Addendum (01/02/16): I now fully believe in the theory of evolution. As you will read below, I had my doubts when I was a teenager/young adult mostly because I wasn’t sure about what the theory was claiming but with accumulating knowledge, my stance on the theory of evolution has totally changed over the years – however, my stance on Atheism hasn’t (changed too much). I still believe in a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God – who works in mysterious (and sometimes painful) ways that we can only partially understand. This piece will remain in my blog as I’d like to observe my evolution throughout the years. (Not: Türkçe bilenler ‘Müslüman bir genetikçi olarak evrim teorisi hakkında görüşlerim‘ adlı yazımı okuyabilirler)
Introduction: Religion v Evolution
There seems to be fierce debates going on all fronts about ‘religion v evolution’ for the last few decades, whether on a TV show, a conference, a gathering etc; since the issue attracts the most audience I guess… The evolutionist side is usually presented/defended by an atheist expert of a certain area of natural sciences (usually a biologist or a physicist) whereas the religious side by a Christian priest or some primary school teacher who doesn’t have a clue about what the opposition is talking about; with no or little in-depth knowledge in evolution, genetics or even any area of science. This makes the whole thing biased, unfair and to put it into one word ‘worthless’. Surely there should be a scientist on the other side too! One could argue some these TV channels are being controlled by atheists and/or anti-theists but this is not within the scope of this post; that could be a subject for another one…
Inevitably of course, after the allotted time is over, the result: ‘religion’ as a whole is humiliated and seem like all of them are false and constitute of a few deceived followers just like the one defending it; whereas the scientist seems to be talking the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth!
Which definitely is not true… Yes it must be accepted that scientists generally speak with concrete and/or empirical evidence but not when it comes to the matter of evolution of life. In this post I will touch on a few of the famous points atheists use to ‘eliminate’ the claims of the opposition and appear to intellectually defeat them – and I’ll share my verdict on these points also.
Most famous points are the stories and verses in the Bible which contradict scientific evidence such as the belief of Christians (even though that it differs between the thousands of denominations within Christianity) that the Universe was created around six thousand years ago; which is proved to be wrong by modern science when we have dinosaur and other ancient organisms’ fossils which have lived millions of years ago, proof that even the Earth is older than the above mentioned figure let alone the universe (age of universe is thought to be around 13-14 billion years). For any person with common sense of course, if the Bible (or any book) was the word of God; even a single mistake in it will put doubts into people’s minds about its validity as surely the All-wise, All-knowing God should know everything that has happened (as He did them!) and report it accurately…
Atheists sometimes use philosophical questions to silence; for example if God is All-mercy and All-good (just as some Christians state), how come there is so much suffering and destruction? Why did he create evil and the Devil? If God is just, why does a child molester go to Heaven just because he believes? These are questions that have always troubled Christians; this is because the Bible does not provide convincing answers to these questions. As a result these unanswered questions and/or unconvincing answers have led many open minded people to atheism (unfortunately!). But one fundamental point here; is Christianity the only existing religion? For example there are other Abrahamic religions such as Islam (1.5 billion followers) and Judaism (20 million). Then; there are several religions which believe in Karma and reincarnation like Buddhism (375 million) and Hinduism (850 million) which should also be considered (follower counts from here)…
To start off my *current opinions, it is not unreasonable to say that no one can ever declare with full conviction that ‘God doesn’t exist’ because for one to make this bold claim they have to prove to us that they understand everything about everything that exists (let alone the universe), looked everywhere in and outside (with instruments which can detect every single presence) within this existence, or have died and then resurrected and reported that there is no Hell or Heaven, then maybe one will have the right to speak up about the non-existence of God in the concrete sense. But in contrary atheists (especially ones who are scientists) seem to impose a Godless world view and present their beliefs as facts, which cannot be acceptable no matter who you are, scientist or a random person off the street.
