreed with purpose-seeking yet false explanations does not mean no valid purpose seeking explanations exist in reality, as this depends on the way you have designed the experiment in the first place. Then we read, Kelemen has documented the same kind of erroneous thinking - called promiscuous teleology - in young children. Seven and eight-year olds agree with teleological statements such as "Rocks are jagged so animals can scratch themselves" and "Birds exist to make nice music". These mistakes diminish as kids take more science classes and learn causal explanations for natural events. Of course, you can see what is going on here. Plant deliberately false "purpose-seeking" explanations and then extrapolate from these results that test subjects agreed with false explanations and then label this as "promiscuous teleology." On the other hand if you asked them "bats have the ability to produce soundwaves so that they can navigate" and "some fish produce antifreeze proteins to prevent them from freezing" and so on where there are clearly identified purpose-sought explanations which are valid and true, then whether a person answered right or wrong would not change the fact that humans are ingrained to find purpose in things and that there are indeed purposes in things. Deborah Kelemen would not be engaging in her study unless she was after a purpose-seeking explanation. However, this causes a problem because it means that purposes have to be ascribed to something. A purpose implies knowledge,will and power and this cannot be ascribed to mere matter or to random mutations or to Natural Selection, because this

simply reduces to making nature the creator and giving creation attributes that belong to a masterful creator. Propaganda Now here is where it gets a bit more interesting and where we can see blatant propaganda and falsification. The article author writes, A first round of experiments suggested that adults make more teleological mistakes when pressed for time than when not. Yet Kelemen and Rosset also noticed that no matter how much time they had, test subjects tended to endorse false statements implying that the Earth is designed and maintained for life. "The earth has an ozone layer in order to protect it from UV rays", for instance. By teleological mistakes they mean that you see design in something when it is not there or was not intended as such. So these subjects endorsed "false statements" implying that the Earth is designed and maintained for life. Stating this, the article writer (and study leaders) in turn imply that the Earth is notdesigned and maintained for life a proposition that is known to be false through all three human faculties of intuition, sensory perception and reason. The example they gave is "The earth has an ozone layer in order to protect it from UV rays" - now you can Google "purpose of ozone layer" and you will find that the Earth's layer does in fact have an identifiable "purpose", which is to protect life from being harmed by UV rays, according to Wikipedia, "Although the concentration of the ozone in the ozone layer is very small, it is vitally important to life because it absorbs biologically harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation coming from the sun." Now that there is clearly-identifiable purpose being served by the ozone layer, does it imply it was designed as such? This is where the battle lies. The innate disposition of humans leads them and forces them, as this study shows - even when indoctrinated with contrary ideas or doctrines - to find purpose and design in things. This is labeled as "teleological promiscuity" to tell us its wrong and "child-like." Blame it on Education Failure The author writes, People continued to agree with false teleological statements, particularly those that endorsed an Earth intended for life. But non-believers were just as likely to make these errors as religious students, they found. Education goes only so far in extinguishing

mistaken beliefs about the physical world, Keleman says. "It suggests that we're quite explicitly failing in science education, certainly with these undergraduates." Now its revealed that even non-believers were just as likely to "make these errors" as religious students. So it has nothing to do with religious belief as such, but more to do with something hard-wired in the human psyche. Keleman laments and says education has explicitly failed. In other words even materialist indoctrination is not able to erase this natural tendency. Hence, despite indoctrination through the education system upon a Darwinian explanation for the origin of life, the natural tendency still comes through, even in non-religious people. Then the author of the article writes: "What her work suggests is that the creationist side has a huge leg up early on because it fits our natural tendencies," says Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University. "It has implications for why most people on earth are creationists, I think." In the Qur'an, this is referred to as ( ) , the innate dispositionupon which humankind is created, (30:30) and in the Prophetic tradition this is further epxlained, "Every child is born upon a state of innate disposition[inclined to recognize a masterful creator to which devotion is due exclusive to what he created]." But Bloom admits: For this reason, it's not surprising that non-religious, college-educated adults fall back on purpose-seeking explanations. Many people have little understanding of evolution and instead view it as a cultural belief, thinking: "'I'm a good secular liberal, I'm no yokel, I believe in Darwin,'" Bloom says. He also wonders if extensive science education could blunt the tendency to fall back on teleological explanations. "It might turn out that if you put Richard Dawkins or Einstein or whomever [to the test], no matter how expert or educated they are, they might still make these mistakes." In other words, "were not sure that extensive science education" meaning indoctrination with Darwinian evolution and atheistic, materialist world views, "could blunt the tendency to fall back on teleological explanations" meaning, could blunt (stop) the innate disposition of humankind to seek ultimate purpose in things and to fall back to belief in a creator through "design for purpose" explanations. Keleman and Booth,seem to be dismayed that despite extensive brainwashing and indoctrination in materialist philosophies and ideas of origins of life, the human psyche will always find design and purpose.

Closing Note That there is design and purpose in what is observed is the most evident, apparent truth and this is evidenced by intuition, sensory perception and sound reason. The entire body of all scientific research, analysis, description of natural phenomena, when one analyzes the words and terms used, indicates design and purpose. This is a self-evident truth no matter how much it is ridiculed, vilified and mocked through the use of degrading labels. As an exercise, go to PubMed, pick out 1000 random abstracts (out of millions) and choose all the words and terms used by authors to describe what they see in the phenomena (or living things or processes) they are studying and then answer the question: Are they using language that implies design and purpose in what they are studying? And could they help but use any other language? It is very obvious to all people of reason and honesty that this is the case. In fact, to use such language is inescapable. Not even atheist scientists can avoid it. This is because of the rational intelligibility and investigability of the universe and life. The human psyche innately recognizes order and design. The issue now is, what is this design ascribed to? The innate disposition (what Keleman and Booth are commenting upon) predisposes humans to believe that it is an all-knowing, masterful unique creator. Not even extensive scientific education may be able to blunt or erase this tendency. In fact, according to the authors, even Dawkins and Einstein many not escape "teleological promiscuity." In fact take a look at Dawkins' statements on the cover and at the beginning of The Blind Watchmaker (emphasis added): Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because itdoes not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of Natural Selectionoverwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design. Note the words used, no foresight, no plan of consequences, no purpose, everything is an appearance and illusion of design (and purpose). The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture andprecisionengineering into a working machine capable of writing a book.

Whilst trying to reject teleological explanations (evidence of design in things), even Dawkins cannot escape using language that is clearly indicative of evidence of design and purpose. So the issue comes back down to this: Dawkins believes that if a watch was found on the beach, its arguable that it was made by a blind man (Natural Selection), not a seeing man, and since he has now proposed a theory for how the watch came to be (a blind man made it), there is no need to rely upon explanations through a seeing man who had design and purpose in mind. Because the purely blind forces of the blind man's actions (lacking intent, design, purpose, direction) can sufficiently explain the presence of the watch and "apparent" and "illusion" of design in the watch and hence anyone who asserts that a knowing, willing, able, purpose-driven watchmaker made the watch is ignorant and possibly even "wicked." ( ) , "That is their sum of knowledge" (53:30)! Note: Prior to fifty years ago crude arguments from design (such as Paley's Watch) were considered to have been discredited by Philosophers like David Hume (d. 1776CE). However with the advancement in the fields of cosmology and molecular biology over the past fifty years, those arguments have now been shown to be premature and teleological arguments are becoming increasingly difficult to undermine. This is especially so with the issue of "prescriptive information" underlying life and present in DNA which cannot be explained through chance, necessity or self-organization arguments and even from the material element of DNA, since "information" is a level of abstraction that goes beyond mere matter. Life being driven by "information" is from the greatest of proofs (that cannot be invalidated in any way) that there is an all-Knower that is behind creation and this is indicated in the Qur'an in the saying of Allaah, () , "And He is of every created thing, all-knowing" (36:79), and we shall expand upon this affair in other articles. Written by Ab Iyd on 05/12/1434H (10/10/2013CE) Children Are Born Believers in God, Academic Claims

This is a supportive article for the main article, "Humans May Be Primed to Believe in Creation" which can be read here. Important Note: It should be understood that these types of reports from an atheistic materialist, naturalist world view would be interpreted from the angle that the human mind (evolving from matter through random undirected processes) evolved to conjure up the notion of God. Now, this conjecture is an explanation demanded by prior assumption and commitment to materialism and will be

addressed in separate articles. A useful article to read in connection with this one is "Understanding the Two Definitions of 'Science'" (see here). Children are born believers in God, academic claims Children are "born believers" in God and do not simply acquire religious beliefs through indoctrination, according to an academic. By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent 2:54PM GMT 24 Nov 2008 (original source). Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose. He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God." In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose. Related Articles In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice". Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.

Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different. He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers. Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them. "Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe." Notes This natural disposition is referred to in the Islamic texts as ( ) , fitrah. Every human is endowed with it and it includes a basic moral sense and knowledge of elementary truths. This innate disposition is appealed to by the Messengers of God to corroborate and establish the universal truth which is that given there is a sole, masterful, unique, powerful creator for universe (proven by natural disposition by default and also by sensory perception and reason), any devotion servitude or worship directed to what is essentially powerless (all that is besides Him) is false religion and a violation of the justice and order upon which the universe is made to stand. As a result, there is a) "false religion" that is based upon a disfigurement of the natural disposition, corruption in reason (or corruption of revealed text). Examples of this include the worship of fire, the wind, the earth, the various other elements, stones, trees, or the worship of animals or men or even the Prophets of God (such as Jesus or Muhammad for example, peace be upon them). All of this is false religion and clashes with natural disposition and sound reason. And b)authentic religion which never conflicts with sound reason and is a natural extension, corroboration and perfection of the natural disposition (fitrah) inherent in ever human. All the Messengers brought sound religion which is the shunning of worship of anything besides the creator - the greatest injustice and revilement of reason. However, over the passing of time, people may have corrupted and altered the original call and message of their respective Messenger or Prophet and this is why we see a diversity in religious belief, all of which is futile, false, opposed to sound reason and authentic revelation. Not acknowledging this historical fact, atheists tend to use straw-man arguments in their critique of religion. But often they have valid criticisms against what is

false religion. This is because a distorted book, or a distorted message, or a distorted law necessitates opposition to reason. Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Corroboration and affirmation of a Maker is firmly-rooted in the hearts of all men and jinn, it is from the binding necessities of their creation, necessary with respect to them..." (Dar' al-Ta'aarud 8/482). And "Affimation of a Creator and His (absolute) perfection is fitriyy (innate) and dhurooriyy (necessary) with respect to one whose innate disposition remains intact (safe), even though alongside [such an affirmation] it has many (other) evidences for it (as well), and often when the innate disposition is altered or in certain situations that arise (affecting this innate disposition), many people may be in need of such (other) evidences." (Majmu al-Fataawaa 6/73). AlRaghib al-Asfahani said, "A generalized knowledge of Allaah, the Exalted (the Maker) is firmly-rooted in the soul, and it is the knowledge of every person that he is made (produced)..." (al-Dharee'ah p. 199). There is an innate and intuitive element inherent in every person that automatically recognizes the rational intelligibility of the universe. For this reason, not even an atheist can escape using teleological language in describing life and the universe. This innate, intuitive element is known as the fitrah and it has been alluded to in the Islamic texts ( ( ) 30:30). Ibn Taymiyyah said, "The basic foundation of the knowledge of a maker is innate and necessary. It is more deeply rooted in the souls than elementary knowledge of math such as our saying "one is half of two" and elementary knowledge of natural reality such as our saying "a body cannot be in two places at the same time." (Majmu' al-Fatawa 2/15-16). As an example, when Richard Dawkins says, "The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into aworking machine capable of writing a book" then Dawkins knows deep in his psyche that what is organized, with intricate architecture and precision-engineering is proof-positive of a precise, organizing architect, one just follows from the other by innate, intuitive and rational necessity. However, man may have reasons to escape uncomfortable conclusions, and these reasons can be many, wealth, status, arrogance and so on. However, often it can be legitimate rational objections to false religion - and this will be elaborated upon in other articles. Consider also the following interesting remarks by Del Ratzsch (Philosopher of Science) in a 2006 interview which describe a reality that in Islamic texts is characterized through the word "fitrah" (innate disposition): "Furthermore, given the role of theology in the rise of science itself, and given that the cosmos which science presupposes has a creation-esque

flavor (orderly, law-governed, elegant, intelligible, coherent, unified - as one might reasonably expect of a deliberately designed creation), it may be that science itself is a design payoff... In any case, design theories might conceptually lock into those designshaped foundations more elegantly than do non-design or anti-design theories. On the Reidian view, we have innate faculties which simply generate such beliefs (both general principles and specifics) within us, and if these faculties are operating properly and under appropriate circumstances, the produced beliefs are rationally legitimate for us. Reid catalogued a variety of belief areas in which such belief-producing dispositions operated again, the past, other minds, the external world, as well as basic moral principles, principles and processes of reason, acceptance of the testimony of others, aesthetics, and of present interest design in nature which, by a very short inference, led to conclusions about a designing mind. Reid's basic idea was that we perceptually (and immediately albeit often implicitly) recognize marks of design and that it is a short (inferential) step from that recognition to the thing in question being designed and the existence of a designing agent. Among the marks Reid cites were contrivance, order, organization, intent, purpose, regularity, beauty and adaptation.... Science requires a battery of presuppositions and those presuppositions are not direct results of science - they are conceptual structural materials science itself depends upon and without which there would be no science. Thus if we are rationally justified in accepting science then we must be rationally justified in accepting those foundational presuppositions. But not being results of science, their rational justification cannot rest upon science, but must lie beyond science. Thus, if we take science and its results to be rationally justified, science is not the only source of rational justification. There must then evidently be some deeper source of rational justification. Historically religion played a significant role here. But the present point is that even if the usual empirical gap-closing induction worked flawlessly, the story even of science's own rational legitimacy - is not complete, and may require design ideas at some deeper level... any simple, sharp separation of science and religion does not reflect our cognitive and neurological architectures, that there are deep interconnections between what we take to be scientific and religious beliefs, and that cases for the two being in deadly conflict - which already fail historically and philosophically - fail at the even deeper level of neural structures giving rise to our very cognition as well. Some of the deep interconnections between science and religion I think ultimately track back philosophically to the created structure of the cosmos itself, but also back to the fact that inputs from neurological structures and systems routinely associated with science - e.g., reason - and those routinely associated with religion - e.g., emotion - are not completely separate or separable systems. There is increasing and no longer even controversial

evidence that reason itself does not function properly in the absence of properly functioning emotion neural systems, and in some cases the structures themselves and their inputs and outputs are integrated - fused - prior to our having conscious access to them." End quote from Ratzsch. Note the following points: a) Scientific enquiry (observation and inference) has to presuppose design, order and purpose, otherwise it simply cannot take place and cannot investigate causes, b) The scientific enterprise therefore is in reality a consequence of design, order and purpose, c)Innate faculties generate these beliefs (of design, order and purpose) and these beliefs are rationally legitimate, d) Marks of design are recognized perceptually and implicitly (innately) and the inferential step to a designer is minimal, innate and natural, e) Such marks include contrivance, order, organization, intent, purpose, regularity, beauty and adaptation, f) This rational justification is actually the source of the rational justification of science and the scientific method, g) It is therefore not possible to separate innate (relgious) beliefs about the universe from scientific enquiry. This is precisely why you see atheists like Dawkins unable to flee from teleological language and subsequently suffer from such illusions and delusions that we shall elaborate in a separate article. Infants 'Have Natural Belief in God'

This is a supportive article for the main article, "Humans May Be Primed to Believe in Creation" which can be read here. Important Note: It should be understood that these types of reports from an atheistic materialist, naturalist world view would be interpreted from the angle that the human mind (evolving from matter through random undirected processes) evolved to conjure up the notion of God. Now, this conjecture is an explanation demanded by prior assumption and commitment to materialism and will be addressed in separate articles. A useful article to read in connection with this one is "Understanding the Two Definitions of 'Science'" (see here). By Barney Zwartz, writing for "the Age" newspaper, Australia, July 26, 2008 (original). INFANTS are hard-wired to believe in God, and atheism has to be learned, according to an Oxford University psychologist.

