With the Name of God, The Beneficent, The Merciful
Hate Hurts. Love Cures. Conjecture Fails. Truth Prevails.
Islam - Bearing witness to the Truth
Seek Understanding from Knowledge/ Information
Home ] Curious Minds ] Explore Islam ] Interfaith Dialogue ] Muslim Community ] Current Issues ] Interesting Reads ] Site Map ] Search Site ]
We have New Domain
.com

What's New?

Curious Minds !

Principles of Islam

Explore Islam

Interfaith Dialogue

Muslim Community

Current Events!

Interesting Reads!

Our Discussion Groups

Muslim World Charities

Site Map

Search Site

Homepage

Page last edited on 12 March, 2003

EVIDENCE OF GOD's EXISTENCE

[ by a Christian believer ]

Being honest with the evidence

Imagine you and another student are working on a Ph.D. research project and you need to find an isolated place in the world where humans have never been. So after one year of investigation, you find a very small island in the south Pacific where you are convinced no one has ever been. You have talked to many people and have done a lot of research, even going around the island in a boat, and there is no evidence that anyone has ever been to the island. This island is only 50 meters long and 20 meters wide with only 26 palm trees on it, and is 300 miles from any other island.

So you pack up your equipment to go there, and your advisor reminds you, "This experiment is so expensive and costs so much money, that we cannot afford to make a mistake. If anything goes wrong, we will have to give it up, because we don't have enough money to repeat it again."

You and your partner take a special boat to the island and unload all your equipment and food to stay there three months to do your experiments. After the first week, you have been working very hard and now all your equipment is operating. You and your partner are walking around, enjoying the island, when you suddenly notice an unusual arrangement of rocks in the sand. The arrangement is very clearly in this form: I LOVE YOU.

You and your partner stare at each other, and each of you asks at the same time, "Did you put this here?" And each of you answer, "No way, I've never been to this part of the island before."

So now you are faced with a decision. What will you do with this evidence?

The first option goes through your mind, "If we just ignore this, destroy the words, and don't tell anyone, no one will know. and we can continue our experiment." You suggest this to your partner and he agrees, so you mess up the rocks, and continue walking.

But you and your partner keep wondering about how those words got there. After a day of thinking, you tell your partner that you are very concerned about your experiment because there must have been another human on this island before both of you came. Your partner says, "Just because you saw those words, it doesn't prove that another human was here. there are other possibilities. I will give you scientific evidence that they could have formed in some other way.

As the time goes by, your partner shows you some evidence. He shows you two things that provide some kind of basis to think that the words may not have been made by other humans. These are:

  1. He shows you that the waves wash rocks up on the shore, and sometimes these rocks are laid in a curve such as this: (  And after two weeks he shows you an example of where a wave made a straight line, like hits: /  He points out that the words, I LOVE YOU are made up completely of these two shapes, so if you recognize that this island has been here for thousands, if not millions of years, there is plenty of time for the waves to form these words.
  2. Both of you discover that sea turtles come onto the island at night, and one of their common habits is to push rocks with their noses. After you observe what turtles do for a dew weeks, you notice that one day there are three rocks pushed be a turtle into a straight line. Then a month later, you find four rocks, pushed by the turtles. so your friend points out that this is another scientific possibility of how the words were formed.
As you discuss these things with your friend, he says that what he wants to do is to just forget about the words you saw. He points out that there will be huge problems and you will have to give up the whole experiment if you say that another person was on the island before you were. He points out that it may take both of you three years longer to get a Ph.D. if you give up this experiment.

But then your friend says, "But if you need to be absolutely honest with all the evidence like a good scientist, you can acknowledge that we found the words, and then point out the evidence that we found to explain how the words were formed."

So now you have a choice to make. What will you decide? You have at least four options:

  1. Ignore the fact that you ever saw the words.
  2. Tell others about the words in your report, explain that they were probably formed by the waves or sea turtles.
  3. Tell your advisor about all that your saw and the theories you have, and then just go along with whatever he thinks is best to do.
  4. Recognize that the best explanation of the facts is that other humans were on the island at some time. Report this, even though your experiment will likely be invalidated and your partner and advisor will likely be upset with you.

Now, let us think logically about the world around us from the view point of science and evaluate evidence of God.

The complexity of the world

Look at the complexity of the feathers on the left. Each feather is composed of lots of small hairs. Each small hair is composed of many smaller hairs. The stripes on each feather are the result of the precise color transition in the smallest level of hairs. Moreover, each feather are distinct from one another because the curve of the sripes depends on the position of each feather.