My belief is that scientists who propagate atheism are adapting science and/or use science as a disguise to suit and support their materialistic ideology which holds that the only thing that exists is matter. People can believe whatever they want to believe but should not make science a toy or a play-ground of ideologies and must only present facts. One must also understand that believing that life on earth came to being as a series of coincidences requires a bigger faith than believing that a creator was involved during it’s creation. In this sense, atheism could also be classified as a religion. I could use a simple example – using some basic scientific knowledge and mathematics – to present how much faith is required for one to believe that every living thing came alive as a series of coincidences: Let’s have a look at the probability of an average sized protein (made up of ~500 amino acids) forming on it’s own – which requires an amino acid sequence to be completely and correctly arranged (assuming that there is a trial and error mechanism in nature); however I must state the following calculations do require some scientific understanding of how a protein is formed in order to fully comprehend what is going on…
*I am always learning and changing, and some of the things I wrote here may even be wrong – but please read until the end and take note of the bits you feel are reasonable
Probability of Protein Formation
There are 20 different amino acids, so there is 1 in 20 chance for the correct amino acid to be chosen; For 500 amino acids:
(1/20) to the power of 500 = 10 to the power of -650 (minus)
Correct sequence doesn’t cause a functional protein either! All the amino acids have to be of the L type (other is D) isomer:
(1/2) to the power of 500 = 10 to the power of -150
Amino acids need to bond by a peptide bond at the right place, which complicates the matters
So as a result we get: 10 to the power of -800 as the probability of a single average sized protein to be formed by chance again; again assuming that there is a trial and error mechanism in nature… 10 to the power of -800 is so low (see calculations above) that it is considered ‘improbable’ in statistics (probabilities below 10 to the power of -50 are considered as just theoretical probabilities and not observed in the natural world).
Of course a protein can do **nothing by itself and only a scientist knows how complex an organism is, whether it is made of a single or several cells. Even one of the smallest known free living bacterium, Mycoplasma genitalium (single celled) has 100’s of different proteins. I acknowledge there are many assumptions in this crude calculation, but it serves to show the impossibility of a ‘living’ organism (which replicates and has a metabolism) to form by chance. Now to make matters more realistic, our body is made up of 50 to 100 trillion cells (this number is so large that, if you were to try counting from one, you would die before reaching it). I write these probabilities just to show that believing in ToE is also a ‘faith’ on it’s own. These are only a few of the impossibilities of using the Theory of Evolution (ToE) to try and explain how life on earth began which are not even touched onto by atheist scientists. This is not the way scientists should work and all improbabilities must be acknowledged… Although there are some who try to address these improbabilities (by using how large the universe is and how many galaxies there are etc.), these are mere attempts to give some credibility to their ‘faith’. What if I said that creation of ‘life’ from non-living matter is impossible (0 chance) without divine intervention, who can disprove me? How do you put a probability on ‘abiogenesis’ when we’ve actually never encountered one and don’t have the slightest clue about (apart from a few far-fetched theories)? Therefore – although I’ve used it above with the protein and organism examples – I do not see ‘the probabilities arguments’ as good answers when the ‘origin of life’ is discussed by the atheist party.
Moving on… Atheists (large proportion of them being materialists) also deny the existence of the soul; then one would ask: what is the difference between the dead and the living body just a split second before the death of a person? Have we ever observed dead material come alive? No! Why not? Surely if abiogenesis was something that is relatively common and easy to carry out, we should keep observing it happen all the time. Without God giving life to a living organism, there can be no life; and in the case of conscious beings like us, it is the soul which is the biggest stumbling block to materialism.
I believe in the existence of a God and science increases my faith because I believe that science can only validate the true religion and nullify the false ones; but we must respect the fact that everyone has the right to believe in any religion without compulsion, including atheism! To finalize my opinion in this sense, a debate between knowledgeable atheists and creationists will last forever because we know too little and it is going to come down to a matter of beliefs (with varying degrees of evidence which is never going to reach 100%), so no one has the right to impose their beliefs on the opposition as truth; so atheists must stop tweaking science and selectively reporting to backup their claims and only present facts as facts and theories as theories; and creationists must never try to act like they know everything and they have the right to condemn unbelievers to Hell fire! It is becoming clearer that respect and dialogue is the most needed thing at the moment…
I and many believers in God would have a lot to say in an atheist v creationist debate whether in scientific and/or philosophical grounds but I believe a debate is not the solution but the cause of segregation which is the last thing we need at present! So through dialogue and discussion I will present my ‘beliefs’ and ‘backing evidence’; and everybody is free to present theirs…
**In fact a protein cannot be without other proteins; without protein there can be no DNA; without DNA there can be no protein; without RNA there is no protein; without ribosomes there is no protein; without ATP there is no protein; without mitochondria there is no protein; and the list can go on forever… In short, without a whole cell, there is no protein – but there can be no cell without protein!