Dr Olivera Petrovich told a University of Western Sydney conference on the psychology of religion that even preschool children constructed theological concepts as part of their understanding of the physical world. Pyschologists have debated whether belief in God or atheism was the natural human state. According to Dr Petrovich, an expert in psychology of religion, belief in God is not taught but develops naturally. She told The Age yesterday that belief in God emerged as a result of other psychological development connected with understanding causation. It was hard-wired into the human psyche, but it was important not to build too much into the concept of God. "It's the concept of God as creator, primarily," she said. Dr Petrovich said her findings were based on several studies, particularly one of Japanese children aged four to six, and another of 400 British children aged five to seven from seven different faiths. "Atheism is definitely an acquired position," she said. Notes This natural disposition is referred to in the Islamic texts as ( ) , fitrah. Every human is endowed with it and it includes a basic moral sense and knowledge of elementary truths. This innate disposition is appealed to by the Messengers of God to corroborate and establish the universal truth which is that given there is a sole, masterful, unique, powerful creator for universe (proven by natural disposition by default and also by sensory perception and reason), any devotion servitude or worship directed to what is essentially powerless (all that is besides Him) is false religion and a violation of the justice and order upon which the universe is made to stand. As a result, there is a) "false religion" that is based upon a disfigurement of the natural disposition, corruption in reason (or corruption of revealed text). Examples of this include the worship of fire, the wind, the earth, the various other elements, stones, trees, or the worship of animals or men or even the Prophets of God (such as Jesus or Muhammad for example, peace be upon them). All of this is false religion and clashes with natural disposition and sound reason. And b)authentic religion which never conflicts with sound reason and is a natural extension, corroboration and perfection of the natural disposition (fitrah) inherent in ever human. All the Messengers brought sound religion which is the shunning of worship of anything besides the creator - the greatest injustice and revilement of reason. However, over the passing of time, people may have corrupted and altered the original call and

message of their respective Messenger or Prophet and this is why we see a diversity in religious belief, all of which is futile, false, opposed to sound reason and authentic revelation. Not acknowledging this historical fact, atheists tend to use straw-man arguments in their critique of religion. But often they have valid criticisms against what is false religion. This is because a distorted book, or a distorted message, or a distorted law necessitates opposition to reason. Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Corroboration and affirmation of a Maker is firmly-rooted in the hearts of all men and jinn, it is from the binding necessities of their creation, necessary with respect to them..." (Dar' al-Ta'aarud 8/482). And "Affimation of a Creator and His (absolute) perfection is fitriyy (innate) and dhurooriyy (necessary) with respect to one whose innate disposition remains intact (safe), even though alongside [such an affirmation] it has many (other) evidences for it (as well), and often when the innate disposition is altered or in certain situations that arise (affecting this innate disposition), many people may be in need of such (other) evidences." (Majmu al-Fataawaa 6/73). AlRaghib al-Asfahani said, "A generalized knowledge of Allaah, the Exalted (the Maker) is firmly-rooted in the soul, and it is the knowledge of every person that he is made (produced)..." (al-Dharee'ah p. 199). There is an innate and intuitive element inherent in every person that automatically recognizes the rational intelligibility of the universe. For this reason, not even an atheist can escape using teleological language in describing life and the universe. This innate, intuitive element is known as the fitrah and it has been alluded to in the Islamic texts ( ( ) 30:30). Ibn Taymiyyah said, "The basic foundation of the knowledge of a maker is innate and necessary. It is more deeply rooted in the souls than elementary knowledge of math such as our saying "one is half of two" and elementary knowledge of natural reality such as our saying "a body cannot be in two places at the same time." (Majmu' al-Fatawa 2/15-16). As an example, when Richard Dawkins says, "The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into aworking machine capable of writing a book" then Dawkins knows deep in his psyche that what is organized, with intricate architecture and precision-engineering is proof-positive of a precise, organizing architect, one just follows from the other by innate, intuitive and rational necessity. However, man may have reasons to escape uncomfortable conclusions, and these reasons can be many, wealth, status, arrogance and so on. However, often it can be legitimate rational objections to false religion - and this will be elaborated upon in other articles.

Consider also the following interesting remarks by Del Ratzsch (Philosopher of Science) in a 2006 interview which describe a reality that in Islamic texts is characterized through the word "fitrah" (innate disposition): "Furthermore, given the role of theology in the rise of science itself, and given that the cosmos which science presupposes has a creation-esque flavor (orderly, law-governed, elegant, intelligible, coherent, unified - as one might reasonably expect of a deliberately designed creation), it may be that science itself is a design payoff... In any case, design theories might conceptually lock into those designshaped foundations more elegantly than do non-design or anti-design theories. On the Reidian view, we have innate faculties which simply generate such beliefs (both general principles and specifics) within us, and if these faculties are operating properly and under appropriate circumstances, the produced beliefs are rationally legitimate for us. Reid catalogued a variety of belief areas in which such belief-producing dispositions operated again, the past, other minds, the external world, as well as basic moral principles, principles and processes of reason, acceptance of the testimony of others, aesthetics, and of present interest design in nature which, by a very short inference, led to conclusions about a designing mind. Reid's basic idea was that we perceptually (and immediately albeit often implicitly) recognize marks of design and that it is a short (inferential) step from that recognition to the thing in question being designed and the existence of a designing agent. Among the marks Reid cites were contrivance, order, organization, intent, purpose, regularity, beauty and adaptation.... Science requires a battery of presuppositions and those presuppositions are not direct results of science - they are conceptual structural materials science itself depends upon and without which there would be no science. Thus if we are rationally justified in accepting science then we must be rationally justified in accepting those foundational presuppositions. But not being results of science, their rational justification cannot rest upon science, but must lie beyond science. Thus, if we take science and its results to be rationally justified, science is not the only source of rational justification. There must then evidently be some deeper source of rational justification. Historically religion played a significant role here. But the present point is that even if the usual empirical gap-closing induction worked flawlessly, the story even of science's own rational legitimacy - is not complete, and may require design ideas at some deeper level... any simple, sharp separation of science and religion does not reflect our cognitive and neurological architectures, that there are deep interconnections between what we take to be scientific and religious beliefs, and that cases for the two being in deadly conflict - which already fail historically and philosophically - fail at the even deeper level of neural structures giving rise to our very cognition as well. Some of the deep interconnections between science and religion I think ultimately track back

philosophically to the created structure of the cosmos itself, but also back to the fact that inputs from neurological structures and systems routinely associated with science - e.g., reason - and those routinely associated with religion - e.g., emotion - are not completely separate or separable systems. There is increasing and no longer even controversial evidence that reason itself does not function properly in the absence of properly functioning emotion neural systems, and in some cases the structures themselves and their inputs and outputs are integrated - fused - prior to our having conscious access to them." End quote from Ratzsch. Note the following points: a) Scientific enquiry (observation and inference) has to presuppose design, order and purpose, otherwise it simply cannot take place and cannot investigate causes, b) The scientific enterprise therefore is in reality a consequence of design, order and purpose, c)Innate faculties generate these beliefs (of design, order and purpose) and these beliefs are rationally legitimate, d) Marks of design are recognized perceptually and implicitly (innately) and the inferential step to a designer is minimal, innate and natural, e) Such marks include contrivance, order, organization, intent, purpose, regularity, beauty and adaptation, f) This rational justification is actually the source of the rational justification of science and the scientific method, g) It is therefore not possible to separate innate (relgious) beliefs about the universe from scientific enquiry. This is precisely why you see atheists like Dawkins unable to flee from teleological language and subsequently suffer from such illusions and delusions that we shall elaborate in a separate article. Richard Dawkins: Only the 'Appearance' of 'Design for Purpose': Blind Physical Forces 'Mimic Conscious Design' to Create Complex Entities

Self-Evident Truths (Bayyinaat) The knowledge that man did not create himself or create the means (reproduction) through which his creation and coming into being is facilitated is a self-evident truth as every person knows he never brought his own self into being from non-being (19:67). This extends also to all living things, they did not originate themselves. And likewise the knowledge that he did not create the universe in which he resides is a self-evident truth (52:35), just as the knowledge that the universe did not create itself (without an external force) is a self-evident truth, and likewise the knowledge that multiple universes

do not come into existence except with a force external to the sum of them is a self evident truth (52:36). All of this knowledge is innate, intuitive and necessary and not does require any empirical evidence. When all of that is established and cannot be challenged or denied, there are only three possibilities left. Either "nothing created something" or "something created itself" or "something created something else". This is what the matter ultimately reduces down to. So the ultimate question is: Is it sounder in innate intuition, sensory perception and reason to believe "nothing created something" or "something created itself" or "something created what is other than it"? All people of sound mind (even the atheists) will say the latter, that "something created something" (something can only be created by other than it). Once we have established that asserting "something created something" is sounder in reason, then knowledge of the something that created what is besides it is evident from the reality and nature of the something that was created by it. This is undeniable. Just like "gravity" is known to exist through its observed effect (athar) (even though no one sees it directly or even understand how it works), then similarly, the heavens and earth are the effect (athar) through which the existence of the "something" that is behind can be said to be true and real. Up to this point there can be no real dispute, and it is here where the battle really begins. And all people of sound mind, honesty and integrity see design, order and purpose in the universe, on Earth, and in living things, in their interactions, their inter-dependence, the various faculties and features found within living things and the complex information systems underlying them that surpass all known computer systems and architecture. That is undeniable. It is first-hand direct evidence of the existence of an originator and the qualities necessary for such an originator (knowledge, will, power, wisdom). It is here where we start to see the haughtiness and arrogation of those who speak of only the "illusion" and "appearance" of design (in order to undermine the actual design that is so clearly evident). This is because once design, order and purpose is clearly established through observation (whether by the layman or the scientist) then the logical, rational conclusion necessarily follows and this cannot be undone. This is why it is said that belief in an originator is fitriyy (innate) and dhurooriyy (necessary), and this is why all the sent messengers said, ( ) , "And their messengers said: Is there any doubt concerning Allaah, the originator of the heavens and the earth." (14:10). As such, the knowledge that the existence of the universe, earth and all life forms necessarily indicate an originator is aself-evident matter. This is a necessary conclusion through the sum of all human perception and experience. It is a matter so clear and is rooted in the innate disposition, in the human psyche. It is why no one, not even an atheist, can avoid using teleological language (which implies design) in the study of the

universe, the phenomena therein and of all living things. The signature of design is blatant and evident and teleological language (even if unintended) is found in millions and millions of research papers written and published in the fields of physics, astronomy and biology. The rational investigability (the fact that the universe can be studied rationally at all) and the unavoidable teleological language used by atheists in describing what they see in their studies falsifies their naturalistic belief and indicates arrogance when they characterize what they study as an "illusion" and "appearance" of design. They would not have been able to logically and rationally study the universe and life therein had it not been designed. Thereafter, all of their arguments to the contrary (no matter how sophisticated or complicated) reduce down to a) "nothing created something" or b) "something created itself" or c) if they affirm "something created something" (which is unescapable) then that is explained with what is laughable: an already existing "law" of gravity created the universe or the blind forces of physics created the first living cell through pure chance which was then guided to the current diversity and homology of life by Natural Selection acting on random mutations in genetic material. In reality, this is affirmation of a creator on their behalf except that it is not an all-knowing, willing, purposeful creator but a blind, purposeless creator (a "blind watchmaker"), and really reduces back to "matter self-organizes and creates." All of this is revilement of intellect, pure conjecture and arrogance in the face of self-evident truth. These claims and explanations arise as a consequence of prior assertion of materialism, not because scientific observation, experimentation and data have proven that blind physical forces create complex living organisms (that is a matter of blind faith and a revilement upon reason).

Were they created by nothing. Or were they creators (of their own selves). Or did they create the heavens and earth? Nay, they have no real certainty. (52:35-36) Thereafter, it is upon the atheist to prove that the universe, (in all its order, magnificence, balance and harmony) and life on Earth is not the handiwork of an all-knowing, willing, able creator, since that is the rational, axiomatic default, innate in human nature. The contrary explanations they bring are based upon a prior commitment to naturalism (materialism) which they have chosen due to psychological reasons, not rational ones. As such all of what they bring to invalidate this rational necessity such as multiverse theories, complex genetic reproduction systems arising miraculously from a primeval soup by blind forces of nature, mystical M-theories, imaginary time, Natural

Selection acting on random mutations in genetic code (which actually require the prior existence of complex genetic reproduction systems that are more complex than the most purposefully designed computers and for whose origin they have no explanation) along with the variety of philosophical tricks and psychological word games - all of this is pure conjecture (and they know it). Allah, the Most High, said, ( ) , "Their respective Messengers said, 'Is there any doubt about Allaah, the Originator of the Heavens and Earth?'." (14::10) and He said, () , "And when their messengers brought self-evident proofs, they exulted in theknowledge they possessed" (40:83) and He said ( ) , "And they say, 'There is nothing but the life of this world, we live and we die and nothing destroys us but time.' But they have no knowledge of that (whatsoever). They do but conjecture." (45:24) and He said ( ) , "They do but conjecture (give opinions) and they do but guess" (6:116) and He said ( ) , "That is their sum of knowledge" (53:30) The true and real perspective of the atheist battleground is that they are trying to fight the sensory, intuitive and rational necessity because they have chosen materialism as the default for what are really psychological reasons (not rational ones). Their subsequent use of philosophy and science is to make their psychological denial appear to be rational, and hence what we have is circular logic that runs as follows: "In observation and study of the living things, the world and the universe, we will never observe God. We've studied living things, the world and the universe and never found any sign of God. God does not exist." And in another way, "Darwinian Evolution must account for life otherwise the alternative is a purposeful designer and creator which is unacceptable because naturalism is the truth (prior assumption). Hence, in a naturalist, materialist world, the only possible explanation is evolution of inorganic matter to organic matter to living organisms, and since naturalism is the truth, then evolution has to be the truth and only explanation for life." This tautological, question-begging, circular reasoning is driven by a prior commitment to naturalism. In his article, The Necessity of Darwinism. (New Scientist, vol. 94, 15 April 1982) Dawkins asserts (p. 130), emphasis is ours: The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to

mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventually to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers. The underlined words are to indicate that neither Dawkins or any other atheist on the planet is able to escape teleological language in the description, study and analysis of life, the world and the universe. The rational intelligibility of all of that (the universe and life) is recognized innately (see here) and practically self-evident. On this basis is man able to observe, analogize, and infer and develop knowledge of the working order of the universe, rationally. This in itself makes it practically self-evident that the universe and life on Earth is designed to be as it is. However, the above quote is one of many showing a man like Dawkins who cannot trust his own physical senses is not a man to be trusted to explain the origins of life. This is because although his physical senses see actual design his arrogance sees only an illusion of design explained by blind, purposeless, forces acting on random events. Comments Dawkins begins by stating a truth, "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance." This means that we are only left with two other choices, a) necessity by which the physical forces such as gravity are intended, so for example, if you drop an apple, by necessity (of the law of gravity) it will fall to the ground, or b) a creator. Knowing that the innate disposition and sound reason can never attribute design (and purpose) except to an agent withknowledge, will and power, Dawkins begins his psychological trickery on his audience. "Superficially..." he says. Meaning it is superficial to attribute what is clearly observable design (which he also tries to negate through psychological trickery and word play) to a being with the qualities required for design (knowledge, will, power). This is despite the fact that the sum whole of human experience, their day-to-day activity, and their entire industrial and technological enterprise is built upon the non-superficial presupposition that only knowledge, will and creative power lead to design. Thus, knowing that he cannot attribute knowledge, will and creative power to "physical forces" or "physical laws" he then brings his red herring, "But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design..." Charles Darwin offered an explanation for life's diversity based upon blind physical forces acting on a primeval soup leading to replicable life leading (through mutations in genetic code) to the origin and diversity of species, and in this entire process, these "blind physical

forces" "mimic the effects of conscious design." without there being actual design. You can see the play with words here. Neither Charles Darwin nor anyone else, has (or ever will) be able to provide empirical evidence for this assertion which actually underlies the entire naturalist religion. Think about that again, because in dismantling the naturalist religion, we have to really get to the core of it, and this is the actual core of it: Blind physical forces acting on a primeval soup leading to replicable life leading (through random mutations in genetic code) to the origin and diversity of species, all through undirected, purposeless processes. Naturalists play word games in that the word evolution is often presented with layers of meaning that are aimed at concealing the superstitious belief it is founded upon. We will elaborate upon this in more detail in a separate article. But to complete this point, there is no empirical evidence for the emergence of self-replication in the form of DNA or RNA through random undirected processes and all experimentation has miserably failed to produce anything remotely like the complex biological molecules found in living cells, even when generously supplied with many of the chemicals required for the formation of such molecules. This is taken as the only acceptable explanation because a philosophical assertion of naturalism allows no other explanation. Dawkins continues, "and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations," note the desperate attempts here through careful wording of trying to portray, but from afar, the mimicking of "conscious design" he mentioned earlier. He wants there to be design but can't, so he has to make cunning use of language: "operating", "cumulative", "filter" "mimics", "conscious", "design". These blind physical forces somehow are able to "operate" as a "cumulative filter" to filter out chance variations and thereby choose the ones that are going to lead to life. The pauper is all but wanting to attribute "design" to these blind forces but can't (otherwise the game is up and the fraud is clear) and he uses doublespeak to say it is not design but just undirected processes that mimic design. So it is both design and not design at the same time. It is design and non-design. This is doublespeak and sophistry. And then he says, "...to lead eventually to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers" so the end result is "organized", "adaptive", "complexity" in the form of "humans", "books", "computers" - which to him have clearly not been designed but only give the illusion of design! It is crucial for you not to miss out the significant point alluded to in the paragraph above regarding the use of layers of definitions for "evolution" in order to hide the superstitious belief upon which the naturalist religion is founded. An example working definition is

