Allah's Univocal Sign

[ابوالوليد المسلم]

Allah's Univocal Sign (1/3)

Abdullah S. Al-Shehri



"And we have not created the heaven and earth and all that is between them without a purpose. That is the thought of those who disbelieve". (Qur’an: Surah Saad, 38:27)

Instances of deliberation and marks of intelligible variety statistically correlate with our propensity to invoke design. Mathematician William A. Dembski developed the complexity-specification criterion which aims at establishing design as an unmistakable feature of countless instances in life and the cosmos. The idea of this principle is simple but very profound. It establishes the fact that complexity, contingency, and specification are inherent qualities in any design, as opposed to fabrication where design is apparent but not inherent or genuine[1]. A jar of ink that drops by accident on a large sheet of paper may leave a hexagonal-looking splash but that does not point to design. Design is the result of a purposeful activity as in the work of a skillful sculptor. We naturally associate design with noticeable patterning. This not only characterizes the labour in human artefacts but also forcefully emanates from any natural event of noticeable complexity and specification.

Atheism is neither reason-friendly nor consonant with the universal dictates of human experience (see 'Appendix Three' at the end of this book). Atheists themselves admit that believers' belief in the Creator grows from the widely, if not universally, common experience that designed entities imply a designer. But atheists quickly turn around and say that analogies from human experience are deceptive and unreliable because the hypothesized Creator is completely unknown to us and to formulate analogical syllogisms from human life in order to prove something which is completely absent from us is, to say the least, a very feeble way of arguing for God's existence. But atheists here too fall into a whirlpool of contradictions for two reasons.

Firstly, we can only pass judgments of any kind, ontological or epistemological, negative or positive, through the medium of human experience. Even atheists find it impossible to speak of God or anything else in isolation of the mediating effect of human experience. Arguments for God's existence, particularly the Anthropic Cosmological argument and those from design, are perfectly consonant with the maxims of human experience.

To further clarify, countless instances from human experience forcefully justify the plausibility of arguments from design but we cannot find a single instance from human experience that cogently shows how design or organized complexity can possibly exist without an intelligent designer/organizer. The next move for the atheist is to invoke evolution in order to demonstrate, as he would contend, how adaptation and natural selection prove the possibility of apparent design without an intelligent designer. But this is a very weak argument for the reason that adaptation and natural selection can easily be conceived as instantiations of exquisite design[2]. Evolutionary atheists, such Stephen J. Gould, Dawkins, and many others, have pronouncedly marvelled at the greatness, magnificence, "and elegance of biological design"[3]. Needless to say, no rational person would marvel at an incomprehensible hodge-podge of loosely related events. This latter assertion also obtains its legitimacy from the truisms of human experience. Secondly, the phrase 'natural selection' is more of a contradiction in terms. Selection is the process of selecting. The adjective 'natural' only performs a cosmetic job and does not even extenuate the fallacious implications of the phrase in question. Natural selection is specious phraseology. It cannot explain the ultimate causes of its referent(s), it does not preclude the involvement of intelligent choice, and, more importantly, it cannot answer the question – “Why is there something rather than nothing?”[4]. As Martin Rees, from the field of astrophysics, has relevantly put it:

"Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what 'breathes fire' into the equations, and actualizes them in a real cosmos"[5].

Judging from human experience, the act of selecting, especially where sophisticated and highly complex acts of selection take effect, is a property one would naturally attribute to an intelligent selector. In fact, we human beings perform countless examples of natural selection. A very thirsty person would 'naturally select' a glass of water even if there were several other kinds of drinkable fluids available. But is it rational (or even natural!) to opine that the act of selecting that just happened was not the choice of an intelligent being? The honeycomb is a remarkable piece of 'intelligent' architecture and, for every cell, the bee (by instinct, behold!) naturally selects the right substance, shape, and dimensions. From the moment they existed, bees do this naturally; it's not artificial labour and they didn't wait until it became second nature! So, even in the world of animals, the most natural world of life one can think of, traces of design inevitably follow from some form of intelligence. We no longer need William Paley's 'artificial' example; the bee has done the job for us.

Signs of intelligent design not only point to cosmological order but also accentuate an underlying teleological meaning[6]. "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd", maintains Hoyle "it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate"[7].

Not very long ago, many evolutionists regarded 'intelligent design' a religious nonsense raised to account for unexplainable gaps in the story of creation, hence the derogatory notion: 'God of the gaps'[8]. But since then, views have changed dramatically and evolutionists today, as evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once remarked, are on a par with creationists in accepting 'intelligent design' as self-evident fact[9].