NB: The title of this post comes from my belief that God created the natural laws (thus science) therefore He is also the ‘God of science’. He wants us to discover the universe through science and therefore learn about His majestic attributes
Spontaneous Generation
Today if one was to open any biology textbook, the first thing he/she would see is the cell theory which states that “cells can only come from pre-existing cells” for which there is a consensus and not a single evidence is there against it. In 1864, Louis Pasteur – the founder of the cell theory said that he proved to the world that spontaneous generation of organisms from mud, ponds etc was a myth. Thousands of experiments were done after that date by (materialist) scientists to disprove him but they haven’t been able to get anywhere near a living organism even with the technology of today. This finding coupled with the Big Bang theory (widely accepted) laid the foundations to the collapse of materialism, which is founded on the notion of “matter had always existed and will exist forever”.
The first version of the ToE was published (by Charles Darwin) at a time when people believed that spontaneous generation was a recurring phenomena and knew nothing about genetics and the complexity of a single cell let alone a whole organism. Of course with the discovery of these fields the initial version of the theory was put to the ground. Some atheist/materialist scientists were not happy with this of course, but could not come up with other theories which could give scientific backing to their ideologies, so they decided to revise the evolutionary theory with the addition of ‘mutations’. They published everything they could find as evidence to make themselves more acceptable within the public. This can be proved because anything that gives evidence towards the theory is welcomed with open arms; for example “the Piltdown man” which is one of the biggest hoaxes of all time was presented at the British Museum as “the proof that man came from apes” for 40 years (yes forty!). By the way, no evidence against the theory are published in top journals/newspapers; or are ridiculed before reaching a wider audience.
Atheist scientists today have given up on the idea that DNA could have formed by chance, so they moved on to the “RNA world” idea because it has the ability to self replicate itself, but this is also in vain because RNA is very unstable and it will degrade within a day even in the best of conditions. So with science strongly suggesting that abiogenesis (life arising from non living material) is impossible, the evolution theory – which is built on materialistic foundations, fails in the first step. Moving on to mutations – which brings about change in the genome of organisms, have been observed to be harmful a large proportion of the time and the ones which seem harmless do not bring about much change (e.g. in humans: changes their hair colour, eye colour etc). Even a single mutation at a critical loci can cause death of an organism let alone several happening at once, so this can in no way give evidence for or explain that everything arose from a single common ancestor. The “irreducibly complex” organs like the eye, ear etc within most organisms refutes the “gradually evolving organs” argument of the theory. The soul, intelligence of humans (why isn’t there a single organism which is anywhere near as intelligent as us?) etc I am not going to even touch upon. As you can see there is not much left of the theory when you take these into account which can explain how life originated and all the species in the world arose. But why is it still being widely propagated? Since I am not an atheist I cannot fully explain it but if I was one, I would have to believe in it since there is no alternative. Which is the point I want to get at: It is not science which causes people to become atheists, it is the atheists who lead some of the science today. We forget that atheism has existed even before ToE… They are not homogeneous in their beliefs also (e.g. some atheists believe: “we are just over-evolved and vain products of the razor-edge tip of trillion-billion-to-one random evolution battles in a universe that has an infinite number of deals at the table. We were one of the winners!” Another atheist may not agree with this statement).
By the way, I also believe that all life is connected but through a single Creator (who has coded our DNA) not through a common ancestor (the latter is the claim of ToE proponents). This is not to say ‘evolution’ (i.e. ‘micro-evolution’) is not a fact, it is; but the ‘Theory’ of evolution is not (which requires ‘macro-evolution’)! There is a big difference; and one should always make the distinction: ToE and evolution are not the same things. I can believe in evolution (i.e. microevolution – terms which are used interchangeably) but not in ToE. Please read on these subjects and see how macro-evolution requires ‘massive’ jumps in the evolutionary sense which is totally against the notion of ToE itself! I heard many state that the ‘tree of life‘ proves ToE, but they’re forgetting that one is bound to come up with a phylogenetic tree if they use something that is common in all organisms just like DNA (and small sub-unit rRNA sequences) – Any algorithm is bound to connect them!
So what do I believe as the ’causer’ of people to become atheists? At the core, it is ‘ego-centric’ philosophy (and related philosophical questions)!
People have always been troubled with questions like why do good people suffer? Why can’t we see God? Who created God? Why does a child molester go to Heaven because he believes in Jesus? Where is justice? The list against Christianity-centric arguments can go on forever – and none of these questions are convincingly answered in Christianity, which is why most (converted) atheists are former Christians… But again as I stated in the first part; Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Bearing in mind that there thousands of denominations within Christianity too…
Moving on to myself, I believe that I believe in a religion which has not contradicted ‘facts’ of modern science since this day as well as giving convincing answers to the philosophical questions which pop into mind; But because I believe that everyone’s beliefs should be respected, stating it here would make this writing biased. Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, even atheism! What I want is, warn people about the wrong propaganda such as ‘science disproving the existence of God’, prevent people becoming atheists straight after they find scientific mistakes in their religion; and hopefully encourage them to look into other religions… People should not give up their belief in God because of the wrong teachings of one religion; not all religions are the same… God has made himself known many times, but people have distorted his messages…
Science is an authentic area and an “authentic” religion should not contradict it; which is why I believe it can be used as an outer source when comparing two religions. Science can only give evidence for the true religion and against the wrong ones, because it is God who created Science – Creator of (wonderful, mindblowing) Science!