"descent with modification" which is no doubt an observed reality. By defining evolution in this way, it gives the naturalist believer an upper hand in debate in the sense that anyone opposing evolution (as so defined) is immediately considered to have lost his senses since modification of species through reproduction is a reality that every living person can see. Offspring are always modifications of the parents and are never exact replications of their parents. As generations continue, modification continues, although this modification is strictly within the species type. However these types of vague definitions for evolution aim to conceal and protect the superstitious belief and the real engine underlying the entire naturalist religion which we can refer to as the "blindwatchmaker thesis" (of Dawkins) which essentially saysunfathomably complex design comes about through random, undirected, purposeless processes (selection acting upon random mutations in genetic code) in the absence of knowledge, will, intent and creative, power. This is pure superstition and rejected by the sum whole of human perception, experience and the entire body of industrial and technological enterprise. This superstitious belief arises because naturalism has already been chosen as a religion for psychological reasons and this philosophical assertion of naturalism can thereafter only be explained and justified with one proposition, that life was "designed" and "created" by non-knowledgeable, non-purposeful, completely blind forces. A matter known to be a superstitious fairy tale even to young children, let alone mature adults. But that is the sum of their knowledge ( ) . Lets summarize: Blind physical forces can mimic the effect of conscious design anddirect chance occurrences in a certain way (by operating as a cumulative filter) leading eventually to "organized complexity." Or to put it another way, a totally blind and deaf man (Steve) can direct himself through the myriad of chance encounters (bumps and accidents) from John O Groats to Lands End through the operation of a cumulative filter (of which he is wholly unaware), thereby mimicking (unknowingly and without intent) the effect of conscious navigation through which Dave (who is hearing and seeing or who could be blind but receives instruction) also gets from John O Groats to Lands End. Finding a blind man at Lands End, it must be concluded that that's how he got there (through a random, blind process) and while that may be possible by a large stretch of the imagination, Dawkins is trying to insist that to think like this is rational and proposing anything else (such as a hearing and seeing man arriving at Lands End through conscious navigation or a blind man being directed and guided) is stupidity and make believe. To prove the likes of this, Richard Dawkins fills pages and writes books and launches diatribes. That's the sum of his knowledge. He tells us on the cover of his book, The Blind

Watchmaker, wherein it is stated "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view..." yes, a bit like the blind man in our example, "...Yet the living results of Natural Selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Everything is an appearance andillusion of design. Why? Because affirming actual design necessitates a designer, through innate disposition, sensory perception and sound reason. That is a selfevident truth that cannot be argued against, it is ingrained in the human psyche (see here) Thus, Dawkins resigns to the world of appearances, illusions, blind watchmakers, mountains of improbability, word-play and doublespeak to make his case. Please follow up with this article "Understanding the Two Definitions of 'Science' in Operation" (see here) to see through the naturalist religion a bit more clearly. Written by Ab Iyd on 07/12/1434H (12/10/2013CE) The Methods and Routes to Affirmation of a Maker Are Innumerable and Not Restricted

Introduction There are many Muslim apologists out there in the field arguing with atheists and they rely largely upon the arguments used by the people of kalam (speculative theologians). Due to certain historical factors, it was wrongly thought that there are only two views either a) that of the people of kalam who used the kalam cosmological argument to prove the universe began and had a maker, or b) the view of the Philosophers who claimed matter was eternal. As a result of this it was wrongly thought in turn that there is only one way of proving the existence of a maker, which is the route of proving the universe began, and the only way to prove this is through the kalam cosmological argument that is built on certain premises. This claim or understanding is in fact false. Despite this, we see many people very strongly influenced by the argument developed and used by the speculative theologians (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'aris, Maturidis) and in restricting themselves to this they subject themselves to valid counterarguments, the same ones that the people of kalam of old were faced with and which they could not resolve. As we have indicated elsewhere, this argument is false and simply shows that no "act of creation" took place in reality, because of certain underlying premises it relies upon as

part of its formulation. Our aim in this article is to broaden the horizon a little and work towards what has rightly been expressed in poetic form ( ) , "And in every thing there is for Him a sign indicating that He is One" which is that the paths and routes to demonstrating a creator are innumerable. Ibn Taymiyyah on the Routes and Methods of Affirming a Creator Ibn Taymiyyah said, "As for affirmation of a Maker, then its paths are innumerable. Rather, that which the majority of the scholars are upon is that corroboration of a Maker is fitriyy (a matter of innate intuition) and dhurooriyy (necessary), embedded in the natural disposition (of man)." (Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/270). He also said, "Alongside (the fact) that the ways to know the Maker through innate disposition, necessity, observation and inference and the essences and properties of things is a vast subject area which cannot be elaborated upon here..." (Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah1/501). He also said, in refutation of the Ahl al-Kalam (speculative theologians who developed the kalam cosmological argument), "... they restricted the affirmation of the Maker to knowledge of the origin of the universe, and they restricted the affirmation of the origin of the universe to the affirmation of the origination of bodies. But the affirmation of a Maker has paths (methods, ways) that almost escape enumeration, and all of them are more apparent and clearer than the method of affirmation of the origin of the universe." (Huduth al-Aalam, p. 54). And he also said in indicating the corruption of the kalam cosmological argument relied upon by the Ahl al-Kalam, "And the affirmation of the origination of the universe has paths (ways, methods) that are clearer than (the route) of affirmation of origination of bodies - even if it had been a correct method - due to what it contains of (internal) disputes and minute details. But how is it when it is also a corrupt method in the view of the Prophets and their followers, and (in the view of) the people of sound natural dispositions and intellects, and (likewise in the view) of those who opposed them from the theistic Philosophers and the Naturalists such as the Peripatetic Philosophers, the followers of Aristotle and their likes." (Huduth al-Aalam, p. 54). And then he said straight after, "So in summary, the paths of knowledge to affirmation of a Maker are many, they are all clearer and more apparent than this path (used by the ahl al-kalam), and they are decisive evidences that cannot be invalidated. Hence, there is no need of the knowledge of the origin of the universe built upon (the route of) the origination of bodies (that comprise the universe) for corroborating a Maker. Rather, it is not in need of (even) the knowledge of the origin of the universe to begin with (in the first place)." (Huduth alAalam, p. 54).

Comments and Notes 01. First a crucial matter that needs to be understood is the distinction between the two different definitions of science that are in operation and failing to distinguish between these two will not allow a person to see through the naturalist religion. Read more here. 02. There are innumerable methods and ways of demonstrating a creator and it is false to assert or to practically operate as if there is only one way and that this way has to be proving the universe to be originated (having a beginning). The various ways include a)the evidence of fitrah (innate disposition) ( ) b) evidence through observation ( ) of order, regulation c) evidence by way of life (organic living beings) arising () from inanimate matter and studying the properties of life (biology, chemistry, physics) d)evidence through precision and meticulousness in creation and created things ( ) e)the evidence of wisdom ( ) f) evidence of will and power ( ) g) the use of similitudes comprising reason and rationality h) rational arguments which are abstract in nature. The latter (rational arguments) are in fact the weakest type because they only point to an absolute and abstract existence (of a creator) rather than a specific existence in external reality. 03. As for the kalam cosmological argument that has been relied upon by the speculative theologians (Ahl al-Kalam) then valid criticisms have been made against it byPhilosophers and atheists past and present, and this is because certain premises incorporated into this argument (by the speculative theologians) force a particular type of "cause" which is "timeless, spaceless, immaterial" which in turn forces the denial of attributes and actions from this "cause". From here it becomes impossible to establish that an actual "act of creation" took place in reality and thus it is sounder to conclude from this argument the necessity of an eternal first cause (and hence an eternal universe). There are atheists today who have simply echoed the very same that Aristotelian Philophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) were stating a thousand years ago against those speculative theologians (Ash'aris, Maturidis) who were condemned by orthodox Muslim Scholars for using such flawed methods. By using these methods they were in turn made to assault the revealed texts with distortion when they found a conflict between their reason (that necessitates denial of attributes and actions) and what is contained in revelation of affirmation of attributes and actions for the creator. 04. An invalidation of the claim that demonstrating the origination of the universe is the only way to prove a creator, or making this method to be the core method. In any case, this matter is innate (fitriyy) and necessary (dhurooriyy) in the first place and it is why no

rational human being can escape using teleological language when describing the operation of life and the universe. The foundations of all rational investigative sciences stem from the fitrah (innate disposition) which acknowledges design, order, uniformity and regularity in the universe which makes it intelligible indicating, axiomatically, that it is created. Consider the following interesting remarks by Del Ratzsch (Philosopher of Science) in a 2006 interview which describe a reality that in Islamic texts is characterized through the word "fitrah" (innate disposition): "Furthermore, given the role of theology in the rise of science itself, and given that the cosmos which science presupposes has a creation-esque flavor (orderly, law-governed, elegant, intelligible, coherent, unified - as one might reasonably expect of a deliberately designed creation), it may be that science itself is a design payoff... In any case, design theories might conceptually lock into those design-shaped foundations more elegantly than do non-design or anti-design theories. On the Reidian view, we have innate faculties which simply generate such beliefs (both general principles and specifics) within us, and if these faculties are operating properly and under appropriate circumstances, the produced beliefs are rationally legitimate for us. Reid catalogued a variety of belief areas in which such belief-producing dispositions operated - again, the past, other minds, the external world, as well as basic moral principles, principles and processes of reason, acceptance of the testimony of others, aesthetics, and of present interest design in nature which, by a very short inference, led to conclusions about a designing mind. Reid's basic idea was that we perceptually (and immediately albeit often implicitly) recognize marks of design and that it is a short (inferential) step from that recognition to the thing in question being designed and the existence of a designing agent. Among the marks Reid cites were contrivance, order, organization, intent, purpose, regularity, beauty and adaptation.... Science requires a battery of presuppositions and those presuppositions are not direct results of science they are conceptual structural materials science itself depends upon and without which there would be no science. Thus if we are rationally justified in accepting science then we must be rationally justified in accepting those foundational presuppositions. But not being results of science, their rational justification cannot rest upon science, but must lie beyond science. Thus, if we take science and its results to be rationally justified, science is not the only source of rational justification. There must then evidently be some deeper source of rational justification. Historically religion played a significant role here. But the present point is that even if the usual empirical gap-closing induction worked flawlessly, the story even of science's own rational legitimacy - is not complete, and may require design ideas at some deeper level... any simple, sharp separation of science and religion does not reflect our cognitive and neurological architectures, that there are deep interconnections

between what we take to be scientific and religious beliefs, and that cases for the two being in deadly conflict - which already fail historically and philosophically - fail at the even deeper level of neural structures giving rise to our very cognition as well. Some of the deep interconnections between science and religion I think ultimately track back philosophically to the created structure of the cosmos itself, but also back to the fact that inputs from neurological structures and systems routinely associated with science - e.g., reason - and those routinely associated with religion - e.g., emotion - are not completely separate or separable systems. There is increasing and no longer even controversial evidence that reason itself does not function properly in the absence of properly functioning emotion neural systems, and in some cases the structures themselves and their inputs and outputs are integrated - fused - prior to our having conscious access to them." End quote from Ratzsch. You should read this quote again and very carefully! And note the following points: a) Scientific enquiry (observation and inference) has to presuppose design, order and purpose, otherwise it simply cannot take place and cannot investigate causes, b) The scientific enterprise therefore is in reality a consequence of design, order and purpose, c)Innate faculties generate these beliefs (of design, order and purpose) and these beliefs are rationally legitimate, d) Marks of design are recognized perceptually and implicitly (innately) and the inferential step to a designer is minimal, innate and natural, e) Such marks include contrivance, order, organization, intent, purpose, regularity, beauty and adaptation, f) This rational justification is actually the source of the rational justification of science and the scientific method, g) It is therefore not possible to separate innate (relgious) beliefs about the universe from scientific enquiry. This is precisely why you see atheists like Dawkins unable to flee from teleological language and subsequently suffer from such illusions and delusions that we shall elaborate in a separate article. Refer to this article, "Humans May Be Primed to Believe in Creation" (see here). 05. Ibn Taymiyyah said, "The basic foundation of the knowledge of a maker is innate and necessary. It is more deeply rooted in the souls than elementary knowledgeof math such as our saying 'one is half of two' and elementary knowledge of natural reality such as our saying 'a body cannot be in two places at the same time'." (Majmu' al-Fatawa 2/15-16), and also "He (Allaah) made the innate dispositions of his servants prepared (with the capacity) to know and perceive realities, and had there not been such preparedness in the hearts to know realities, then there would be no observation and inference and nor (any)

speech and discourse (with respect to that)." (Dar al-Ta'arud 5/62). This second statement indicates that rational sciences and the scientific method (observation and inference) and reporting of that through speech and discourse would not be possible had the faculties not been predisposed to perceiving realities upon a deeply-rooted foundational conviction of their being law, order, regularity and uniformity in the universe through design and purpose. It is precisely that conviction, that life and the universe are designed and rationally investigatable, that gives rise to science, in other words, "it may be that science itself is a design payoff" to borrow the words of Ratzsch earlier. 06. The Prophets and Messengers, such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad (peace be upon them), all appealed to this basic innate instinct and in the Qur'an we see the command to observe and reflect upon the universe, man himself, the various elements and other such affairs so as to corroborate and perfect what is already found in the innate disposition. However, the call of the Messengers was not merely to affirm a creator, since that knowledge is already innate and necessary, rather their call was to the rational consequence and conclusion following on from affirmation of a creator which is that worship of created things is the ultimate falsehood and that false religion is characterized through worship and devotion of others besides, or alongside the creator. Now many smart and shrewd atheists are atheists because they have found legitimate flaws in what is really false, corrupted religion, not sound religion. And hence a large body of their arguments are in fact strawman arguments. We shall elaborate on these affairs in other articles inshaa'allaah. Written by Ab Iyd on 21/12/1434H (26/10/2013CE) Ibn Al-Qayyim on the Affirmation of Material Causes, Forces, and Inherent Properties of Things