(Continued)

[1] Dembski, William A. (2000) The Third Mode of Explanation: Detecting Evidence of Intelligent Design. In Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Behe, Michael et al., Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, Vol. 9, p. 17-39.

[2] Design in this context is far more complex, dynamic, and diverse than the laws operating in Paley's stationary watch. Arguing from a relevant perspective, Neil Ormerod, Bernard Lonergan, and several philosophers further maintain that "statistical lawfulness does not eliminate the reality of design in the universe. Rather it specifies the mode of such design, a design encompassed in the notion of emergent probability." (Ormerod, Neil (2005) Chance and Necessity, Providence and God, Irish Theological Quarterly; 70; p. 273).

[3] Dawkins, R. (2006) The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin, p. 15.

[4] Flanagan, Owen (2007) The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World, MIT Press, p. 190.

[5] Rees, M. (2000) Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe, Basic Books, P. 131.

[6] Gregory Bateson (1904-1980), the renowned anthropologist and social scientist, observed that "even Darwin wrote from time to time about natural selection in phrases which almost ascribed to this process the characteristics of transcendence and purpose" (Bateson, G. (2000) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, University of Chicago Press, p. 472).

[7] Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinehe N.C. (1981) Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism. Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York. 141.

[8] The term was coined to describe "the tendency to postulate divine action simply to fill up the gaps in scientific knowledge, for example in the detail of evolutionary mechanisms". (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn, p. 159, Oxford University Press, 1996). When theists hold on to their belief, they're hastily accused of "wishful thinking, escapism, and hopes for peace of mind”, relates Huston Smith. (Smith, Huston (2000) Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief, HarperCollins, p. 31)

[9] Gould, S. J. (1971) D'Arcy Thompson and the Science of Form, New Literary History, Vol. 2, No. 2, Form and Its Alternatives, (Winter), p. 232, Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

[ابوالوليد المسلم]

Allah's Univocal Sign (2/3)

Abdullah S. Al-Shehri




The strongest argument – and indeed the most manifest and accessible to humanity across the ages [1] - that can be levelled against theories of chance and Darwinian speculation is the 'Anthropic Teleological Argument'. The argument propounds that the fundamental qualities and critical physical characteristics of our universe have been fine-tuned or conditioned in such a way as to ultimately permit and sustain the existence of intelligent beings like us. The argument is further corroborated by two undeniable facts:
- “Humans enjoy a highly sophisticated capacity to observe, explore, and quantify.


And,
- The universe exists in a manner that lends itself to human observation, exploration, and quantification.


As Paul Davies, cosmologist and director of the Beyond Center at Arizona State University, lucidly puts it:
"The world is both rational and intelligible. This is often expressed as the "principle of sufficient reason", which states that everything in the world is at is for some reason"[2].


A fact which still represents a nightmare for many atheistic evolutionists is the clear distinction that can be made between the one ultimate cause of a natural process and the process or mechanism itself. The Islamic thinker Wahiduddin Khan perceptively pinpoints where evolution is at fault:
"Think of the railway engine speeding along the track. How do its wheels revolve? If we attempt to answer this question by studying the different parts of the engine and their movements, we shall arrive at the conclusion that the movement of the wheels is an extension of the functioning of the locomotive's mechanism. But would we be justified in believing that the (prime) reason for their movement is the engine and its various parts? Obviously, we would not. We should first have to consider the respective roles of the engineer who designed the engine and the engine driver who set it in motion. Without their instrumentality, the engine could neither exist, nor move. The engine and its parts are not then the final reality. The final reality is the mind which has brought the engine into existence, and runs it at will"[3].


Terms such as adaptation, natural selection, and genetic mutation do not daunt the learned Muslims, who are well acquainted with the Qur’an and the meanings of Allah's Attributes, The All-Wise (Al-Hakeem), The Originator of everything, including the laws of evolution for:
"Without God, evolution, continuity of nature, natural selection, conservation of energy, or whatever other phrases happen to have currency for the hour, are mere sound and smoke, and imaginations of science falsely so called" [4].


The fact that we can speak of living cells, for example, as containing "pumps, levers, motors, rotors, turbines, propellers, scissors, and many other instruments familiar from a human workshop"[5] must not escape serious contemplation. Why are we capable of both observing and naming such phenomena, even at such infinitesimal scales, so conveniently? This effective ability to transfer daily ******** into the realm of extra-personal realities, such as that of science, is clear evidence that human experience and the cosmos are not only significantly interrelated but also deliberately destined to coexist meaningfully. This conclusion is so self-evident that any attempt to invoke fortuitism would be utterly absurd. Those who wish to stick their heads in the sand will see nothing but dark. Those who are passionately after the signs, after truth, will effortlessly fail to see nothing but light.