Genetics and the ‘Test of Life’
The modern ToE which is founded on the notion that all species we see today have come from a single common ancestor is accepted and used by atheist scientists to strengthen their ideology. Thus they try to lead people who believe in God into thinking that science has disproved their faiths; but as any open minded (and sincere) person who critically analyses the arguments put forward should accept that statistical analysis of the (im)probabilities involved, observable ‘design’ in all organisms (even eyelashes amaze me!), intelligence of humans, the fine tuning of the universe (e.g. Anthropic Principle) and planets are strong arguments against the idea that random events (or “accidents” as many call them!) could have led to all we see today (start by looking at yourself in the mirror).
However I also believe that only science can be used to argue against the theory of “evolution from single ancestor”, thus stating verses from the Bible, Quran, Torah or any other book will not mean anything in the eyes of the scientific community (rightly so!); in other words, scientific theories can only be disproven by science. Here I will touch upon a few more scientific facts (in addition to the ones above mentioned) which are stumbling blocks against this theory; also to make it more understandable I will only use scientific facts about us humans.
We are made up of 50 to 100 trillion cells each of size (approx.) 10 micrometers (think of a millimetre, then divide it by 100). What is astonishing is that each has nearly 2 metres of DNA; sincerely thinking even if the most skilled person was combined with the best of machines, he/she would still not be able to pack this amount of DNA into a single cell the way it is packed in there (see chromatin packaging for further info); not forgetting that the cell needs thousands of other organelles apart from the nucleus (where the DNA is packed) in order to function. Just storing this genetic information is not of any use, it must also be accessible by enzymes (DNA and RNA Polymerases) in order for the genetic code to be translated so that the cell and the organism can carry on with its essential life processes. A sincere person should accept that there is supremely intelligent design involved in the packaging of the DNA (see also: the processes of Transcription/Translation)…
Moving on to our eyesight; our eyes have been specifically designed not just to make us ‘see’ but also to make our lives more convenient. Humans have the ability to see only within the visible spectrum which covers waves with a wavelength between 390 and 700 nanometers (i.e. visual spectrum). What makes these numbers special is that (with current knowledge), if we were to see waves with longer or shorter wavelengths we would not be able to see the beauty (as in the current sense of colours we perceive) of the creatures around us to full extent due to interference from ultraviolet (UV), infrared (e.g. from heat), radio waves etc which are abundant all around us (when they collide with matter). Another property that should be considered about the eye is the resolution. If we were to see objects or organisms nearer to each other than what we observe now, this would enable us to see bacteria living on the top of other peoples skins, the apple we eat, the air etc, which would make life a misery. To say that nature (via random mutations) ‘thought and designed’ this delicate system would (or should) be laughed at. We can observe that nature does not think nor design anything; but God All-mighty and All-Powerful (whom we cannot comprehend due to our shortcomings) can. The eye is surely a gift from the designer of the universe and living things, whether one thinks this this designer is God (I think it is!), aliens or someone (who has obtained great power) from the future. The same thinking process could be used for the ear too, because if we were to hear waves shorter or of longer wavelengths than our norms, then we would start hearing a background noise from the pumping of our heart, the rotation of our Earth etc again making our life a not a very happy one.
The attention paid to details in organisms also point towards an intelligent designer. Just one example amongst millions of biological pathways/systems/organs which could be used, the eyelashes are a good one to think about. Our eyelashes serve the purpose of protecting our eyes from dust and small particles (also gives our eyes a more beautiful look). They are of a certain length, thickness, curl and frequency which serves its purpose perfectly; because if any of these parameters were different than what they are now, they would have to be shortened each time because they would tangle each time we blink our eyes, causing some blockage of our view while also affecting our concentration, making it a nuisance. I have not touched upon the fact that they stop growing after reaching the ‘perfect’ length. If they grow less than usual, then they wouldn’t serve their purpose. As you can see even an eyelash could lead a person to the Designer. There is no way in my mind that even eyelashes could have evolved, let alone an organism as a whole. ToE is a mere attempt at explaining how certain traits may have come about but can never explain the fine tuning which exists in every single biological pathway of every single organism.