Previously, in (Understanding the Two Definitions of 'Science' - see here) we explained two separate definitions of science one of which is used to cause confusion and to conceal the prior metaphysical (philosophical) assertion of naturalism which is entered into scientific inquiry through the back door. The first definition is "(theorization), experimental observation and inference" and the second is "explanation of what is observed and witnessed through natural causes only." By this second definition the Naturalists intend to claim to have proven that a knowing, willing, powerful agency is not necessary (to explain the universe or life) because natural causes alone account for

everything. This is word play and false reasoning because the affirmation of material causes and material explanations does not invalidate the question of how those cause and effect systems came to be in the first place. All they have done is gained an understanding of how the universe operates, how life is organized and how life functions without them having explained the origin of either the universe or life except by appeal to "blind watchmakers", "mountains of improbability", "self-creation", "self-organization" and the likes. These are all explanations demanded by prior assertion of materialism to avoid the only other obvious conclusion, that there is design and purpose in the universe, which if affirmed, necessary implies a designer and maker through axiomatic reasoning. This explains why people like Richard Dawkins bend over backwards to make actual design look likeillusion of design. In this article we are going to cite and comment on a piece written by Ibn al-Qayyim regarding the issue of material causes, the inherent properties (nature) of things (elements, entities) and strengths and forces. Ibn al-Qayyim on Wisdoms and Objectives in the Placement of Material Causes and Effects Ibn al-Qayyim has a discussion of the matter of wisdoms () , causes ( )and explanations ( ) that relate to the natural world. We will translate the passage in question and make the relevant comments as we go alone. He said in al-Madaarij(1/256 onwards): And likewise the physicians, knowledge and practice of medicine would not be practicable for them except with the knowledge of the inherent strengths and natural properties of drugs, medicinal preparations and foodstuffs, and ascribing some (strengths and properties) to others (drugs, foodstuffs), and (knowing) the degree of effect some have on others, and (knowing) the how some of them are affected by others, and (collectively) weighing out the strength of the medicine, the strength of the illness and the strength of the patient [when treating], and repelling (an illness or its symptom) through its opposite (medicine or foodstuff) and preserving what they desire to preserve of (health) with what is like it or suited to it (of medicine and foodstuff). Hence, the art of medicine is founded upon knowing causes ( ), reasons () , forces (strengths) () , natural properties (of the elements) ( ) and special properties (( ) of things). In opposition to certain stray sects (such as the Ash'arites), orthodox Sunni Muslims, in agreement with sensory perception (hiss), reason (aql) and revelation (naql), affirm the inherent strengths and properties of things, and consider them to be the foundation of

material (natural) causes and effects. This is because a knowing, willing, powerful, purposeful, wise agent has determined them to operate in a law-like fashion, enduing them with their general and specific properties. Thus water has an inherent property of quenching thirst, and when a person drinks pure water his thirst will be quenched by necessity. Just as water is also he means through which life is given to plants and animals, something we can see just by sensory perception. And if a person was to study the matter in depth at the biochemical level, then the actual mechanisms would be established and more detailed knowledge would be acquired. And it would be clear that water has structural properties and qualities that allow it to function the way it does (to facilitate vital biochemical operations), be that in plant or animal cells. You can analogize this for every other known (or yet unknown) cause in the study of organic life, the world and the universe. And if they negated and invalidate (all of that) that and assigned (all effects) to pure will and pure wish removed of causes and reasons and (therefore) treated the reality of fire to equal the reality of water and the reality of medicine to be equal to the reality of foodstuff, there not being any unique property or inherent strength that distinguishes one from the other, then medicinal science would become corrupt, and the wisdom of Allaah therein would be invalidated. He intends here the saying adopted by the Ash'arites (a heteredox sect) who (for reasons outside the scope of this article) adopted the view that there are no inherent powers and properties of things that give rise to cause and effect and which can be ascribed to the essences of those things. This is a futile saying and rejected by sensory perception, reason and revelation and is a rejection of the natural ways and means that have placed and affixed by the Creator. On the contrary, the universe is tied together through causes ( ), forces ( ) and efficient and purposeful causes () . The purposeful (final) cause refers to the objective or end-purpose, the efficient causeis the thing or entity (the agency) which produces the end-result. For example, a carpenter takes wood (the material cause) and he acts to produce a table of which he is now the efficient cause and the table itself is the final cause. In the same way a plant is the final cause of a seed and a father is the efficient cause of his son, and water is a material cause of organic life and so on. The universe as a whole is tied together through causes, effects, properties of things and forces (powers) and there are efficient causes for things observed as well as purposeful objectives behind things observed (final causes). The

atheistic naturalist philosophy claims that the study and analysis of the universe should only involve explanations of material causes, and they think that by this definition or restriction, they have eliminated a designer and maker from the picture, and this is from their sophistry and speciousness in reason. This is because no such thing is entailed, just like understanding how an engine works (at physical, chemical and mechanistic levels) does not eliminate the question of where did the engine come from and where did the knowledge required to create such a thing come from, and where did the underlying laws (of physics, chemistry) that allow such a designed entity to operate the way it does come from in the first place. So this is a red-herring and it is a confidence trick, the intent of which is to say, "Hey, we've found the material causes that explain how this engine runs, now you no longer need to ask how it got here and what put it here and why there are (physical and chemical) laws in existence on the basis of which engines actually work the way they do." And the people are divided into three categories with respect to causes, powers (strengths, forces) and inherent properties of things: Before we look at the three groups, it should be pointed out that atheists tend to use strawman arguments. That is to say they are frequently refuting false, altered, distorted, corrupt religion, not sound authentic religion. This is because there are adherents to the Prophets and revealed Books who altered and distorted the text and the message, and in doing so their opposition to reason (aql) was automatically necessitated. Then when they began to proclaim their altered, distorted message (and false doctrines), the atheists and Philosophers saw clear opposition to reason (aql) and hence they were further distanced from what was brought by the Prophets and revealed Books. Amongst them is one who exaggerated in negating and rejecting them. So all people of (sound) intellect laughed at his intellect. But he claimed that through (this stance) he is aiding the legislation. So he committed a crime againt his own intellect and the legislation, and he allowed his disputant to assault him (due to this). This is in reference to the Ash'arites (a sect within Islam engaging in speculative theology) whose intellects are mocked and reviled because of their rejection of the causes and effects and properties and strengths placed in things inherently. Historically it is the likes of these people who departed from both reason and revelation opening the door for the atheists and Philosophers who wrongly assumed that this false saying is the saying of revelation and prophethood, when that is not the case. Ibn Taymiyyah says, "And amongst the people are those who reject the inherent strengths and properties (of things)

as is the saying of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari and whoever followed him from the associates of Malik, al-Shafi'ee, Ahmad and others. And these ones who reject the inherent strengths and properties (of things) also reject the causes too ... and they opposed the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the predecessors alongside opposing sound reason and sensory perception... and (all) the people know through their sensory perception and their reason that some things are causes for others, just as they know that satiation is through eating not by counting, and is acquired through eating food not pebbles and that water is the cause of life in plants and animals as He said, ( ) "And we created every living thing with water" (21:30), and that animals have their thirst quenched by drinking water, not by walking and the likes of these examples are many." (Majmu' al-Fatawa 9/287-288). Ibn alQayyim said, "If we were to follow up what provides the affirmation of causes (ways and means) from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, it would be (found) in more than ten thousand places and we do not say that out of exaggeration, but in actual reality. But sufficient is the witness of sensory perception, reason and innate intuition (to establish it). For this reason it was said by one from the people of knowledge, 'A people spoke about rejection of the causes (ways and means) and thus caused the possessors of intelligence to laugh at their intellects'" (Shifaa ul-Aleel p. 189). And amongst them are those who tied the higher and lower (part of the) universe to them (the causes and forces) without tying them (also) to the will of an agent with choice, a regulator who directs them however he wills... This is in reference to the Greek Philosophers who claimed an eternal cause for the existence of the universe (the universe being eternal alongside this cause) but this "first cause" has no connection to the running of the universe, having no will or choice. The universe is managed and regulated through the motion of the celestial orbits. And this "first cause" has no knowledge of the details and particulars of the universe. The (modern-day) Naturalists are an offshoot of this category, since the "first cause" which those Greek Philosophers asserted and defined, has an existence in the mind only, not in external reality. Practically speaking, their saying is no different to that of the modern-day Naturalists and Materialists, since a "first cause" that exists in the mind only is equivalent to no "first cause" at all in external reality. And these two sides deviate from what is correct. These two groups are a) the Ash'arites who claim, by way of example, that the consumption, digestion and absorption of a foodstuff does not provide the effect of

nutrition and satiation to the body, but that pure divine intervention creates an instance of satiation to coincide with the instance of eating, and thus the two are only habitually associated (in terms of what humans observe), not as binding cause and effect and as essences having inherent properties. So all sound, reasonable and intelligent people laugh at their intellects. And b) the Philosophers and Naturalists, those who claim that all causes and effects, inherent properties of things, forces and laws come to be and operate in the absence of an agency possessing knowledge, will, power andwisdom, and to justify this they seek refuge in m(ystical)-theories, blind watchmakers,mountains of improbability, "self-creation", "self-organization" and purposeless randomly-acting forces. So all sound and reasonable people laugh at their intellects too for showing arrogation in the face of innate intuition and in the face of what is necessary in reason: that a collection of causes and effects and inherent properties of things, working uniformly together in law-like regularity, providing purpose-directed entities (with complex interrelation) and identifiable objectives can only come to be through the agency ofknowledge, will, power and wisdom. And amongst them [the third group] are those who affirm them (the natural causes, means, properties, strengths) as creation and command, determination and legislation and who place them in the position into which Allaah placed them. Referring here to sound orthodox Islamic doctrine [which is the doctrine of all revealed Books (in their uncorrupted form) and the message of all sent Messengers] which is to affirm the natural causes, properties and strengths through "creation and command", "determination and legislation". And this means that all efficient and objective causes, all inherent properties and strengths and forces have been determined as such (a matter obvious just by sensory perception) and on account of them do we observe what we observe of all phenomena taking place in the natural world. So this is creation, it is bound and tied to causes, effects, strengths, properties, forces. And as for command, then this refers to legislation. Legislative affairs are also tied to causes, wisdoms and reasons and this is because "actions" (as in human actions) are also treated as entities with inherent properties. Thus "killing" (without due right and cause) is inherently bad and evil and known to be such by reason prior to revelation. Consequently, legislation organizes and arranges human activity for it to work harmoniously, in the same way that life and the universe, from a material point of view, runs with regularity and order, upon unbreachable laws. Thus, prescribed punishments are deterrants for the protection of life and property, and intoxicants are prohibited for the protection of mind (as well as life and

property) and marriage is instituted to be the medium of offspring, parenthood, inheritance of wealth and so on. So legislation is also tied to causes, reasons, wisdoms. So whoever denied causes, effects, wisdoms whether in relation to creation (natural world) or legislation, then his intellect is to be questioned. The Universe Was Not Created From Nothing but From Previously Existing Matter

It is believed in scientific circles that the universe was created "from" nothing (as in no matter) through a "big bang" in the aftermath of which time, space and matter came to be. Because of holes and contradictions in this theory, and the maths and physics not adding up, certain concepts have been invented to help patch up these problems. Dark matter, dark energy and inflation are three main concepts. There are numerous lines of evidence bringing into question the big bang hypothesis (subject of another article). The statement of time, space and matter being created with the creation of the universe is also spoken of by the speculative theologians (Ahl al-Kalaam) who rely upon the kalam cosmological argument to prove the universe began. However, due to certain premises underlying this argument, they have to define the "cause" for the universe as "an immaterial, changeless, timeless, unembodied mind." This in turn invalidates the argument and proves that an "act" of creating that can be ascribed to this cause could not possibly have taken place (otherwise the argument is undermined), and instead, an eternal first cause (making the universe eternal) can be demonstrated from this argument more cohesively. These problems have played out in history previously such as what happened between the Mutakallimeen (speculative theologians) and the Mutafalsifah (Philosophers), and they are also playing out now in debates and discussions that are taking place between ill-informed Muslim apologists and atheists. The saying that the universe came to be from "nothing" and that all space, time and matter were created with the "big-bang" clashes with the revealed texts. In this article we want to address this issue through a number of citations. The objective in this article is to put on the record that the revealed texts (of Islam) do not state or indicate this universe was made from pure nothingness, but rather from previously existing matter, and this is to rebut the presumption (of various factions) that time, space and matter only came to be with the creation of this universe. In short, the predecessors of the Muslim nation believed that matter and space existed prior to the creation of the heavens and earth and that another measurement of time also existed. Now, this has certain implications and

these implications will be addressed at the appropriate places where necessary in other articles. In the course of refuting one of the doubts of Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn Taymiyyah says in Bayaan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah 2/459-461): I say: Not one of the predecessors of this nation and nor any of its leading scholars said that these heavens and the earth were created and brought about without any created entity preceding them. And this, even though it is presumed by a faction of the people of kalaam or they deduce evidence for it, then it is a futile saying... and likewise not one of the predecessors of this nation or its leading scholars said that the heavens and the earth were not created from (prior) matter. Rather, that which is mutawaatir (reported through widescale transmission) is that they were created from prior matter and in a time period... and what is mentioned by many of the Ahl al-Kalaam(Hellenized Theologians), the Jahmites and their likes, regarding the beginning (of creation) [that it was created from "nothing"] is equivalent to what they say regarding the end, in that the bodies (matter) of the universe will perish (completely) [and become "nothing"]... And this (view) that the Mutakallimoon (speculative theologians) innovated is futile by unanimous agreement of the predecessors of the Ummah and its leading Imaams. Whilst stating that the Book and the Sunnah affirm the universe was created from prior matter, Ibn Taymiyyah also rejects, at the same time, Ibn Rushd's claim of eternal matter, he says (2/462): And likewise, the mention therein of matter for the creation of the heavens and the earth, does not necessitate that that matter was eternal, this is alongside what is in the Qur'an that, "He is the creator of every single thing" (39:62) and "The Lord (Creator) of every single thing" (6:164), and the word "khalq" (creation) negates what they mention of the universe being necessary alongside His existence like the necessity of an attribute (existing) alongside the one described (with it). And he says a little later (2/473): And as for the saying of the Atheists that the heavens do not cease to be upon (the state) they are upon now, and will never cease as such, this is clear rejection and plain disbelief in what is in the Qur'an, in what the people of faith have united upon, and in what they know by necessity that the Messengers informed of (this matter of the creation of the heavens). Likewise the saying of the Jahmites or whoever says amongst them, "The heavens and the Earth were created without matter and without time and that

they will perish or be annihilated," or that "Paradise will also expire." All of that is in opposition to the texts of the Qur'an, and it is for this reason that the predecessors made takfeer (excommunication) of those (Jahmites), even if the disbelief of the first ones (the Atheists) is more plain and clear... And the intent here is the notification of the corruption of the proofs of the Atheists, deniers of the Creator, the Exalted, their contradiction, and the Jahmites sharing with them in some of their corrupt foundations... Notes There is nothing in the revealed texts to indicate the heavens and earth were made from "nothing." Rather, they were made from previously existing matter (without that matter being eternal). This viewpoint stands in contrast to that of numerous factions: a) those who claim the heavens and earth were created from nothing and today these people find support from the big bang hypothesis, b) those who claim that the universe is eternal andc) those who claim the universe created itself from nothing. In the Qur'anic text, the heavens were made and formed from "dukhaan" ( )which is a nebulous (gaseous) mass that was already in existence prior to the formation of the heavens. As for the verse, "Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and Earth were together ( ) and we separated them and with water we created every living thing" (21:30), then the exegetes say the meaning is that initially there was no separation between Earth and the heavens (thus no life), meaning there was adjacency between them, and they were subsequently separated (via an atmosphere) as a result of which rain could fall and herbage could grow (which were previously not possible). A second complimentary meaning is also provided in that the Earth was a single connected mass that was made into layers and the heavens were a single connected mass that was made into layers (and thereafter an atmosphere was created to separate the Earth's surface from the heavens to enable the fall of life-giving rain upon the Earth). Refer to al-Tabari, Ibn Katheer and alBaghawi. However, the contemporaries have taken the word ( ) to mean a single combined mass, using it to make the verse be in line with the "singularity" in the big bang hypothesis and some of them assert this came from absolutely nothing which clashes with the revealed texts. The big bang hypothesis has become useful for many Muslim apologists who are influenced by the false doctrine of the speculative theologians who consider the demonstration of the universe having a beginning to be the only or the core method for proving a creator (see here). However, the big bang hypothesis itself has serious flaws and new discoveries over the past three decades have put cosmology as a whole into crisis (from their own words).