Imagine the computer program required to produce the feathers on a bird. All of this is in the DNA of each cell, plus all the other information needed for the detailed structure of the whole bird.

Imagine the structure of human DNA. A normal body cell contains an average of 92 DNA molecules, which include billions of genetic codes containing all the information for the complete functions of your body!

  • each cell contains as much information as a large library.
  • each cell also contains RNA, which is the information used to interpret the DNA.
The environment for this RNA and DNA to function is also extremely complex. A structure of five-carbon sugars alternating with phosphates is needed. Then to each sugar is attached a unit of either guanine, adenosine, uracil, or cytosine. These units are known as bases. At least 30 units are needed for the RNA to function, and they need to be in exactly a precise order. And even if you have all the information in the right order and all the bases in the right order (which is impossible to happen by chance), there would still be no life.

For life to occur, there would also need to be: "carbohydrates, lipids, high energy phosphates, hormones, carotenoids, alkaloids, the correct pH, a lipid cell membrane with pores just the right diameter to allow the passage of substances in and out, an endoplasmic recticulum for protein synthesis and intracellular transportation, transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, messenger RNA, Golgi sacs for the synthesis and packaging of glycoproteins, hundreds of mitochondria to supply the energy needs of the cell, Lysosomes for housing digestive enzymes, ribosomes by the thousands for protein production, centrioles to aid cellular division, a nuclear membrane to house the chromosomes and nucleoli for producing RNA protein complexes."

And even with all these components, they would have to come together in just the right way, in exact proportions, at just the right time, in just the right climate, and with the right kind of food.

Another factor that makes the development of a cell to be impossible without a higher intelligence is that most of the different parts would need to come into existence at the exact same time and in the exact same place. One part of DNA could not come into existence and then be isolated for one week; it would cease to exist. The RNA could not exist by itself. The same is true for a cell membrane, and many other parts of the cell. The parts are interdependent.

This is also true in larger structures. If a more complex heart would develop in one organism, it would also need at the same time a more complex brain, nervous system, an blood vessels. All of these would have to be made more complex at the same time because they are interdependent. This interdependency of the different parts of any organism make development without a higher intelligence to be impossible.

You should also keep in mind that for any structure to become more organized and complex, it cannot do so without the help of a higher intelligence and energy. Left to itself, it will become more unorganized and its energy will be dissipated. This is the Law of Entropy of The Second Law of Thermodynamics. If someone supports a theory that matter and energy became more organized and complex in some way, without the help of a higher intelligence, that person is supporting a theory that contradicts all the scientific evidence of how all things work in the real world today.

An example of how this works is a clothes dryer. If you left your laundry in the dryer on morning and then in the afternoon you returned to find all your clothes folded and stacked neatly inside the dryer, what would you think? Is there any possibility that such thing could happen without the help of an intelligence being of some kind? No, we know it is absolutely impossible for clothes to be folded and stacked in a dryer, no matter how long they are left in and turned around and around. Why? Because when a correct fold would be made, it would be undone within a few turns of the machine. This is a description of what happens with matter and energy today when they are not aided by an outside source of intelligence. You also call this a description of the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work.

An now scientists are also saying that the environment of our planet and solar system have to be extremely exact to support life. The design of our moon and the strength of gravity appear to be finely tuned to make it possible to support life. The size of the sun is extremely important, as is the distance away from the earth. Even the smallest variation in any of these factors would prohibit the existence of life. (Current trends & Thoughts, May 1999, p.4)

What are scientist saying about the evidence for origins?

Allan Sandage , a world renowned astronomer, was the one who first discovered how fast the uinverse is expanding. He has been an atheist until recently he told the pubic, "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated that can be explained by science." He now says that God is the only answer to the mysteries of the universe. (Current Trends and Thoughts, May 199, p. 4.)

Dr. Colin Patterson , Senior Paleontologist, British museum of Natural History, London, said, "Last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought I was working on Evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me of there was something wrong with Evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, ' I do know one thing--it ought not to be taught in high school.'" (Colin Patterson, Transcript of keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 1981)

She also says, "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science for there is no way of putting them to test." (Luter D. Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils an Other Problems, Santee, California: Master Books, 1988, p.89)

J. Wolfgang Smith , (Ph.D. in Mathematics from Columbia University, M.S. in Physics from Purdue University, B.S. from Cornell University, formerly an Aerodynamicist with Bell Aircraft Corporation, provide the "theoretical key to the solution of the famed re-entry problem for space flight," former math instructor at MIT, published in various scientific journals), says, "Today , a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. There was a time, not too long ago, when it seemed to the world at large that the theory had triumphed once and for all, and that the issue was henceforth closed. And yet, within the last two or three decades the debate about evolution has not only revived but is showing signs of heating up. Indeed, the question whether the evolutionist claims are justified is currently being discussed and argued, not just in fundamentalist circles, but also on occasion in research institutes, and in the prestigious halls of academe. the fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith of biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretful, as one could say."