Even one impossible step in any of the arguments of a theory is enough to prove the theory wrong, but the “theory of evolution” has many; and this post (has and) will touch upon a few (without much detail, many books can be and have been written about each point). Evolutionist scientists never talk about how the first organism and its genome came to being; it is just assumed to exist (see ‘living organism‘ for further info); because without DNA, there can be no evolution in the genetic sense. The biggest evidence they use is the phenotypic similarities between apes and humans to suggest that they have a recent ancestor; but what they do not (want to) see is that humans are bipedal whereas apes are quadripedal (with four legs). It is obvious that humans are more complex than apes so according to this theory we are more “evolved” than our ancestors (who were meant to be apes) so we must have arose later than them; thus our ancestor must have been quadripedal. Can this be possible and does it make sense? Analysing the pros and cons of each will give clues about the answer of this question. Being bipedal, looking at it from a physical point of view is of no use because we cannot run like a cheetah or swing in trees like monkeys; so being quadripedal is more advantageous. Also fossil records do not show any intermediates showing the “evolution” from a quadripedal skeletal structure to a bipedal (or vice-versa) one (i.e. half quadripedal-half bipedal). It is also impossible for an intermediate form to exist because it is mechanically highly energy inefficient for such an organism to exist (e.g. walking with a hunchback). Don’t forget that evolution is blind do these thus intermediates had to have been highly suited to their environments each time (and era) to be able pass on their ‘favourable’ traits (as ToE predicts).
Another hypothesis is the idea that the ancestors of organisms living on land came from the sea. Again scientific knowledge can be used to disprove this side of the theory because in order for a transition to occur, a kidney, a lung system, a sense of thirst (because fish do not feel thirsty, this is very important for land dwelling organisms), a skeletal system strong enough to lift the organism and enable locomotion etc must exist at the same time. To suggest that these systems came into being instantaneously (or have an urge to evolve together in a short time through future sight) is nonsense; also to say that these evolved gradually does not make sense when the fish are already covered by (nearly) unlimited amount of food and nutrients compared to the ones on land and they will have died out if they cannot adapt to the new environment straight away (according to ToE, millions of years had to pass for these organs to form).
Using arguments such as “more than 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. Therefore God does not exist” also assumes that the ToE is correct as each species we see today should have had an ancestor which had to have been extinct due to natural selection. I do not believe in ToE nor do I believe that the figure of 99% is anywhere near the correct answer (real answer should be derived empirically using the fossil records). Of course some species have become extinct (very well known example: dinosaurs) but there could be many reasons why God may have wiped them off the Earth – we may be able to come up with our own conclusions but God knows best…
Finally if evolution was the cause of all speciation today, then we should have surely seen animals, bugs, bacteria etc, as or nearly as intelligent as us because intelligence is always an advantage for an organism so why don’t we observe any? An intelligent fish has more chance of survival than a less intelligent one so we should be seeing very clever ones (according to “natural selection” which is one of the pillars of ToE), which is not the case today. This fact alone can give evidence that the neo-Darwinist theory is highly likely to be wrong. We do not hear any of the above points that are touched upon in the news because the media (as well as universities) cannot face like backlash that they will receive.
In this post I have mostly argued against atheism. I have not touched on other beliefs such as ones which involves believing in many Gods (i.e. polytheistic religions). Our answer again comes from the sciences. Genetics has proven to be a stumbling block for polytheistic religions. It has shown that the Creator who created humans has also created trees, bacteria, animals, fungi, viruses… DNA is what makes us all ‘relatives’; and the One who created DNA has created all living things. Therefore our answer lies in One, not several (i.e. polytheism).
The only aim of this post is to show that science should never be used to try and disprove God; that will only harm science not God! Scientists should not impose their ideologies to their students as ‘science’ and ‘truth’! It happened many times during my studies and I cannot respect that as I (and all the students) are there to learn science not ideologies. Again stressing that everybody has the right to believe to what they want…
To finalise, I believe that we were created by a single all-powerful and knowing God. Because taking into account the complexity within an atom let alone the universe, creation as we see requires this type of a God (not several gods/goddesses). He sent mankind to this world to test (see some verses below, this explains why bad things happen to all of us) and give them the chance to develop themselves and understand his attributes (consequently deserve His love and Heaven). Come to think of it; the average length of life is about 70 years; and 20-30 years of it passes by childhood and old age, third of the remaining goes by sleeping which, leaves us with very less. In this little time we have left for ourselves, instead of trying to become rich or famous, everyone must make it their main aim to find the meaning of life and the true religion… Life is a wonderful thing but it is not ever lasting; the afterlife is!