Ibn Taymiyyah on the Affirmation of Natural (Material) Causes and the Creed of the Naturalists

Previously, in (Understanding the Two Definitions of 'Science' - see here) we explained two separate definitions of science one of which is used to cause confusion and to conceal the prior metaphysical (philosophical) assertion of naturalism which is entered into scientific inquiry through the back door. The first definition is "(theorization), experimental observation and inference" and the second is "explanation of what is observed and witnessed through natural causes only." By this second definition the Naturalists intend to claim to have proven that a knowing, willing, powerful agency is not necessary (to explain the universe or life) because natural causes alone account for everything. This is word play and false reasoning because the affirmation of material causes and material explanations does not invalidate the question of how those cause and effect systems came to be in the first place. All they have done is gained an understanding of how the universe operates, how life is organized and how life functions by tying causes to effects. Subsequently, they appeal to "blind watchmakers", "mountains of improbability", "self-creation", "self-organization" and the likes to explain the origin of what they are studying. These are all explanations demanded by prior assertion of materialism to avoid the only other obvious conclusion, that there is design and purpose in the universe, which if affirmed, necessarily implies a designer and maker through axiomatic reasoning. This explains why people like Richard Dawkins bend over backwards to make actual design look like illusion of design. In this article we are going to cite and comment on a piece written by Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the issue of material causes, the inherent properties (nature) of things (elements, entities) and strengths and forces. The abridged piece below is from a discussion of the arguments between the Mutakallimoon (speculative theologians) and the Mutafalsifah(Philosophers) and over the course of numerous pages the issue of natural causes is referred to. Those sections have been isolated and presented below. Ibn Taymiyyah said in Kitab al-Safadiyyah (Adwaa al-Salaf, 1423H, p. 169 onwards, abridged): However, the intent here is that many of the people of inspection and speculative theology (kalam) such as al-Ash'ari and others rejected the (natural) causes (asbaab), the

inherent properties (of things) and the forces present in the creation of Allaah and His command, and they denied the wisdoms intended by that... The Ash'arites are a heterodox Islamic sect who departed from both reason and revelation whilst claiming to establish one (revelation) through the other (reason). One of their laughable positions is their denial of natural causes. The falsification of this claim lies in thousands of texts in the Qur'an and the Sunnah (prophetic traditions) indicating they oppose both reason and revelation. In opposition to them, orthodox Sunni Muslims, in agreement with sensory perception (hiss), reason (aql) and revelation (naql), affirm the inherent strengths and properties of things, and consider them to be the foundation of material (natural) causes and effects. Thus water has an inherent property of quenching thirst, and when a person drinks pure water his thirst will be quenched by necessity. Just as water is also the means through which life is given to plants and animals, something we can see just by sensory perception. And if a person was to study the matter in depth at the biochemical level, then the actual mechanisms would be established and more detailed knowledge would be acquired. And it would be clear that water has structural properties and qualities that allow it to function the way it does (to facilitate vital biochemical operations), be that in plant or animal cells. You can analogize this for every other known (or yet unknown) cause in the study of organic life, the world and the universe. And whether you rely purely on observation through the vision of the eyes, or observation at a much deeper (physical, biochemical level), the presence of natural causes and explanations is plainly obvious. Claiming only natural explanations should be given (as a second definition of science) is not actually saying anything at all, its just a pretense of showing, through mere definition, that the intuitive, innate, rational necessity of identifiable design and purpose in things pointing to a designing agency has somehow been falsified. ...and the intent here is that the vast majority of the Muslims ... affirm the causes and the wisdoms belonging to Allaah in His creation and what Allaah has endowed upon living (hayawaan) and non-living entities (ajsaam) of inherent strengths and properties. All elements that constitute the living and non-living entities have inherent properties and strengths and they provide the underlying basis for the system of interconnected, interdependent causes and effects operating in the universe. Underlying them are more fundamental laws that provide the basis for the inherent properties of things. The regularity and order in these laws is what makes life and the universe investigable at all, and all scientific inquiry presupposes this (learn more in this article). Thus, whenever any

entity, process or phenomenon is studied through the first definition of science, "observation, theorization, experimentation and inference" a gradual understanding will develop of the collection of causes and effects that help explain it. Detailing and explaining that collection of causes and effects does not eliminate the question of where such an interconnected and interdependent system of causes and effects came from in the first place, one which Naturalists want eliminated through pure word definitions (explanation through natural causes only), since no person of sound reason denies natural causes. This additional definition of science (explanation through natural causes only) is used to portray that there is a conflict between science and theism - that the two are diametrically opposed. This is not the case however, and the true and real conflict is between: a) the belief (prior assumption) of naturalist religion which forces the belief that matter creates itself (from nothing) and self-organizes to produce complicated living organisms and complex by-products through an illusion of design. At the same time, the science defined as "theorization, experimentation and inference" provides not a shred of evidence for this world-view (that universes self-create and that primeval soups charged by lightning create proteins, RNA or DNA). These are explanatory beliefs following on from and demanded by a prior assertion of naturalist religion and no experimentation has proven their validity. However, these explanatory beliefs are justified through a second, rigged definition of science "explanation through natural causes alone" to make it appear as if these specific beliefs have been validated by the actual scientific method (experimentation, observation and inference from data) when the reality is far from it. The scientific method itself does not provide specific evidence for these beliefs and where experimental attempts are made they fail. All attempts to simulate the creation of selfreplicating molecules have failed. Data collected through observation is given a much larger explanatory power than it is able to bear, as occurs in neo-Darwinism which claims random mutations and Natural Selection explain all diversity in life. That's leaving aside the fact that all reputable evolutionary biologists consider neo-Darwinism as an allexplanatory mechanism essentially dead and grant it a token back seat (in an extended evolutionary synthesis) for explaining the appearance of diversity between species. Genetic studies have undermined neo-Darwinism (as an all-explanatory mechanism) and have uprooted the Darwinian Tree of Life. Further, many theories in physics are proven to be viable through creative mathematics (that follow on from a prior assertion of Naturalism), then experiments are designed in such a way to help to confirm the assumptions underlying those theories (so the theories can be said to be validated). So in

all of this what we are seeing is naturalist assertions (belief) come first (second definition), then the science (first definition) comes afterwards to justify that belief. And: b) the assertion of theism in which the universe and all entities and phenomena therein are taken as direct first-hand, observational evidence for a knowing, willing, powerful, creating agency upon the innate, intuitive rational necessity that design (indicative of complexity and purpose) only comes from a purposeful designer. The step from one (observation of design) to the other (a designing agency) is innate, perfectly rational and necessary in reason. There is no conflict between this self-evident truth (design only comes from a designer) and the scientific method. All the advances in astronomy and molecular biology over the past 50 years have shown that the universe is designed to support and enable life and that the information systems underlying life are far superior to all hardware, operating and software systems created to date by the most intelligent hardware and software engineering brains on the planet. As knowledge increases in these areas, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny that that life was intended to be the way it is. The conflict is not between science and theism therefore but between the assertion of naturalism and the assertion of theism. The real question is which of the two assertions does the scientific method support and which of the two is the scientific method more worthy of being founded upon? The assertion that universes come to be from and by nothing and blind purposeless physical forces mimic the effect of conscious (deliberate) design and lead to a wholly purposeless directionless universe and wholly purposeless biological life in which no actual design is apparent? Or the assertion that purposeful design comes through knowledge, will, power and wisdom, leading to a rational intelligible universe that encourages study and investigation for that very reason? In fact, is the scientific method even necessary to demonstrate the truth of one and the falsehood of the other? The knowledge that "nothing" does not create anything and that "blind purposeless forces" cannot be ascribed any creative power in reality are selfevident truths in basic reason. However, in order to conceal the superstitious nature of this belief, naturalists portray naturalism to be synonymous with science and this is done by employing the second definition of science (explanation through "nature" only). This is to avoid the conclusion that all causes (asbaab) and their effects (musabbabaat) require an agent (musabbib) placing them and tying them together to operate in a law-like fashion giving order, regularity, rationality and intelligibility to the universe, a

consequence of which is a universe that can be studied rationally, the by-product of which is scientific method itself. Explanation through natural causes requires a designed universe by default otherwise such explanations are simply not possible. From this, the naturalist slogan "explanation through natural law only" is a red herring. It's meaningless and it does nothing to save the naturalistic superstition: "The glass broke by itself. We know that because the laws of physics explain the breaking process and we understand it extremely well. We have the equations and the math, its all there. Invoking a glassbreaker is not necessary." However, alongside their affirmation of the causes and wisdoms, they do not speak with the saying of the Naturalists amongst the Philosophers and others. Rather, they say that Allaah is the Creator of every thing, its Lord and its Master... and they know that all the causes are created by Allaah through His will and power... so whatever arises through the causes, then Allaah is the creator of the cause and the effect... So we have the originating agent (musabbib), the cause (sabab) and the effect (musabbab) and all three are necessary, you cannot have any two without the third. This is accepted by all parties. The real argument is what is the originating agent (musabbib)? In the naturalist (superstitious) religion it is "nothing" which created matter and energy and thereafter blind purposeless physical forces acted randomly, eventually sending shuttles into space. Here we get the "blind-watchmakers", "mimickers of conscious design", "mountains of improbability" and other naturalist fables. These are the only possible explanations available if you make a prior assertion of naturalism in the study of a rational, intelligible, framed-for-life universe. Thereafter these fables are given weight not by the scientific method, but by a second rigged definition of science (explanation through natural causes only) which is really a meaningless statement in the overall scheme of things. What we have is a tautology, a closed, circular loop.Naturalism is true. In light of that, here are our naturalistic theories and explanations to account for the universe and life. They must be true because science by definition can only explain through natural law. And because naturalism is true, then our explanations simply have to be correct, its impossible for them not to be. The saying of the speculative theologians of the religious factions from theMu'tazilah, Shi'ah, Karraamiyyah and Ash'ariyyah is closer to acceptance than the sayings of the Philosophers, the Naturalists and the Astrologers.

The saying of the speculative theologians (Ahl al-Kalaam) even though it comprises falsehood is still closer to acceptance than the saying of the Naturalists. As for the Naturalists: For these ones (the latter) observe some of the (natural causes) just as they observe the inherent properties and powers (forces) which Allaah created in entities (ajsaam) and just as they observe the effects of the sun and moon upon this world, but alongside this, they assign the (observable) events arising (thereby) to a cause amongst His causes, such as ascribing newly-emerging entities to "nature." But "nature" is simply an attribute (that is) established with the entity. That which is referred to as "nature" refers to the properties of a thing. The attributes and behaviours it exhibits. Thus all entities and elements have a "nature." This nature in all instances has no inherent creative power in its own right. The "nature" of water refers to its collection of unique and special properties. Those unique and special properties do not have any creative power on their own. But when a system of causes is brought together (soil, seed, air, water) a creative process goes into motion. Assigningindependent creative power to the nature of each entity (cause) is false. Likewise assigning independent creative power to the system of causes is also false. But this is what Naturalists do. They assign independent creative power to what they refer to as "nature" but then they have to qualify this creative power as "an automated blind, purposeless, illusory design process" so as to keep within the naturalistic fold. The creative process is essentially assigned to chance and randomness operating on the inherent properties of things. What Ibn Taymiyyah has alluded to here is perfectly illustrated by citing examples from Richard Dawkins from his book the Blind Watchmaker. On the cover we read, "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of Natural Selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning", and also, "All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural Selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose at all" (p. 5). This view is further from acceptance than the saying of those from the speculative theologians of Islam who erred in certain respects.

Thus, the one who made "nature" to be that which brings about a human in the womb of his mother and whatever he possesses of the various limbs and the strengths and benefits endowed upon (these limbs), then his saying is more apparently corrupt than those sayings in which the newly-emerging entities are assigned to an eternal (static) will without affirmation of a cause or a wisdom (therein), or assigning newly-emerging entities to the power of a willing, powerful agent, irrespective of whether that power (has been exercised in) eternity or is exercised (through recurring will). For both of these sayings are better than assigning that to "nature" which is simply an attribute in an entity amongst the entities, which has no wish or will. As an example illustration, to ascribe the process of human development in the womb to "nature" means assigning independent creative power to the sum of causes involved in that process which is false because "nature" refers to an attribute of an entity, its behavioural property, which in itself cannot have independent creative power. And the sum of the properties (natures) of the various causes involved (in human development by way of example) do not have independent creative power. The originating source of independent creative power, the musabbib, is external to the sum of causes (asbaab) and their effects (musabbabaat) and creative power has been placed within that collection of causes in terms of the individual properties of things. When all the right causes come together (and preventative barriers are absent), the effect will take place. This can only be through prior estimation and determination (taqdeer) and it is impossible for the creative power to be assigned independently to the "nature" of the system (in our example, the human reproductive system). Naturalists assign thisindependent creative power to "nature" but must qualify it immediately as a process ofapparent and illusory design, not actual design. This is because purposeful design necessitates a designer with knowledge, intent, creative power and purpose in the innate disposition and reason of all humankind. ...As for the vast majority of the Muslims, they do not reject the causes and effects, neither in inanimate (non-living) things and nor in living things. However, they acknowledge everything whose soundness is demonstrated by evidence, irrespective of whether the evidence is textual (from authentic text) or rational (investigative). Every confirmed explanation through "natural law" or natural cause is automatically accepted by Muslims by default since all causes (asbaab) and effects (musabbabaat) are tied together and made law-like through an external agent (musabbib) possessing will, knowledge and power by necessity and to whom "independent creative power" is assigned. The saying of the Naturalists is that the external agent responsible for this

system of causes and effects is "nothing" or "blind forces" which mimic "conscious design" in the absence of knowledge, will and intent. There is no difference between naturalists and theists in affirming the presence of something (a power) above the system of all natural causes and effects. To Muslims that entity is described in a way consistent with what the order, regularity and rational intelligibility of the universe demands by necessity. The Naturalists, like Dawkins, opt for "the blind-watchmaker" which is sophistry in reason and revilement in intellect. Summary Nature is not an independent creative power, since the word nature is merely a reference to the essential properties of a thing which in themselves are not creative. The individual nature of each cause (or entity) in a system of interconnected causes does not haveindependent creative power. Nor does the system as a whole. True independent creative power is always external to the sum of interconnected causes which when found together lead to a particular effect or effects. There is always a musabbib (originating agent who placed causes and effects), asbaab (causes) and musabbabaat (effects), no two can exist independent of the third (except where some causes are made barriers to the effects of other causes in which case the presence of a cause will not necessarily lead to its effect). But such a system of interconnected causes behaving in this way and exhibiting creative processes can only behave as such through prior determination(taqdeer) of the essential properties of each element comprising it and not merely because of the "nature" of the elements that comprise it, individually or collectively. This reasoning is sound and validated by the sum whole of human activity in the field of industrial and technological enterprise in that the originating, independent, ultimate creative power (musabbib) is always external to the system of causes (asbaab) and their effects (musabbabaat). No valid distinction can be made between industrial, technological or biological systems. That issue will be looked at in separate articles. But in short ascribing "independent creative power" to nature is false and that is why we see people like Richard Dawkins using very specific and carefully chosen language when attempting to propose the "blind watchmaker" thesis, "the blind, unconscious, automatic process", "it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view", "the illusion of design and planning", "the blind forces of physics albeit deployed in a very special way." In all of these quotes (and many more can be provided from atheist naturalists) we see that something is being invoked above and beyond the "nature" of the system being spoken of, bearing in mind that "nature" simply means the essential

properties of an entity that do not in themselves have any creative power. The creative power being invoked that lies beyond that nature is being ascribed to that very nature and then immediately qualified as a blind, unconscious, illusion of design. These are the types of explanations that come from young children when asked to explain who broke the glass, "the glass broke by itself (through the laws of physics)." Caution Against Muslim Apologists: Zakir Naik, the Big Bang and the Qur'an