This meaningful relationship between the explorer and the explored, the discoverer and the discovered, the observer and the observed, compels us to believe in a 'Grand Will' behind the scheme of things. Indeed, we not only live in the appropriate planet but also exist in a hospitable universe. Let us consult the ******** of facts and let this be from the vital function of universal constants. If, for instance, Planck's constant had a slightly different value, "the whole universe would be different from the way it is, which means that intelligent life (human beings) could not have evolved in a substantially altered universe. If gravity were significantly stronger than it is, stars would exhaust their hydrogen fuels much faster, and humanoid life (as we know it) could not appear in a universe where stars "died young". Or if the 'strong force', which binds the nuclei of atoms together, were stronger, helium nuclei would dominate the universe, and no hydrogen would be left over, and without hydrogen there would be no water, and without water there could not be life as we know it"[6].


To round off the Anthropic argument, let's quote Bruno Guiderdoni, a French astronomer who embraced Islam several years ago. He says:
"Historically, the vastness of the cosmos has been used as an argument against religion; the argument goes that if the cosmos is so extended, man is nothing and the concept of a revealed religion on the small planet where we are living has no sense. We now know that the age of the universe and the size of the observable universe are intimately linked to our presence on earth. We could not have appeared in a cosmos with a different age and size. The old age of the universe is necessary for heavy element enrichment, which is necessary for the formation of planets and the appearance of life. The size of the universe is a consequence of its age, and so we need this space around us and this time behind us in order to be here now on earth"[7].


In their analysis of the Anthropic Teleological Argument, L. Stafford Betty & Bruce Cordell conclude:
"...the Anthropic principle presents us with a potentially powerful argument for the existence of a universal creating intelligence"[8].


However, to reject evolution entirely would certainly make a fine example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Whether we like it or not evolution is a fact of life, but what kind of evolution are we talking about here? Countless phenomena display various forms of evolution, from ********, culture, ideologies, economical systems, to genes, organisms, the solar system, and galaxies. All these have undergone – across the ages – numerous kinds of evolution. By and large, the Qur’an does not reject evolution conceived this way. In fact, it is stated in the Qur’an that humans were created in different stages[9], and that human beings shall move from one stage to another[10]. Moreover, one of Allah's Names, frequently invoked by Muslims in their prayers, is 'Al-Baari' (Qur’an: Surah Al-Hashr, 59: 23-24)[11] which roughly means the One who evolves things from their beginnings towards their final existence. The Qur’an also speaks of a battery of laws such as the law of Tasreef (change)[12] as well as Taqleeb (alteration)[13], Tadbeer (proper disposition of affairs)[14], Hisaab (calculation)[15], Ihssaa (enumeration)[16], and Halaak (annihilation)[17]. From the Islamic viewpoint, change is a fundamental feature of life. Heraclitus' quote that "change is the only constant" and which happens to bear a lot of truth is endorsed by the Qur’an. However, it should be noted that evolution is more than just change and many of its aspects and mechanisms no doubt exhibit extreme complexity at various levels and stages.

[1] John D. Barrow said that arguers for intelligent design had prominently drawn their "examples from the marvelous adaptations evident in the natural world...tailor-made for the creatures that were to be found in it"; therefore their arguments were "graphic and easy to appreciate". (Barrow, John. D. (2005) Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation, Vintage Books, p. 118).

[2] Davies, Paul (1992) The Mind of God: Science & the Search for Ultimate Meaning, Penguin, p. 162.

[3] Khan, Wahiduddin M. (2002) Religion and Science, Goodword Books, p. 49-50.

[4] Blackie, John S. (1878) The Natural History of Atheism, New York, p. 253.

[5] Davies, P. (2007) The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?, Penguin, p. 218.

[6] Betty L. & Cordell B. (2001) The Anthropic Teleological Argument (edit.). In Peterson, M. Et al. (editors) Philosophy of Religion, Oxford University Press, p. 221; also see: Barrow, John D. (2003) The Constants of Nature, Vintage Books, p. 141.

[7] Guiderdoni, Bruno (2001) Reading God‟s Signs. In Faith in Science: Scientists search for truth, Edited by W. Mark Richardson and Gordy Slack, Routledge, London and New York, p.75.

[8] Betty, L. & Cordell, B. (2001) The Anthropic Teleological Argument. In Peterson, M. Et al. (editors) Philosophy of Religion, Oxford University Press, p. 224.

[9] Qur’an Surah Nuh, 71: 13-14.

[10] Qur’an Surah Al-Inshiqaq, 84: 19.