Few verses from the Holy Quran (about Life being a Test)…
– Every creature will taste death. We test you with both good and evil as a trial; and one day you will be returned to Us. (Qur’an, 21:35)
– Do people assume that they will be left (to themselves) by saying ‘We believe!’ and will not be tested? We tested those before them so that Allah would know the truthful and the liars. (Qur’an, 29:2-3)
Debate or Dialogue?
In debates between atheists and creationists, they seem to follow a pattern quite different from usual debates. Under normal circumstances, both sides present their cases and then refute the oppositions claims; but in the former type of debates something unusual happens: the creationist side talks first and the atheist always answers back according to what the other has said; so there is no presentation being made about why atheism is more correct than theism. Atheists always finish their sentences by saying that there is “not enough evidence that there is a God”. However the creationist could also say “there is not enough evidence against the existence of God” which would be equally true. “What is your evidence that proves there is no God?” and “Why are you so sure that you’re correct?”. This is the place where things get stuck but at the end of the debate, a standing ovation is given (mostly) to the atheist. Why? Is it because they did not lose the debate? Or just because it is easier to get away with arguing against the presence of God? Because when asking for evidence, they usually mean something ’empirical’ which can only be done with apparatus made by material which exists on Earth. How do you provide ‘positivist’ and ’empirical’ evidence for a being who is not made up of matter (i.e. God).
After all these debates, the atheists stay atheists and creationists stay the same; due to both sides not convincing each other, not even a single bit. This shows that debates are not the way forward and a new approach should be taken: dialogue. Dialogue is simply trying to understand why the other believes in this way and try to find common grounds if possible. May be there is a lack of knowledge – usually for the creationist I admit, but this could be true for both sides; or due to certain taboos imposed on them during early life – again could be true for both sides (not just for creationists). However I have to say that I do not like the idea of atheists trying to ‘prove’ that God does not exist at each opportunity, when they cannot provide any concrete evidence to demonstrate what they are saying. When they should be saying “I believe there is no god and here’s some evidence I present”, they say “there is no god and it is unscientific”. This is the exactly opposite of what atheists ask from creationists; respect/tolerance for their beliefs! Respect/tolerance should be mutual.
As a believer in God, I think that everything and anything that is around us could lead us to God and the true religion. After all we have science – which is an authentic source; we have history, again an authentic source; and the information gained from these fields could rule out all the false religions, made up myths and lead us to truth. For example if a religion believes that smoking is good for your health, then we can deduce from the knowledge gained from science that this religion is a fraud and manufactured by people – probably by those who want to gain respect from smoking or make money off tobacco sales. While saying all this, if one still wants to believe that smoking is good for them then we have to respect (maybe ‘tolerate’ is a better word) the choice they are making; not meaning that we should not carry on warning them.
Coming back to what I said about “everything and anything” leading us to God, there are many examples which have caught my attention during my studies and personal experiences, which have made me say “this cannot be done without a creator/designer” and increased my faith in God.
Firstly I realised that atheist evolutionists assume that an operating system (e.g. Windows) exists within organisms which recognise a certain DNA sequence (e.g. AATTCGA) as coding for a certain protein, which has been worked out as the amino acid code (or genetic code); but what is not thought on is how that operating system came into being (who is the coder?). To make what I said more clearly; as I press the keys on my keyboard, certain values appear on the screen. To make an analogy, ToE argues that a book can arise from random pressing of the keyboards. I respect that belief but a great assumption is made: that pressing the keyboard corresponds to certain letters – but who coded this? For example if you are using MS Office Word to write a book, then you know that Microsoft are the coders of this operating system. So moving on from the analogy; who coded the genetic code? Why does UAG code for stop (or AUG for start and methionine etc)? To re-iterate: For those who know how to code, if I was to type in something like:
WorkingDirectory = ‘/data/home/folder/’
import sys
input_file = open(WorkingDirectory + ‘input.csv’, ‘r’)
output_file = open(WorkingDirectory + ‘output.txt’, ‘w’)
for line in input_file:
line = line.replace(‘\n’, ”)
record = line.split(‘,’)
ensg_col = record[0]
output_file.write(str(ensg_col) + ‘\n’)
in Notepad and try executing it, nothing would happen unless I execute it using a programming language which understands this language (i.e. Python). Someone had to write Python (Guido van Rossum in this case). Something to think about… To make this matter clearer, there are great examples in this link: DNA seen through the eyes of a coder (although written by believers of ToE).