History repeats over and over again. What we are witnessing today at the hands of many Muslim apologists who argue with atheists, scientists and Philosophers is a re-run, from many different angles, of the debates between the Mutakallimeen(speculative theologians) and the Mutafalsifah (Philosophers). The speculative theologians assumed the truth of the great "science" of the day (Aristotelian logic, philosophy, metaphysics), accepted it as a conceptual, philosophical platform for debate and attempted to argue for the Islamic creed on its basis. This led to much wrangling over the centuries leading many to fall into confusion and bewilderment. There are Muslim apologists today operating in the same vain. From this category isZakir Naik, a man with errors in elementary matters of Islamic creed whose polemics often hardly satisfy the reasoning of a child. Today the Muslim world is plagued with people like Zakir Naik who are in oblivion to the realities, times and circumstances in which they live. Rote-memorization with shallow understanding make a bad cake and 1980s Deedat style no longer works in a savvy 21st century cyber-environment. Reflection upon the activities of individuals like Zakir Naik appear to indicate that these people are more interested in amassing followers and audiences (for their institutions and organizations) than they are in genuinely trying to investigate, study and understand the evolving doubts of the atheists and Philosophers and rebut them intelligently and upon sound methodologies. We see plenty of pseudo-intellectual babble, child-like reasoning, hardly an ounce of understanding of the actual issues, and shallow answers (apologetics). This type of activity actually breeds doubt, misconceptions confusion and ultimately, atheism. In some of the Muslim countries, as a direct result of this shaky apologetic, pockets of atheism (and naturalism), though very, very small, are beginning to appear. In this article we will address one of the statements of Zakir Naik in the subject of cosmology. Before we continue it is very important to be clear about definitions and use of words. When we use the word "universe" this does not mean "everything that exists" but rather

it is used interchangeably, purely for convenience, with the heavens and earththat are referred to in the revealed texts. Strictly speaking however, there is a distinction to be made between "universe" and "heavens and earth." The Qur'anstates the "heavens and earth" were created and the word (" )universe, world" in its singular form is not mentioned anywhere in the revealed texts (only the plural form as indicated by Ibn Taymiyyah) and we will expand upon this in a separate article. For now, it is important to note that out of pure convenience we are using "universe" and "heavens and earth" interchangeably. Zakir Naik, the Big Bang and the Qur'an In the video clip Zakir Naik says (quote): Then ask them this question. The atheists will tell us, that how did this universe come into existence. The atheists will tell us that initially there was a primary nebula, then there was a big bang, there was a secondary suppression which gave rise to galaxies, the sun, the moon, and the earth on which we live. This we call as the big bang. When did you come to know of this creation of the universe? So he will tell you about 30 or 40 years back, the scientists discovered this. You ask him the question, but what you are talking about the big bang is already mentioned in the Qur'an in Surah alAnbiya, chapter number 21 verse number 30 which says, "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together and we clove them asunder" what you are talking about the big bang is already mentioned in the Qur'an 1400 years ago. Who could have mentioned that? Upon this there are numerous points: 01. No atheist scientist believes there was a "primary nebula" before the big bang which subsequently exploded. Rather, they refer to a "singularity" (an infinite density and temperature) from which all matter explodes (expands) into existence. But mischaracterising the position of scientists is the least of Zakir Naik's crimes. A greater crime is lying upon the Book of Allaah, the Sublime and Exalted, and distorting the verse in question to fit in with the big bang model in order to "impress" the atheist and also the lay Muslim who does not know that interpreting the Qur'an in this way is unlawful, let alone knowing the model itself is conjectural, speculative and has a variety of problems. In the remaining points we will elaborate on this topic to provide a clearer picture.

02. First, two very important verses of the Qur'an which are extremely relevant here before proceeding: The first is the saying of Allaah, the Exalted, ( ) , "I made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the Earth and nor the creation of themselves" (18:51). And also the saying of Allaah, the Exalted ( ) , "The creation of the heavens and the earth is indeed greater than the creation of mankind, yet most of mankind know not." (40:57). First, both the origin of the universe and of life have not been observed and therefore human scientific knowledge and understanding in these areas are automatically limited, will be deficient, incomplete and full of speculation. That is just a reality and some of the most prominent scientists (in cosmology) readily and humbly admit that "a theory of everything" even if one exists, may be impossible to know. The claim of "we will get there one day" is simply a fantasy. The second point is that the creation of the heavens and the earth is much greater than the creation of man himself, and when the origin of life is as baffling as it is, then the universe is even more baffling and bewildering. This is known also through the current state of cosmology: Lost and grasping at straws. Due to these realities, mankind can only speculate within limited boundaries in these affairs and arrive at patchyknowledge. This means that when Muslim apologists come along and start employing the speculative, tentative theories and propositions held by these scientists, they put themselves in a very precarious position, on a cliff-edge. This is what people like Zakir Naik do, they lead people to a cliff-edge, building their eemaan upon a cliff-edge, which can tumble and crumble at any moment (when the prevailing scientific view suddenly changes). 03. The origins of the big bang model lie in the proposition by a Belgian Jesuit Priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre, also an astronomer and physicist, in the 1920s, of an expanding universe. This is said to be corroborated by Edwin Hubble some years later who noticed that galaxies further away (less bright) have a larger red-shift and galaxies closer (more bright) have a smaller red-shift. This is the core proof behind an expanding universe and hence the big bang model. The idea of a big bang which entails chaos and randomness is suited to the theory of evolution which also rests on chaos and undirected processes, and the two provide a nice package-deal for atheists and naturalists. This is why both the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are defended with vigour, and are ring-fenced in academic institutions and scientific journals. At the same time, the big bang theory is beneficial for the speculative theologians (people of kalaam) who rely upon the kalam cosmological argument. They have incorporated the big bang theory into their apologetics and polemics against atheists and Philosophers. These apologists

are unaware of the reasons why the big bang model is rigorously defended and propped up. It is because it supports a naturalist world view and combines perfectly with an evolutionary model for origin of life. Cosmology is being viewed through an evolutionary lens as is clear from many papers, publications and journals. That it implies a beginning (though many atheists hold and argue it does not) is just an uncomfortable aspect of the model for which scientists have theorized solutions. 04. Muslims ought not to rely heavily upon the big bang model to prove the universe began (even if we assert that it did). This is for reasons: a) Within the wider context ofthe falsehood of the claim that in order to prove a creator you have to prove the universe began. This is the claim of the people of speculative theology (kalaam) and is outright false. Rather, the routes and methods of affirming a creator for this universe are innumerable, many and varied and do not center around origins of the universe alone. Read more about in this article, "The Methods and Routes to Affirmation of a Maker Are Innumerable and Not Restricted" (see here). b) The big bang theory and the "facts" associated with it are based on assumptions which are mostly not presented. Its "factual" nature depends in reality on those assumptions. Those assumptions are not always disclosed or made clear except in scientific papers. As for textbooks, popular science books, and media these matters are not disclosed and the result is misleading the public by the assertion of a level of certainty that is not warranted by the nature of the evidence put forward and which itself relies upon prior assumptions for it to be valid. c)Arguments involving fine-tuning do not require acceptance of the big bang model either. In fact it is counter-intuitive because the big bang model brings with it chaos and disorder which support a chance evolution of galaxies through forces created by the big bang thereby laying the groundwork for chance evolution of inorganic to organic matter and life on planets. Reconciling explosions, chaos and disorder with harmony, order and fine-tuning is something those atheists have to deal with, it is a problem they create for themselves by asserting the big bang model. But fine-tuning itself can be explained on its own right without a violent, chaotic, orderless explosion to justify the actual presence of finetuning. On the contrary, prior created matter with prior physical law (that has been put in place), in the context of prior order, along with design, skilful implementation and orderly creation is more in line with a fine-tuned universe than a chaotic explosion as the starting point. 05. The big bang theory has a growing number of detractors who have pointed out serious flaws in the model. In "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004, thirty-four scientists wrote the following letter:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles. Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do. Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives

cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry. Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory. Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology. Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe. Since its publishing that number has grown to 218 scientists and engineers and 187 independent researchers. Note that alternative and competing explanations posit an eternal universe but this does not mean that just because Muslims believe the universe is not eternal and must have had a beginning that the big bang model is thereforecorrect. It may support that position better than other models on the surface, but it remains speculative, is not free from major flaws and is favoured because it lays the groundwork for the origins of life through random, undirected processes. Chaos is the atheist's

psychological need. That's his fix. As much as that can be incorporated into a beliefsystem and world-view he is happy. That's why the big bang model is an addiction and scientists are happy to resort to supernaturalism (see below) in order to maintain it. As for the flaws in the big bang model, then that can be elaborated upon in brief by the following: 06. First: The results of the PLANCK satellite data released in March 2013 which support previous results indicating that the Earth is at or near to the centre of the universe, thereby invalidating the Cosmological principle which underlies the big bang model. A separate article looks at this in more detail (see here). 07. Second: The original "standard model" of the big bang (an explosion with subsequent cooling and congealing to form galaxies), on its own does not work. This standard model contradicts, in many different ways, hard empirical (observational) data. One of its main problems is that there is not enough time in this standard model for life to develop (as in we should not really be here) because there is not enough time for the debris of the big bang to form into galaxies. To patch this up a period of super-inflationhas to be added into the model to speed things up rapidly at the very early stage (in quantum time). This is of course speculation. It means that after the initial explosion, there was a period of super-inflation to make the universe rapidly expand (faster than the speed of light) and then that inflation stopped and normal expansion continued as before. This is makebelieve. With this addition the new model is called "the big bang inflationary model." After this, dark matter has been added to the model to account for anomalies between the model and what is observed of the speed of motion of stars in galaxies as well as their not being enough matter in the universe. Stars, planets and gas only make of 4% of matter in the universe. So they added the concept of dark matter(making up 23%) into the model to add more gravity into the mix so galaxies can form easily and more rapidly. But that still does not make the model work and fit in with empirical observations, because they claimed that the expansion of the universe is now accelerating (instead of slowing down). So dark energy (making up 73%) is another patch to explain this to make the theory work, it is an anti-gravity force. The dominant forms of matter (making up 96%) in the universe are in reality all hypothetical. They have no idea what these terms represent (dark matter, dark energy). They are just invented terms devoid of any meaning or tangible reality. This is supernaturalism being invoked to explain the natural. This is a flat contradiction to their rigged definition of science (see here) which requires that only material (observable) causes should do the explaining. They do not consider the possibility that the theory itself (order from chaos, life from explosion) could be

fundamentally flawed. What they are doing here is inventingfudge factors. When empirical observations do not validate the theory, assumptions, metaphysical and supernatural beliefs are brought in to patch up these flaws. Experiments are designed to validate the assumptions so that the overall theory can be said to be validated (through validation of the assumptions and not the core elements of the theory). One has to be careful in identifying what is proven and established by hard empirical data and what is merely constructed as a rhetorical instrument (and made to appear as fact) by which to deal with uncomfortable empirical observations (like fine-tuning for example). There is plenty of sleight-of-hand going on. Although speculation with a view to opening fields of inquiry is necessary in investigative science, one has to remember that far from the certainty being professed, all scientists can make claim to is the possession of subjective (ideologically motivated) explanations of data which appear to explain some things but leave much more unanswered. This is what honesty demands. However, popular science writers, magazines and many of these arrogant atheists pretend that their ideas and theories are "facts" and "certainty." All they have is just one interpretation of many of the available facts, and different, equally valid, ideas, explanations and theories can be constructed around those same facts. However, as history shows, scientific paradigms are always tied to culture, world-view, wealth, status and power as well, and often, competing paradigms are not allowed to gain a footing due to the protective mechanisms in place to protect the current belief system that is admixed with scientific theorization. We can give an example here to indicate the kind of process that is taking place. Imagine a completely innocent person suspected of murder. If you want to insist he is guilty of the murder, it is not difficult to imaginatively construct evidence to help convict him. At each stage you can make assumptions, invent explanations, collect circumstantial evidence and gradually build a strong case. There comes a point beyond which the accumulation of apparent evidence has become so strong that the possibility of being wrong in your original assumption has gone out of the window. Then whenever objections are brought, you can easily find explanations to dismiss them. Even when a clear and blatant piece of evidence is brought that undermines the original assumption, it can just be dismissed outright or be explained away in imaginitive ways and so it becomes very difficult to disprove the case because imaginitive and creative resources are always available to offer suitable explanations. The broader and more comprehensive the assumption (theory), the easier it is to find explanations to fill in the gaps. Now, when you consider that billions of dollars (grant money), institutions and careers are dependent upon maintaining a certain

world view based upon certain scientific theories, then it becomes very easy to dismiss contrary evidence. Who's going to jump off the gravy train? So this provides a glimpse of what can be going on in the field of scientific enquiry. Appropriate here is a statement by Peter Woit, published in the Scientific American online blog, "My own moral concerns about the multiverse have more to do with worry that pseudo-science is being heavily promoted to the public... if a wrong idea is promoted for enough years, it gets into the textbooks and becomes part of the conventional wisdom about how the world works. This process is now well underway with multiverse pseudo-science." The Multiverse theory states that many (or infinite) big bangs are taking place and universes are being created all the time through inflationary processes. The intent behind this theory is to do away with the problem of fine-tuning in this universe. 08. Third: There is a growing controversy that is not going to be easily dismissed. This controversy relates to the basis upon which the universe is claimed to be expanding. The red-shift effect (also known as the Hubble effect) is said to be evidence for galaxies travelling away from each other. However, study of a growing number ofquasars are undermining this claim. This in turn has serious implications on everything else, on the age of the universe and therefore on the theory of evolution. This puts the whole naturalist package-deal under threat. Many Quasars are seen as ejections from existing galaxies to which they are connected by streams of plasma. There are many examples of these being studied where a quasar is right next to a galaxy (connected by a plasma stream) but the red-shifts for both are very different. This would indicate that the red-shift effect is not exclusively related to velocity. In other words redshift is not exclusively an indicator of movement, but can also indicate changing electron density in galaxies. This then brings into question the theory as a whole because the expansion of the universe is based on the red-shift effect which provides the basis for the big bang model. You can look at some papers on the topic of "red-shift anomalies" (here), (here: abstract,conclusion), (here). There are plenty more studies in this area and these are only samples. The scientific priests and

clergymen of the big bang model are trying to dismiss this observational, empirical data. You can search for this topic using "non-cosmological red-shift", "intrinsic red-shift", "redshift anomaly", "Halton Arp", "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" but be prepared to wade through much propaganda and the standard racket protectionism that surrounds closely guarded theories. There are attempts to explain this problem away and to discredit what are clear empirical observational data through statistical experiments and other methods, none of which can trump empirical observational data. There are many scientific papers attempting to explain away or discredit these observations. In an article in New Scientist, "Time waits for no quasar - even though it should" (no. 2755, 08 April 2010) Martin Chown writes, "Why do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when the big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from the Earth? No one can yet answer this new question, but one controversial idea is that the galaxies' light is being bent by intervening black holes that formed shortly after the big bang." Controversial ideas do little to explain away hard empirical observational data. When you consider the implication this has on standard cosmology, reading carefully and in between the lines to detect propaganda is essential. If the red-shift effect is not exclusively a measure of velocity it means the big bang model comes crashing to the ground. It also means the age of the universe is wrong. This then has implications for the theory of evolution too. 09. Fourth: Massive structures have been discovered which squarely contradict the big bang model. The big bang model assumes uniformity in distribution of galaxies in all of space. An example of an anomalous structure is the large quasar group (LQG) which is 4 billion light years long. Structures this size are simply not possible according to the big bang model. Refer to this Science Daily article (screenshot). The team, led by Dr Roger Clowes from UCLan's Jeremiah Horrocks Institute, has identified the LQG which is so significant in size it also challenges the Cosmological Principle: the assumption that the universe, when viewed at a sufficiently large scale, looks the same no matter where you are observing it from. The modern theory of cosmology is based on the work of Albert Einstein, and depends on the assumption of the Cosmological Principle. The Principle is assumed but has never been demonstrated observationally 'beyond reasonable doubt'... "This is significant not just because of its size but also because it challenges the Cosmological Principle, which has been widely accepted since Einstein. Our team has been looking at similar cases which add further weight to this challenge and we will be continuing to investigate these fascinating phenomena."