[11] See Abdullah Yusif Ali's translation of the Qur’an.

[12] Qur’an Surah Al-Furqan, 25:50; 2:164.

[13] Qur’an Surah An-Nur, 24:44.

[14] Qur’an Surah Yunus, 10:3; 10:31; 13:2.

[15] Qur’an Surah At-Tawbah, 9:96; 10:5.

[16] Qur’an Surah An-Naba, 78:29.

[17] Qur’an Surah Al-Qasas, 28:88.

[ابوالوليد المسلم]

Allah's Univocal Sign (3/3)

Abdullah S. Al-Shehri


But why should evolution lead to the exclusion of design when it is equally (and in fact more) convincing to attribute the evolution of life and the cosmos to the Will of a Higher Intelligence. Well put by H. D. Barrows:
"Is it not more reasonable to believe that the differentiation of species and the evolution of higher forms from lower during all the many stages thereof, was directed, determined and effected by Intelligence, utilizing, always, natural means and forces, to bring about natural, but ever purposeful results, than to believe that those results could have been produced by accident, or by the blind bias of unconscious matter; or, by the eccentric action of irresponsible and unintelligent force; or, finally, by the inconceivably improbable method of "a fortuitous concourse of atoms?" [1].


At this point, I think it is important to stop for a while and show where Islam and evolution are perfectly compatible. As mentioned earlier, Islam and evolution, in its broadest sense, are demonstrably compatible. Now we need to explain how Islam is compatible with many of the fundamental notions proposed by evolution in the Darwinian sense. According to the Qur’an (Surah Al-Qasas, 28:68), Allah does two things: He creates what He wills and He selects from His creation. The word connoting 'selection' is the Arabic verb 'Yakhtaar', which means to choose or select. It is worth noting that the two verbs denoting Allah's act of creating and selecting are used in the present tense: Yahkluq (creates) and Yakhtaar (selects/chooses), hence underscoring two manifestations of Allah's ceaseless involvement in the affairs of the universe. Thus, Islam does not reject the concept of selection which is utterly central to evolutionary theory. It only rejects the claim that selection is solely nature's invention, therefore the assumption that God is irrelevant. Selection, however, is not really 'random', although many biology books are notoriously known for using this adjective without reservation.


When biologists say 'random' they mean that for some 'unknown or unapparent' reason the genetic information guiding natural selection is continuously changing. They know that change is happening and has a job to do but they cannot explain the sudden shifts in genetic information and how they predispose selection to behave in a certain way.


Let's talk a little about the notion of genetic information, the amazing instructions that guide selection through space and time [2]. Again, this bit does not go without mention in the Qur’an. In chapter 20 verse 50, it is stated that in addition to Allah giving everything its creation (i.e. its form and nature), He has also given everything 'Huda' (i.e. guidance, direction) [3]. In its essence, natural selection is a perfect example of informational guidance and, according to the Qur’an, such information is encoded and embedded for nature's convenience. Interestingly, the very word 'guidance' – the literal *****alent of 'Huda' in Arabic - has been reiterated by Darwin in his Descent of Man more than 34 times [4] [5].


Gregory Bateson, the renowned anthropologist and social scientist, and known for his pioneering work on cybernetic systems, viewed "all the systems of the living natural world as being minds or mental processes"[6]. Although such minds, claims Bateson, may not be conscious, "they function as the 'informational drivers' of the living systems that exist at every scale from the tiny components of biological 'cells' to the great ecosystems and the vast processes of evolution" [7]. The basic ideas in this interpretation of life very much border on this vital concept of Hidaayah (guidance) mentioned in the Qur’an (Surah Ta-Ha, 20:50) [8]. This concept depicts all matter, living and nonliving, as being equipped with a 'guiding' consciousness of some kind that navigates them through various historical trajectories.


What Islam rejects about evolution, however, is the assumption that contingent life is self-creating or self-guiding, for how could an intrinsically contingent system owe its very existence to nothing external at all? This is a palpable absurdity. That would, as John Blackie has eloquently pointed out, resemble the assertion that reason has evolved out of unreason, or "order out of confusion, light out of darkness, fire out of frost, or the positive in any shape out of mere blind negations"[9]. To recapitulate, Islam categorically rejects three evolutionary propositions:
• The proposition that Allah and evolution are mutually exclusive; that we must choose between Darwinism and creation [10]. Carl Zimmer nicely puts it that "God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is a scientific phenomenon, one that scientists can study because it is observable and predictable. But digging up fossils does not disprove the existence of God or a higher purpose for the universe. That is beyond science's power"[11].