Moving on to the miracles of our body; another example is going to be the sperm (see Sperm), which is the male gamete. The sperm’s main parts are its head, midpiece and its tail. In the head, are the genetic information and the acrosome which contains enzymes needed to digest the ovum. In the midpiece, mitochondria are included, which generates ATP (i.e. energy) for the sperm to travel with the help of its tail. Out of the hundreds of questions that can come to mind, a few of them would be: How does the sperm know that it has to travel a long way so that it is equipped with enough mitochondria and a tail? How does the sperm know that it will encounter the egg membrane and is needed to be digested (and equip itself with appropriate enzymes)? Without an intelligent designer (who designed both the male and female genitalia) none of the answers given to these questions would make sense.
Then there is the phenomenon of chromosome packaging as aforementioned; which is a complex phenomenon in the level of impossible-to-comprehend involving packing of 2 metres of DNA (in humans) into a sphere with diameter of 5µm (micrometer, 10-6), while also organising it such that essential parts of the genome can still be accessed for use by enzymes to support the cell and organism. The DNA is first wound around structures called nucleosomes; then these nucleosomes form solenoid-like structures and the process is carried on with the formation of loops within loops; finally giving rise to the metaphase chromosome, which resembles the shape of X with the help of a scaffold being formed and the loops of DNA being wound around it. There are massive chapters/theses written just about this part of DNA packaging and I leave it to you to decide how can the DNA be packaged in such a way without any intellectual intervention at it’s creation. Although not touched on in this post, the inactivation of the X chromosome for dosage compensation in females is another highly improbable mechanism that requires many miracles in order to be explained by ToE (please see X inactivation and dosage compensation – and judge for yourself). All this would have seen like magic if we were to magnify what is going on with microscopes (more powerful than electron microscope, which is the best we have at the moment). God is presenting his power, knowledge and art all at the same time – He wants us search for him, learn about him and acknowledge his great attributes.
Chromosome packaging. Not design? 2 metres of DNA packed in 6 micrometers of space
Another one to think about… The angle of our nostrils which diverts exhaled air coming from the lungs is another miracle and a notable presentation of the care that the Designer has for us. This exhaled air is full of moisture and it would have left the top side of our lips (where the moustache forms) wet all the time leading to irritation. But what we observe is the incredible use of geometry: our nostrils are neither too vertical or horizontal. The former would cause irritation as aforementioned, whereas the latter would cause us dust, dirt and strong wind to blow through our nose and cause repeated blockage and chronic inflammation.
One miraculous life story that stayed in my mind is the Yucca moth, which shares an amazing bond with the Yucca plant (see this article titled the Most Wonderful Case of Fertilisation). The plant needs the moth for pollination but the moth needs only to eat the nectar from the plant. Even though it is not her job, the female moth gathers pollen into a ball and carries it in her mouth to another Yucca plant; enters the flower and deposits pollen ball on the stigma. It then pierces the ovary wall and lays eggs in the Yucca ovary; finally, she climbs up to the anthers and collects pollen, ready to repeat process in a new flower. However the grubs develop and eat only 20% of seeds; the grubs then chew out of the ovary, drop to ground and pupate until Yucca flowers again. This is taught as a ‘mutually beneficial’ contract signed between the two species (mutualism); which I find to be nonsense – since taking a decision like that would require intelligence from both sides and the co-evolution of complex behaviours which are passed on through their genes (but this is what atheist scientists agree on, representing a clear example of how ideology shapes their thinking). I see this as God’s mercy being manifested in these species for us humans to ponder upon)!
To conclude, science is an authentic source which tries to observe what happens in the material world and tries to come up with explanations and it can only be complementary with religion and not against it since they generally try to answer different things, with the latter trying to understand the metaphysical world and the meaning of life. As aforementioned science can be a great resource to understand the characteristics of God All Mighty; and distinguish his true message from artefacts and myths!
I personally respect some atheists as they are people who did not accept something just because their parents have told them to believe in them; but the struggle to find the truth must not end after they have left their inherited religion, but truth-seeking must go on until death (e.g. by looking into different religions as well); and this goes for everyone. People must also be sincere about whether “truth” is what they want/desire, or want “what they want/desire” to be the truth.
Finally I’d like to write why I chose to believe in God and the religion which I believe to be the right one:
1- I looked in the mirror, contemplated and concluded that I had to be designed by an All-Knowing (from atoms to genetics to the Earth to the cosmos) and All-Powerful (with the power to manipulate all matter and beyond) being.
2- Then I checked to see the God of which religion(s) fits this category.