In addition, advanced, well-formed galaxies have been found which are close to 11 billion years old (according to red-shift measurements), such as the BX442 galaxy. A well defined and formed spiral galaxy after 3 billion years after the big bang is not possible. Refer to this Science Daily article (screenshot): "The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," said David Law, lead author of the study and Dunlap Institute postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto's Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics. "Current wisdom holds that such 'grand-design' spiral galaxies simply didn't exist at such an early time in the history of the universe." A 'grand design' galaxy has prominent, well-formed spiral arms. This conflicts with the big bang model in which such galaxies can't possibly exist this early on. Attempts have been made by scientists to explain this away by claiming a nearby dwarf galaxy offered some gravitational help and the proof for this idea is presented through "numerical simulations." If you want something (an imagined effect) to become real, you can very easily make it real (breathe life into it) through maths on paper or simulations on computer! Note that a large number of "truths" are often asserted in this manner with little connection to actual reality (empirical evidence). 10. These uncomfortable findings (especially the PLANCK satellite data and the red-shift anomaly) are not easily dismissed through slogans such as "non-standard cosmology" or "controversial views which do not accord with the standard model of physical cosmology" or "contradicts the accepted model." What they really mean is that when hard, empirical, physical, observable data clashes with our theory, we are not going to accept it because it is controversial and does not agree with our belief (and our world-view)! Many of their supernatural explanations are devised only to helpexplain away the fine-tuning of this universe, and this is where string-theory and multiverses come into play. The bottom line is that there is "supernatural" stuff needed in cosmology too! It is not easy to separate ideology from science. 11. So what is the point here then? The point here is to indicate that there is not certainty in these theories and they have flaws. In light of this, the use of mere speculation to argue in favour of what is mentioned in revealed texts amounts to fabricating lies and speaking without knowledge. Thus, Muslims should be wary of individuals like Zakir Naik who drive Muslims towards doubts in their aqidah andeemaan through the type of simple-minded, child-like polemic that you have seen above. That's leaving aside the crime of distorting the Book of Allaah, the

Exalted. Using the verse "Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and Earth were together ( ) and we separated them and with water we created every living thing" (21:30), to refer to the "singularity" in the big bang hypothesis is futile because in the big bang hypothesis all bodies (stars, planets and gaseous matter) were combined in a single mass, no single body or entity is excluded. The revealed texts indicate that there was space, time and matter before the heavens and Earth. Created entities also existed before this universe. There is explicit mention of a prior measurement of time. This in turn indicates the presence of order and physical laws prior to this universe. The heavens and earth were created from prior matter (which itself was originated) and not out of "nothing". Putting these affairs together it is more reasonable to accept an orderly, planned, systematic, purposeful construction (creation) of the heavens and earth from prior created matter in the context of prior order and regularity than a random, chaotic, explosive mess supervised into order. But at the end of all this discussion, we reiterate what we said at the beginning. It is not possible to arrive at certainknowledge in these fields because we are dealing with events passed, unobserved. Thus, all of the specific details and proposed mechanisms about the origin and creation of the heavens and the earth is largely speculation built upon patchy information. The scientific method cannot lead to certain knowledge in these particular fields because there are limiting bounds to what can be known as well as insufficiency in the tools of observation and investigation and thus everything remains tentative and speculative. Therefore, it is sounder and safer in reason to remain within the bounds of what is plain and apparent from the revealed texts and refrain from speaking without knowledge instead of riding upon the speculations of the atheists and scientists, ( ) , "They do but conjecture (give opinions) and they do but guess" (6:116), and then attempting to give explanations to the revealed texts on the basis of that, which amount in reality to conjectures and lies. Planck Satellite Data, Lawrence Krauss and the Earth at the Center of the Universe

Introduction We suggest you first read "Big Bang Cosmology, Supernatural Beliefs and Suppression of Evidence" (see here) as it will help you to appreciate the contents of this article a lot more.

( ) , "They do but conjecture (give opinions) and they do but guess" (6:116) ( ) , "That is their sum of knowledge" (53:30) Cosmology (study of the origins and destination of the universe) proceeds upon a philosophical doctrine known today as "the Copernican Principle," an extension of which is "the Cosmological Principle" (a generalization of the first). The first states that the Earth does not have any special, privileged place in the universe and the second states that no matter where you are in the universe, everything will appear the same on large scales. There is no special location or place. It states that the universe is isotropic andhomogeneous (looks the same in all directions no matter where you are). These are philosophical assertions in the framework of which scientific findings are defined and explained. In reality these assertions are a manifestation of arrogance through which the privilege of life on Earth is rejected. The aim behind these assertions is to steer all knowledge towards a naturalist religion. The entire enterprise must start with the assertion that Earth is in no special location and does not have any special privilege. Ironically, atheists say it is arrogance to claim special privilege and it is from humility to deny it! This clashes with what the revealed books came with, that the Earth occupies a special place and is privileged, a matter that is known intuitively, perceptively and rationally even without revealed text. George Ellis is a famous astronomer who authored books with Stephen Hawking, and in a 1995 profile in Scientific American (see here), Ellis was quoted as saying: People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations... For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds... What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that. Both George Ellis and Stephen Hawking wrote in The Large Scale Structure of SpaceTime (p. 34) "We [i.e. scientists] are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology". Keep these quotes in mind as you read ahead. Many decades ago the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was detected in space and it was argued that if these philosophical assertions are correct and if the "big bang" model is correct, there should be uniform presence of the CMB across the universe as a whole. There should not be any patchiness and certainly no variations in the CMB in the large

scale of the universe. To test and confirm this, numerous satellites were launched over the past three decades and they are COBE (1989), WMAP (2001) and PLANCK (2009). COBE revealed that the universe is not uniform as predicted in the big bang model and as required by the Copernican and Cosmological principles. In fact it showed that the universe seems to have an alignment that points directly to the axis of the earth across its equator. To make sure they had things right, a more powerful satellite (WMAP) was sent up in 2001 whose data was processed in 2004 and it actually confirmed what COBE had indicated. A new term was coined "the axis of evil" and you have to understand the psychology here, it shows that scientists are not as impartial as you might think. When empirical observational evidence suggests the earth is at the center of the universe, it is considered "evil." To make absolutely sure there were no errors in the instrumentation, and in the collection of the data another satellite was sent up in 2009, the PLANCK satellite which was ten times more powerful than WMAP and all possible errors were accounted for in the design of this new more powerful satellite. Now before we look at the results, lets go and look what Lawrence Krauss (a theoretical physicist and vocal atheist) said back in 2006 about the data available for that time (from COBE and WMAP). Lawrence Krauss in 2006 In an article, "The Energy of Space That Isn't Zero", Lawrence Krauss stated (2006): But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun - the plane of the earth around the sun - the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is (s)imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. He is stating explicitly that the data from the COBE and WMAP satellites puts the Earth in or very close to the centre of the universe. He say's "that's crazy," meaning that empirical observational data is crazy (because it does not fit in with his philosophical beliefs). He also says, "There's no way there should be a correlation of structure..." How does he know there is no way for a correlation to exist (sorry, forgot, it's because he holds philosophical beliefs telling him there can't be any correlations). And in any case, isn't the empirical

data supposed to be speaking? He suggests the data maybe wrong but also admits the theories about the larger scales of the universe might be wrong. You can see the psychology going on here and you would do good to read about the two different definitions of science that are in play amongst naturalists and materialists (in this article). Before we cite the coverage in the media and journals of the Planck data and its implications it is important to bear in mind that when an entire paradigm is essentially falsified by observable, empirical evidence then the public has to be told things in a certain way so as not to reveal the true and real ramifications of what has been discovered. We will see some of the clever methods used in presenting the results of the PLANCK satellite data to the public in a short while. The Axis of Evil Here is an article published in the New Scientist in September 2009: WHAT would you do if you found a mysterious and controversial pattern in the radiation left over from the big bang? In 2005, Kate Land and Joyo Magueijo at Imperial College London faced just such a conundrum. What they did next was a PR master stroke: they called their discovery the cosmic "axis of evil". What exactly had they seen? Instead of finding hot and cold spots randomly spattered across the sky as they expected, the pair's analysis showed that the spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) appeared to be aligned in one particular direction through space. The apparent alignment is "evil" because it undermines what we thought we knew about the early universe. Modern cosmology is built on the assumption that the universe is essentially the same in whichever direction we look. If the cosmic radiation has a preferred direction, that assumption may have to go - along with our best theories about cosmic history. This disaster might be averted if we can show that the axis arises from some oddity in the way our telescopes and satellites observe the radiation. A nearby supercluster of galaxies could also save the day: its gravitational pull might be enough to distort the radiation into the anomalous form seen. Nobody knows for sure. We are dealing with the limits of our capabilities, says Michael Longo of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "All observations beyond our galaxy are

obscured by the disc of the Milky Way," he points out, so we need to be careful how we interpret them. The European Space Agency's recently launched Planck space telescope might settle the issue when it makes the most sensitive maps yet of the CMB. Until then, the axis of evil continues to terrorise us. Note "the axis of evil" might "terrorise us." Why is that? Should observational empirical data terrorise a scientist if the very definition of science is to let the observational empirical data speak for itself? Keep in mind the psychology going on here and recall the statement of George Ellis mentioned earlier. The Results from PLANCK in 2013 Planck confirmed what was indicated by the COBE and WMAP satellites. Various quotes will be presented below (some of which are technical) but the general meaning of them all is that the observational evidence shows the Earth to be at or very close to the centre of the universe and that there is a clear pattern in the universe which, through many different ways, points back to the Earth and its axis about the equator as a central location. It was made sure with the PLANCK satellite that all possible errors and miscalculations have been accounted for, so this is final, there is no doubt in these results and they have now been verified twice over with increasing levels of accuracy and sophistication. On the European Space Agency (ESA) website (see here), they present a graphical representation. Consider this is as a sphere which has been open out and spread (showing in 2D instead of 3D):

It is stated in the description (emphasis added): Two CMB anomalous features hinted at by Planck's predecessor, NASA's WMAP, are confirmed in the new high-precision data. One is an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky (indicated by the curved line), with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look. In other words, the Cosmological principle has been violated (invalidated) by observational empirical data. The "axis of evil" has given the Copernican and Cosmological principles a big uppercut and knocked them out. But this is not going to be stated explicitly for obvious reasons. Things got even crazier for Lawrence Krauss and others who believe universes pop into being from nothing and by nothing. Now, how do these people respond when observational data falsifies a core hypothesis? Let's look atan article published on the findings by the ESA: The article is cleverly titled as "Planck Reveals an Almost Perfect Universe." Now you should recall that science is supposed to be a procedure that is: making a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis through experiments, and then accepting or rejecting or modifying the hypothesis on the basis of the observational empirical data acquired. When a hypothesis is falsified outright, you cannot just assume that it must be right and start to make the data fit the hypothesis (theory). But this is what is being attempted in this headline and the rest of the article. Buried amongst the suggestions that Planck supports the current model there are indications of the actual observed facts: Acquired by ESA's Planck space telescope, the most detailed map ever created of the cosmic microwave background - the relic radiation from the Big Bang - was released today revealing the existence of features that challenge the foundations of our current understanding of the Universe. That should read "...invalidate the foundations of our current understanding of the Universe" since the Copernican and Cosmological principles have been invalidated by observational, empirical evidence. Overall, the information extracted from Planck's new map provides an excellent confirmation of the standard model of cosmology at an unprecedented accuracy, setting a new benchmark in our manifest of the contents of the Universe. But because precision

of Planck's map is so high, it also made it possible to reveal some peculiar unexplained features that may well require new physics to be understood. The reader should note that "the standard model of cosmology" which as it stands is referred to as the lambda cold-dark matter big bang inflationary model is a model invoking supernatural entities to keep it afloat. The "peculiar unexplained features" refer to numerous patterns that point directly back to the Earth, thereby invalidating the Cosmological principle. Now, what do they suggest in light of these "anomalies"? They suggest a new physics should be invented! "Our ultimate goal would be to construct a new model that predicts the anomalies and links them together. But these are early days; so far, we don't know whether this is possible and what type of new physics might be needed. And that's exciting," says Professor Efstathiou. Yes, when observational, empirical data does not fit your theory, invent a new set of maths equations and theoretical physics to make sure it does. You can see here the games that are played in science. It is not possible to separate ideology from science, despite what these atheists claim. "The fact that Planck has made such a significant detection of these anomalies erases any doubts about their reality; it can no longer be said that they are artefacts of the measurements. They are real and we have to look for a credible explanation," says Paolo Natoli of the University of Ferrara, Italy. "Imagine investigating the foundations of a house and finding that parts of them are weak. You might not know whether the weaknesses will eventually topple the house, but you'd probably start looking for ways to reinforce it pretty quickly all the same," adds Francois Bouchet of the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris. In other words, we have to stop the house of cards from toppling over, by reinforcing it quickly. What does that mean? Well the Cosmological principle has been dealt a possibly fatal blow, so how can we give it some band aid and get it back on its feet? Invent a new physics to creatively patch the theory with the anomalies so our model remains intact. Papers on the Topic There are numerous papers on the subject that were published following the WMAP data and the PLANCK data, and we present a small selection below. They are technical papers and in short what they are establishing is that there are dipole, quadropole and octopole

symmetries that point back to the axis of the earth about its equator and these are very highly unlikely. This puts the Earth at the centre and thereby clashes with the cosmological principle. Now some of these people don't like this result and try to offer certain suggestions or solutions which would be a natural reaction to expect of course. Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? Ashok K. Singal http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134 17th May 2013 Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic. This alignment has been dubbed the "axis of evil" with very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon... The axis of evil passes very close to the line joining the two equinox points, and so does the dipole direction representing the overall motion of the solar system in the universe. Also our plane dividing the two regions of asymmetry passes through the same two equinox points... there is no denying that from the large anisotropies present in the radio sky, independently seen both in the discrete source distribution and in the diffuse CMBR, the Copernican principle seems to be in jeopardy... There is certainly a cause for worry. Is there a breakdown of the Copernican principle as things seen in two regions of sky

divided purely by a coordinate system based on earth's orientation in space, shows a very large anisotropy in source distribution? Why should the equinox points and the NCP should have any bearing on the large scale distribution of matter in the universe... The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in one particular direction through space is called "evil" because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model Large-scale alignments from WMAP and Planck Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz and Glenn D. Starkman http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.4562.pdf 20th November 2013 At the present time in cosmology there are no compelling alternative models that can account for the anomalies. (i) the Ecliptic plane is seen to carefully thread itself between a hot and cold spot and there is a clear power asymmetry across the Ecliptic plane; (ii) the planarity of the octopole and the alignment of the quadrupole and octopole planes is clearly visible - note the remarkable near-overlap of the quadrupole and octopole maximum angular momentum dispersion axes; (iii) the area vectors lie near each other, near the Ecliptic plane, and also near the dipole direction. ...In summary, the quadrupole and octopole alignments noted in early WMAP full-sky maps persist in the WMAP seven-year and final (nine-year) maps, and in the Planck firstyear full-sky maps. The correlation of the quadrupole and octopole with one another, and their correlations with other physical directions or planes - the dipole, the Ecliptic, the Galaxy - remain broadly unchanged across all of these maps. Consequently, it is not sufficient to argue that they are less significant than they appear merely by appealing to the uncertainties in the full-sky maps No large-angle correlations on the non-Galactic microwave sky Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz and Glenn D. Starkman http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3767v2.pdf 27th August 2013 We argue that unless there is some undiscovere d systematic error in their collection or reduction, the data point towards a violation of statistical isotropy... ...We can only conclude that (i) we don't live in a standard CDM Universe with a standard inflationary early history; (ii) we live in an extremely anomalous realization of

that cosmology; (iii) there is a major error in the observations of both COBE and WMAP; or (iv) there is a major error in the reduction to maps performed by both COBE and WMAP. Whichever of these is correct, inferences from the large-angle data about precise values of the parameters of the standard cosmological model should be regarded with particular skepticism. ...On the largest angular scales the microwave sky is inconsistent with theoretical expectations These discrepancies between observations and theory remains an open problem. In the future, combining the current data with new information, such as new data from WMAP, observations from the Planck experiment, and polarization information (Dvorkin et al. 2008) may be key to determining the nature of the large-scale anomalies. You should not miss the 4 options that these researchers (who have extensive prior research in this field) have presented in light of the PLANCK findings. They are: 1) The current model (cold-dark matter inflationary big bang) is false. 2) Or it is true but there is something totally weird about the universe it has produced, it just does not make sense! 3) The observational data is wrong. 4) The processing of the data is wrong. Now options 3) and 4) have been invalidated and falsified. The data is correct and valid. Which only leaves the first two options. 1) The current model is false (and there goes the Copernican and Cosmological principles) or 2) the observed universe is not showing what the model expects it to be and is therefore behaving badly. This is just a way of trying your best not to admit the first option, that the actual model is wrong. Dipole Anisotropy in Integrated Linearly Polarized Flux Density in NVSS Data Prabhakar Tiwari and Pankaj Jain http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.3970.pdf 20th August 2013 There now exist many independent observations which indicate a preferred direction pointing roughly towards Virgo. It is unlikely that all of them can be explained by some systematic effect. For example, the NVSS data is more likely to pick a preferred axis pointing towards the poles due to systematic effect arising due to sources with low flux (Blake & Wall 2002). The direction observed, however, is nearly perpendicular to that. The dependence of direction with the cut on flux density might be explained by this systematic effect. This is consistent with our observation that the direction parameters are stable for the case of flux weighted (Kothari et al. 2013) and polarization flux weighted number counts. Furthermore it see s very unli ely that syste a c e ects would ic the sa e direc on in so any di erent observa ons i.e. radio olari a ons orienta ons ( ain alston 1 ) o cal olari a ons (Hutse e ers 1998), CMBR