• The proposition that future things, beings, or states are necessarily better or more prefect than past ones whether on the basis of linear or non-linear evolutionary progress[12].


• The proposition that humans are the descendants of prehumen or barely humanoid species, a proposition which stands on dubitable evidence, sheer speculation and fails miserably to account for the so-called missing link(s). (Of course anyone familiar with the subject will recall Haeckel's fraudulent drawings)[13].

[1] Barrows, H.D. (1904) Cosmos or Chaos? Theism, or Atheism? p. 14.

[2] Maynard, J. & Szathmáry, E. (1999) The Origins of Life, Oxford University Press, p. 2.

[3] Look up Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur’an, one of the most authoritative ones.

[4] For example see pp. 57, 66, 98, 104, and 122 in: Darwin, Charles (2004) The Descent of Man, Penguin Classics. The notion of 'guidance' has vital implications for design, primarily that there's no such thing as pure chance or chaos in nature. "There is no juxtaposition of law and chance", says Neil Ormerod "…chance is itself subject to a certain type lawfulness, a statistical lawfulness whose outcomes, in the long run, can be predicted with some certainty" (Ormerod, Neil (2005) Chance and Necessity, Providence and God, Irish Theological Quarterly; 70; p. 272). George Williams, in his essential critique Adaptation and Natural Selection, has also realized that "even the most chaotically disorganized system may have a precise statistical organization". (Williams, G. (1996) Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought, Princeton University Press, p. 256-257). In fact, Erwin Schrödinger sees in "the unfolding of events in the life cycle of an organism...an admirable regularity and orderliness, unrivalled by anything we meet with in inanimate matter" (Schrödinger, E. (1992) What is Life? Cambridge University Press, p. 76).

[5] In all sincerity, I must say that had it not been for many of Darwin's insights, much of our ignorance concerning the science of life would have persisted till this very moment.

[6] Noel, C. (2008) Understanding Gregory Bateson: Mind, Beauty, and the Sacred Earth, State University of New York Press, p. 5.

[7] Ibid.

[8] The 14th century Attufi, in his three-volume Isharaat, interprets the verse as: "(Allah) gave everything its 'Khalq', meaning form and structure, and then 'Huda', meaning guidance, either though minds as in the case of humans or through instinct ]Darwin has dedicated an entire section on instinct and gave the example of bees[ as in the case of bees building their hives and spiders weaving their webs or any other organism (whose guidance is through instinct)" (See Attufi, Najmu-ddin (2002) Al-Isharaat Al-Ilahiyyah, Vol. 3, p. 8). The great exegete and linguist, Ibn-Atiyyah (circa 1088- 1151), looked at the general meaning of 'Huda' and laconically suggested, "…guided everything to what suits its nature" (See Ibn-Attyiah (2007) Al-Muhararul-Wajeez, Qatar, Vol. 8, p. 99).

[9] Blackie, John S. (1878) The Natural History of Atheism, New York, p. 236.

[10] Haught, J. F. (2006) Darwin, Design, and Divine Providence. In Debating Design From Darwin to DNA, (edit.) William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, Cambridge University Press, p. 229. Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins, two prominent scientists, have shown that evolution, given its true size, and God are not incompatible. The crux of their arguments is that although evolutionary laws are apparently selfdriven, still there is nothing intrinsically illogical about believing in a God who equips such laws with (quasi)autonomous power. This view coincides with the Qur’an, where it is stated that Allah has given everything its own creation and then gave it guidance (Qur’an: 20:49), and part of that guidance is to give the laws some degree of autonomy.

[11] Zimmer, Carl (2001) Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea from Darwin to DNA, Arrow Books, p. 414.

[12] I have mentioned earlier that many evolutionists have changed their minds regarding this point. According to John Stewart, "The great majority of the leading evolutionary theorists who attended a major international conference on evolutionary progress in 1988 opposed the view that evolution is progressive and that humans are at the leading edge of evolution on this planet". (Stewart, John (2000) Evolution's Arrow: The Direction of Evolution and the Future of Humanity. The Chapman Press, p. 160: notes and references).

[13] This is a long story but I'll cut it short. Haeckel sketched drawings of several different embryos (human and non-human embryos) showing incredible similarity in their early “tailbud” stage. "Within months of the publication of Haeckel‟s work in 1868", relates Jonathan Sarfati "L. Rtimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, showed it to be fraudulent. William His Sr., professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig, and a famous comparative embryologist, corroborated Rtimeyer’s criticisms. These scientists showed that Haeckel fraudulently modified his drawings of embryos to make them look more alike" (See Sarfati, J. (2002)