3- Finally I read about the life of the messenger(s) who brought the message:
i – Was he deemed trustworthy at the time
ii – Was he successful in conveying the message to the rich, the poor, the scholars, people of all sorts
iii – Did he (or they) believe in his own message (e.g. how much sacrifice did he make)?
iv – The strength of the message (e.g. language used, no of followers, comparison to known scientific and historical facts, is this likely to be the word of God or the words of a man)
v – Did he ask for worldly gains because of his Prophethood?
vi – Prophecies made and did they come true
I believe everybody should have their own method for finding the truth. However one has to go out looking for it in order to find it. Highly unlikely that it will find you without your perseverance…
Final words
I am not against the ToE being used as a ‘model’ in genetics (and other sciences) to make ^predictions and ultimately facilitate our understanding of our genomes (and other species). However I am against the use of ToE being used as evidence against God’s existence, as it clearly cannot provide any evidence (as discussed in this post). I realise that all sciences require a model to work on; and genetics is no different. We do not have the same rigorous arguments about the ‘atom’ model for example, although it is not completely true. Nobody has seen how an atom looks like however, the current model does a pretty good job when carrying out predictions thus it will stay that way until it falls apart under further scrutiny. The same is going to be true of ToE. Until a better theory replaces it, ToE will be taught as ‘the real deal’. Since ‘God made everything’ cannot be a scientific model which can be tested via our materialistic means, ToE should remain as the current theory in genetics – until a more refined version takes its place…
^SIFT, Polyphen and FATHMM are three examples of mutation effect prediction algorithms which utilise multiple alignments from different species and make predictions about how ‘deleterious’ a mutation is – which is very important to our understanding of our genomes
References (and further reading):
1- Risale-i Nur by Said Nursi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risale-i_Nur – A must read book! Especially ‘The Words’…
2- Harun Yahya, Collapse of Evolution (available at http://harunyahya.com/list/type/1/name/Books/) – There are some fundamental mistakes in this book (especially their understanding of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ and ‘intermediate fossils’) but as a whole does present some good arguments
3- Michael Behe, Irreducible complexity theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity – His book is also worth reading
4- Alberts et al, Molecular Biology of The Cell, 5th Ed. 2008 – worth a look to understand the complexity of the cell, let alone a whole organism
5- Fethullah Gulen, Essentials of the Islamic Faith (http://en.fgulen.com/gulens-works/essentials-of-the-islamic-faith)
#6- Richard Dawkins, Ancestor’s Tale
#7- Richard Dawkins, The Magic of Reality
8- Charles Darwin: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species_(1872))
9- Bucaillism: Movement to relate modern science with religion
#These two books are important in terms of observing what a modern atheist has to believe in order for the neo-Darwinistic ToE to be ‘true’. Shutting your eyes to the existence of God leads you to believe in thousands of fairy tale-like theories (especially on the origin of life, coevolution and macroevolution – see video below) and impossible/improbable events (which is the word atheists usually use when describing ‘creationists’, but it is more appropriate for them in my opinion).
NB: I do not agree with all the things written in the references/books I’ve written above, but they do provide some good arguments against the ‘materialistic’ explanation of life (i.e. ToE).
PS: Sorry for this long and largely unstructured article but there is a lot to say about evolution and ToE; and it is very easy to get carried away and lose the plot. I may also have done the exactly that in several instances. I would be very happy to discuss the topic with anyone whose interested. Please see About me page for contact details…
A little part of this post was published in The Ripple, University of Leicester’s student newspaper – when I was a undergraduate student there (2007-2011).
An ordinary blog by an ordinary bloke 
great man, well done!
[…] come to mind, whilst not contradicting scientific and historical facts… Please see my post God of Science for a few arguments on the existence of God. Happy to discuss any […]
[…] duruma duşuruyor (evrim ve evrim teorisi uzerine kendi okuduklarım ve inancıma gore yazdıgım God of Science adlı makaleyi okumak isterseniz, lütfen linke tıklayın). Kısaca evrim teorisine bir […]
[…] Evrim teorisi ise tartışmaya açıktır… Uzun bir konu oldugu için sizi önceden yazdıgım ‘God of Science’ paylaşımıma […]
[…] Arzu ederseniz ‘Evrim teorisi‘ (ingilizce) ve ‘hayat gayem‘le ilgili yazdıgım eski yazılarıma da göz […]
[…] Yıllar önce evrimle ilgili görüşlerimi “God of Science” adlı yazımda paylaşmıştım. Bazı söylediklerime hala katılsam da, bayagı […]