quadrupole and octopole (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2004), radio number counts (Blake & Wall 2002; Singal 2011) and radio polarization flux (present work). In all likelihood this alignment of axes (Ralston & Jain 2004) is caused by a physical effect. There are many more papers discussing this issue, we don't have time to cite them all, these are only a quick sample. The point here is that the Copernical and Cosmological principles have been undermined by observational and empirical data and this also brings into question the model (cold-dark matter inflationary big bang) to such a degree that cosmologists are speaking of inventing a new physics just to deal with the anomalies, rather than admit the model is false. This is what you call superstitious, religious dogma that flies in the face of facts. Other Lines of Evidence Besides the evidence from CMB there are numerous other lines of evidence that validate the presence of the "axis of evil" and they also indicate a preferred position for the Earth. They include galaxy rotation alignments (see this article which explains that galaxies spin a different direction based on which hemisphere of the universe they are in, suggesting that the entire universe itself might be in rotation), the distribution pattern of quasars, the pattern of acceleration of certain types of supernova (see here) whose data "...does not exclude the possibility of ruling out the Cosmological Principle - and cosmological constant - hypotheses" (see here), and the quantization of galaxy clusters around the Earth which means that galaxies seem to appear in concentric circles separated uniformly from each other (sample papers: here and here). All these lines of evidence together invalidate the Copernican and Cosmological principles. It is interesting to see how brainwashed scientists can be and how they are forced to keep within a certain paradigm based upon peer-pressure. In this paper the authors discuss the anomaly in the behaviour of certain types of supernovas that opposes the Cosmological principle and at the end of the article, they mention a collection of evidences that also clashes with this principle: Recently, the new release of the Planck observations on the CMB temperature anisotropy confirmed the alignment of the CMB quadrupole and octupole. And this particular direction is nearly aligned with CMB kinematic dipole direction. At the same time, the discontinuous distribution of power in the hemispheres on the sky was also been confirmed. All these show that we have the evidence for a break in isotropy. In order to solve these problems, a phenomenological dipole modulation may be needed.

Since all these directional anomalies, as well as the alignment problems of the cosmic acceleration anisotropy discussed in this paper, the parity asymmetry of CMB power spectrum, the large-scale velocity flows and the large scale alignment in the QSO optical polarization data are connected with the CMB kinematic dipole and/or the ecliptic plane. Immediately after they mention possible solutions to explain these anomalies: We expect a single dipole modulation mechanism could solve all these puzzles. Several works have suggested that this kind of modulation could be caused by the nontrivial topology of the Universe, such as the anisotropic global Bianchi VIIh geometry, the Randers-Finsler geometry, or the multi-stream inflation. And then straight after they say: However, if they have the cosmological origin, it is very difficult to answer: Why the special direction is related to the current motion direction of the Earth, i.e. the CMB kinematic dipole. So, in our view, we would rather believe that these problems should be caused by some unsolved systematical errors in observations or data analysis In other words, the proposed solutions to these anomalies have to be kept within the framework of the current model (must be of cosmological origin) and therefore will not be able to explain the alignment. Hence, because these explanations fail within the framework of the currently accepted model, we would rather believe the observational data and analysis is wrong! And you thought science was letting the data do the talking. No, its letting the hypothesis do the talking and the walking, while the data is gagged and chained, so no talking and no walking from the multiple streams of data! This is merely an illustration that science overwhelmingly is one of taqleed (blind-following), and scientific enquiry is largely determined by money. To receive grants and funding a certain paradigm has to be followed and thus careers and livelihood depend upon subservience to that paradigm. If you go against it with observational empirical data in your hands, you will suffer the consequences, no job, no career. Summary This brief article does not really do justice to the topic as there is a lot more that can be written, discussed and pursued as a matter of inquiry. However, in short, numerous lines of evidence (empirical, observational) have invalidated the Cosmolological principle which underlies the naturalist religion and evidence indicates that the earth has a privileged position in the universe, a central location in fact. The implications of these lines of

evidence are not readily and frankly communicated to the public but are obscured and hidden whilst claims are made that the current model is largely supported, a false claim since inflation, dark matter and dark energy are invented theoretical constructs used give life support to the model. Most people will not understand the technical jargon or the real implications of what is being discovered which allows the scientists to continue invoking supernatural entities and processes (or inventing new physics) to keep their current paradigm from crumbling. A Note About Muslim Apologists A word should be said about Muslim apologists who selectively take from the scientists what they think can be reconciled with the revealed texts when in reality, they distort the revealed texts and impose meanings upon them that they do not bear. These people find utility in the flawed big bang model of the universe because it implies a beginning and hence it can be incorporated into a flawed, corrupt argument known as the kalam cosmological argument. The common element between both the big bang model and the kalam cosmological argument is that they both assert time, matter and space were created at the big bang (the beginning). This is futile and opposes revealed text. Rather, measurement of time, created matter and space were already in existence prior to this universe. An existing order with physical laws was already present. This is indicated in the revealed texts (in the Qur'an and the Sunnah). When taken to its full logical conclusion, the corrupt kalam argument proves that it is impossible for "an act of creation" to have taken place (by the very premises and assumptions made in the argument) and that the universe is in fact eternal. These debates took place centuries ago when Philosophers saw the flaws in this argument and they continue to be pointed out today by shrewd atheists. Written by Ab Iyd on 20/01/1435H (24/11/2013CE). Big Bang Cosmology, Supernatural Beliefs and Suppression of Evidence

Introduction We present here an interesting paper that shows a side of cosmology that is not readily apparent to most people. This is worthy of being pointed out to ill-informed atheists who think that they are operating with "firmly established facts." Rather, they are operating on this: ( ) , "They do but conjecture (give opinions) and they do but guess" (6:116) ( ) , "That is their sum of knowledge" (53:30).

So here is the paper, it is titled: CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence? (see abstract) (download PDF). In essence, it is possible to propose any type of model for the universe and then design and conduct experiments to find what we are already looking for. When we find things that don't agree with our model, we simply broaden and expand the model to accomodate the anomalies. By taking this approach we can basically start off with any model and continue "proving" it as time goes on. This is what has been happening with big bang cosmology over the decades, witht the addition of fudge-factors to make sure the basic model remains intact. Using this type of approach you can have a large range of models that can be proposed and "validated" because you are free to imagine and invent explanations to broaden the model's reach and to make sure it continues to fit in with observational data. Here is the abstract: Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. Thus e.g. while superluminal motion can be explained by Special Relativity, data on the former can never on their own be used to establish the latter. This is why traditionally astrophysicists have been content with (and proud of) their ability to use known physical laws and processes established in the laboratory to explain celestial phenomena. Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter and now dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as uch of CDM cos ology has been ro ed by a araly ing a ount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models. The recent WMAP3 paper of Spergel et al (2007) will be used as case in point on selective citation. I also show that when all evidence are taken into account, two of the competing models that abolish dar energy and/or dar atter do not trail behind CDM by much. Given all of the above, I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark. And this is part of the conclusion:

Cosmologists should not pretend to be mainstream physicists, because there is only one irreproducible Universe and control experiments are impossible. The claim to overwhelming evidence in support of dark energy and dark matter is an act of exaggeration which involves heavy selection of evidence and an inconsiderate attitude towards alternative models with fewer (or no) dark components. When all evidence are taken into account, it is by no means clear that CDM wins by such leaps and bounds. There are other good observations and points in the paper too. However, the lesson here is that "cosmologists" do not deal in hard physics and they cannot truly implement thescientific method in explaining the origin of the universe. It has to be admitted from the very outset that this field of study will always be speculative. This undermines the claimed certainty that atheists tend to profess, as if they are dealing in facts, when all they are dealing with are assumptions. They have a prior assumption of naturalism or materialism supported by another set of assumptions as to how the universe (and life) came to be. Experiments are designed in such a way to confirm these assumptions and the most of what they have are conjectures made on the basis of a limited range of observations and data, which could be interpreted in numerous other ways and within the framework of other models.

Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is a militant atheist who believes that there is only an "appearance" of "design for purpose" in the study of living things. He appears to be mentally disturbed in the sense that he cannot trust the apparentness of his own physical senses and sees only "illusions" and "appearances". Dawkins has a clearly defined cultural and political agenda to make theism "socially unacceptable." He has been heavily critiqued by atheists and agnostics alike, described as an "amateur" and an "absolute disaster" in the fight against theism and accused with "knee-jerk atheism." Dawkins' explanation of the universe (and life therein) ultimately reduces down to an infinite regress of Darwinian-like processes that result in universes and life forms. To explain life he needs some kind of intelligent being since he (and no other atheist) has (or ever will) be able to explain the emergence of self-replicating DNA through purely "Darwinian processes" (that's the only possible

explanation that naturalism would allow). Dawkins is stuck in the primeval soup and whenever he pulls himself out of it, he can't trust his own senses and suffers illusions. From here he meets his "blind watchmaker" and starts his journey up "mount improbable." This is the sum of his knowledge. He is not honest enough to admit that prior assertion of naturalism is the basis of these beliefs. Dawkins is a staunch promoter of the "modern synthesis", the claim that all diversity in life is explained through natural selection acting on random mutations. This has been blown out of the water through an increased understanding of how much more complex the DNA-gene-cell system actually is. Effectively, neo-Darwinism (as an all-explanatory mechanism) is dead and buried. This puts Dawkins (and all his previous writings) in an awkward position. That's precisely why he has been described as an "amateur" and "absolute disaster."

Dennet
Daniel Dennet is a naturalist, secularist who proposes a mechanism for a naturalistic explanation of religion which he readily admits is "just a theory." These explanations are forced due to a prior commitment to naturalism and are not scientifically backed. The claim that only matter exists forces material explanations of religious beliefs and experiences and while presented as such, these material explanations do not actually explain away belief in God, since presenting a naturalistic explanation of the acquisition of a belief is not the same as demonstrating the truth or falsity of the belief so acquired. As such Dennet, who develops this argument in his books, is another question beggar. "Naturalism is true. Theism is false. Now(because of this prior assertion) let me explain how and why belief in God came about." This is the reality of his position. But he presents it as, "This is the mechanism through which belief in God came about. Therefore God does not exist." The rational and logical fallacy in this is evident as a mechanism of belief-formation does not determine the truth or falsehood of the belief so formed,

rather that has to be demonstrated on separate and independent grounds which Dennet and co-atheists cannot do without question-begging.

Harris
Sam Harris is an atheist, secularist (from a Jewish background). He has been appropriately labelled "Seditious Sam" due to his advice to fellow militants not toovertly identify themselves as atheists (in their efforts to proselytize the masses to the naturalist religion), recognizing this is harmful to their cause. Sam Harris is big on the moral argument and the logical issues pertaining to evil. However, his positioning in this subject is contradicted by the negation (in Naturalism, Atheism, Materialism) of any objective, absolute good or evil. His moral objections, and those of his fellow atheists, are based (according to their world view) purely on the blind forces of physics and random undirected processes and thus, they cannot coherently sustain any moral argument without facing logical and rational inconsistencies. Ultimately, these types of "moral" objections by atheists like Harris have as much worth, significance and consequence as the dust that Harris will eventually transform into through the "blind forces of physics" after he is buried six feet under the ground. The "blind forces of physics" don't give a jack about morals (or anything else) in this apparently purposeless, meaningless, directionless cosmos, so why should these blind directionless forces care about the opinions of whining atheists like Sam, Rich, Dan or Chris?

Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens is a British-American author and journalist. Hitchens believes the concept of a God or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization (similar to Sam Harris). He championed the word "anti-theist" which he explains as "someone who is relieved that there's no evidence for such an assertion" as a replacement for "atheist." Hitchens

authored the work "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" which is alleged to be the the ultimate case against religion. Hitchens died of complications from esophageal cancer in December 2011. Due to his outspoken nature, he was considered to be amongst the horsemen of the New Atheists. Hitchens, like Harris, is also big on the moral argument and the problem of evil and his objections against theism are largely philosophical rather than scientific.

Hawking
Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Considered a very intelligent man, he has been trying to imagine ways by which an entity (like a universe) can bring about its own existence from non-existence. This is achieved in the world of "theoretical physics" (in contrast to hard empirical physics) where things are proved by mathematical equations. Hawking attempts to get rid of the "anthropic principle" (a universe fine-tuned for life) by proposing the existence of "all possible worlds." In other words, there are trillions of universes out there which appeared spontaneously out of nothing each having their own physical laws and in which all possible histories (of what has ever happened) exist simultaneously. Of course, this is not science, but philosophy and these are "thought experiments" that rely upon very "creative thinking" which is demanded by a prior commitment to materialism.

Krauss
Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist and is an advocate of scientific skepticism. Krauss "works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in popular culture". Like the others he believes that "religion" developed as superstition and fear of nature and evolved into belief in a supreme deity. The sum of his knowledge is that the universe came from nothing through the reasoning that the sum of positive

energy and negative energy in the universe is zero (they cancel each other out) and hence it is possible for universes to come from "nothing.

Evolution
The word "evolution" is an umbrella term referring to many things and thus can be a cause of great confusion if not defined correctly in the course of discussion and debate. The first meaning of "evolution", that living organisms have a built in propensity to adapt and undergo changes, is an observed and undeniable reality. The environment clearly has an effect on the traits and qualities of living organisms, however, the propensity for change lies within living organisms itself (due to coding of information and instruction in genes). This type of evolution accounts for variation within the type, however, the true and real source of variation is the in-built propensity to adapt to the environment, living organisms are designed with that in-built feature and ability. That which is touted as "the fact of evolution" is based upon this observable reality (in-built genetic coding enabling adaptability within boundaries). However, an extrapolation is made from this empirical observation, to support a metaphysical belief which has no scientific basis, but is merely a preferred explanation based upon a prior assumption of naturalism. That metaphysical belief is: The second and contested meaning of "evolution" which is the "blind watchmaker thesis" popularized byRichard Dawkins in his support of the modern synthesis (natural selection acting upon random mutations). This meaning of evolution purports that unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes are completely sufficient to account for the "appearance" of design in living organisms and the diversity of life through random mutations in genetic information. This is a fallacy and is an insult to intelligence. It is a discredited metaphysical belief, an explanation demanded by a prior commitment to materialism and naturalism. It should be noted that as it stands in current scientificknowledge about the genome and nature of mutations, the modern synthesis(natural selection acting on random mutations as the explanation for all life's diversity) has been proven false and impossible. In light of this, evolutionary biologists are devising what they call an "extended evolutionary synthesis" to move away from the gene-centric neo-Darwinian view (because they know it is false). It is impossible to account for life's diversity through random mutations in genes alone, it isprobabilistically unfeasible and practically impossible. This has been proven without any

shadow of doubt. Meanwhile, as this is kept hidden from the public, evolutionists are frantically trying to devise a new "synthesis" to explain life's diversity away from genecentric explanations. In short, there is currently no agreed upon, proven, evolutionary mechanism on the table because the modern synthesis (as an all explanatory mechanism) is proven to be a fallacy. Despite this the public are misled through smoke and mirrors with the fallacious claim of "natural selection acting on random mutations as an explanation of life's diversity" being a fact.

THE END
(articles collected in one file by jamal dagestani, from web site AboutAtheism.net of our beloeved teacher & brother Abu Iyaad Amjad Rafiq)