"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."

"We are told dogmatically that evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." (J. Wolfgang Smith, "Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Through Analysis of the Teaching of Pierre Teilard de Chardin," Tan Books & Publishers, 1988, p. 1, 5-6, 2)

Gary Parker , Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist, and former Evolutionist, says, " In most people's mind, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory, and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed into another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are STILL MISSING. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, "The Origin of Species," Mesa, Arizona, Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983, quote from Gary E. Parker)

David Kitts , paleontologist and Evolutionist, says, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origin Answer Book," Eden Publications, 1992, p. 101)

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould , Harvard professor and Evolutionist, says, "We're not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we're not evolving. There's no reason to think we're going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever--we are what we are." (John Lofton's Journal, The Washington Times, Feb. 8, 1984)

He also says, "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species." (Stephen Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, Feb. 4, 1980)

Dr. L. Watson , Evolutionary anthropologist, says, " Modern apes, for instance, seems to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And  the true origin of modern humands--or upright, naked, tool making, big-brained beings--is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." (Lyall Watson, "The Water people," Science Digest, Vol. 90, No. 5, p.44)

N.H. Nilsson , botanist and Evolutionist, says, "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed." (Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origin Answer Book," Eden Publications, 1992, p. 91)

George Simpson, paleontologist and Evolutionist, says, "The uniform, continous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature..." (Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origin Answer Book," Eden Publications, 1992, p. 91)

Professor Philip Johnson , University of California, Berkeley, says, "Whenever natural selection is actually observed in operation, it permits variation only within boundaries and operates as effectively to preserve the constraining boundaries as it does to permit the limited variation. the hypothesis that natural selection has the degree of creative power required by Darwinist theory remains unsupported by empirical evidence." (Philip E. Johnson, "Darwin on Trial," Downers Grove, illinois, Intervarsity Press, 1991, p.96)

Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse , former President of the French Academie des Sciences and the scientist who held the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for twenty years, says, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution"  (88). " The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their need seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur,...There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it" (103). (Pierre-Paul Grasse, "Evolution of Living Organisms, New York, Academic Press, 1977)

David Green , University of Wisconsin, and Robert Goldberger, National Institutes of Health, biochemists and Evolutionists, wrote, "However, the macromolecule-to cell transition is a sum of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet... We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence." (David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, "Molecule insights Into the Living Process," New York, Academic Press, 1967, p. 406-407)

Francis Crick , DNA expert and co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix and a Nobel Prize winner, says, there is virtually no chance that the first life could have spontaneously generated from Earth's chemistry. For the reason, he wrote a book which suggest the first living cell must have been brought to Earth by a spaceship from outside this solar system. (Francis Crick, "Life Itself," New York, Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 117-141 and "Francis Crick: The Seeds of Life," Discover, Oct. 1981, p.62-67)

Fred Hoyle , astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University says, "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts (zeros) after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." (Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origin Answer Book," Eden Publications, 1992, p. 61)

Niles Eldredge , Ph.D., paleontologist and Evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History, says, "The only completing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation." (Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origin Answer Book," Eden Publications, 1992, p. 49)

What is your logical response to the evidence?

  1. Ignore the evidence
  2. Accept what the majority of people decide to believe
  3. Think of a new theory or look for someone with a new theory.
  4. Accept the most logical conclusion shown by the evidence, even though it may make you uncomfortable in different ways.
 

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities
--his eternal power and divine--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse
Romans 1:20 (NIV)

Up ]


If you find any error/ unauthentic information/ broken links on this site, please mailto saif_waheed@lycos.com

Interact with us NoW !

Last updated on 12 March, 2003

Subscribe to 4islam
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

View Our Guestbook
Sign Our Guestbook

Hate Hurts. Love Cures. Conjecture Fails. Truth Prevails.
Islam - Bearing witness to the Truth
Seek Understanding from Knowledge/ Information
Copyright Islam-KnowTheTruth 2000