Hi Kataclismic

Thanks for the post. Here are my replies.

You said: “A biologist many years ago said… had no idea that deoxyribonucleic acid even exists.”

Look Kataclysmic… All that you mentioned are perceivable realities/facts. I agree. Now, we have got these facts in front of us. The issue is… what do you make of all this? Theists say it points to the unity of the creator… in other words the designer is one for all of these. Atheists say it points to evolution.

Let me give you an example to make my point clearer. We all know that all the things fall to the ground. This is something man has perceived ever since he had the faculty to perceive. But Newton came along and gave an interpretation for this phenomenon. He called it gravity, and said that it’s an invisible force that exists between all object, with larger objects applying more force.

Many years later, Einstein came along and said gravity has nothing to do with force. It’s just a curvature of time-space. Another interpretation. But the phenomenon has remained the same.

IN our case, the phenomenon is interdependence and similarity between species. Your interpretation is evolution. My interpretation is unity in creation. Let’s put your hypothesis to test.

Now before I go on… let me give you a very important point to think about. If you want to prove evolution, do you know what you have to show me? Not similarities between species. Not that through mutation some organisms get an advantage in survival.

What you have to show me is that a mutation causes increase in genetic information. This is an extremely important. So far, there is no known example in the living world of any mutation that causes an increase in information by even a single nucleotide.

Now why do I say that it is such an important evidence? According evolution, it is a one-celled primitive organism that has evolved into what we call man. (For the time being I will not ask you to explain how that single celled organism came). This clearly shows that there has been a tremendous amount of increase in genetic information through evolution. We are a zillion times more complex than a single celled organism.

I don’t know if you had read all my posts to Cyber. I had worked out some math to show the probability of positive mutation (by positive mutation I mean a mutation that actually adds information). If it had happened so frequently in the past for us to be so evolved, why is it that today we don’t find a single example of a mutation that causes increase in genetic information.

Let me explain more: if you show me that a particular strain of bacteria increases its chances of survival by developing resistance to a drug through mutation, I would NOT consider it a proof for evolution. Because bacteria actually gains this resistance by shedding the specificity in their protein synthesis gene, which is what the drug attacks, and hence the resistance. In this case, it is actually losing information, which gives the bacteria an advantage over the drug, but leads to the synthesis of low quality protein. In fact, all examples of mutation that gives survival advantage are either loss of information or re-emergence of already stored information. There is no example of new information evolving through mutation.

YOU SAID: “As far as fossil records - it takes a specific combination of environmental variables to even create the fossils so there is no surprise whatsoever that there are gaps in the records.”

As of today, we have more than a million fossils. Now think of what evolutionists say – evolution is a very gradual process. Think of a deer turning into a giraffe through evolution. The deer population would have had to exist for hundreds of thousands of years as deers for them to undergo the first step in evolution. And once this happens, the new species, let’s call it X, they would have had to rise up to a big population and lived for hundreds of thousands of years to then evolve into the next species. Let’s call it Y. And similarly for Y to become Z and so on until the giraffes emerged. Therefore, each of these intermediate links (X,Y,Z) would have had equal chance of fossilization, because they had lived long enough too. Then why is it that they are missing?

IN fact, as I had mentioned it earlier, evolutionary scientists see the missing link as a big problem. If it were as easy as you said, why bother. They come up with strange theories like PET to cover up this gap, which speaks more of their imaginative powers than anything substantial.

You said: “Obviously religion has nothing to do with knowledge.”

The purpose of religion (at least Islam) is to provide guidance to man on how to live his life. This it provides. However, there is one thing that Quran asserts very rigorously, that the natural world is the greatest evidence of the creator. And in my humble opinion the only reason that evolution theory, despite its many gaping holes, is still being bandied as a scientific fact, is because if not this, then there’s not even an alternate explanation (even by the farthest stretch of imagination) for the spontaneous emergence of life on earth, without an intelligent cause.

Now coming to your very interesting question about Bob:
In Islam, a person is not accountable for what he does when he is not in control of his senses. It’s very simple. Bob would only be answerable for what he did until he lost his mind.

YOU SAID: “Hence, if I am of a good moral character but decline to accept hearsay for god's existence (that isn't my fault, that's just my personality at work) why would I be treated any differently than Bob? If the test is whether I can accept hearsay as scripture rather than apply logic and reasoning to my existence then I'll fail that test every-time without question.

There are two things to note here. Firstly, you said “if I am of a good moral character, but I decline to accept…”

The reason that Islam wants you to believe in it is because it firmly believes that one can never be morally 100% correct without following Islam. Let me explain. You maybe a good person according to what you perceive as good. You may not lie, cheat, kill etc. But what about sex outside marriage? That might be alright to you, in your context. But Islam says that it’s immoral. What about taking bank loans for interest? You would say that’s fine because you are not cheating anyone there. But Islam says that’s immoral.

Now, you might want to question the logic behind those moral precepts. I can give you many reasons why these things are bad for the society, while at an individual level they may not pose much of a problem. For example, I can show you that an interest-based economy generates poverty. But that’s a long-winded topic, so I will not venture into that now. So when you look at things at a macro scale what may appear innocent could have devastating consequences. Similarly, I can show you why sex without responsibility (without marriage) can at a macro level have devastating consequences.

However, my point is only this much. Even if you want to live a morally pure life, without divine guidance, it would be impossible.

Then you said: “If the test is whether I can accept hearsay as scripture rather than apply logic and reasoning to my existence then I'll fail that test every-time without question.”

No. Islam doesn’t say you should accept anything by hearsay. If you read the Quran with an open mind, you will see that it’s actually speaking to your reasoning mind.

Quran’s case is very simple. Look at the world around you. The design in it will be too obvious. And therefore there is a designer. But now if you are confused by evolution (despite the huge illogicality in it) fine, I will give you few more things to ponder over.

I earnestly request you to look at some of the scientific phenomena that are mentioned in the quran. We will have a separate discussion on it. I will state them with proof. Try to give me a rational explanation as to how an illiterate arab desert dweller of the 7th century (Mohammed, PBUH) could have come up with these facts.

I am speaking to your scientific mind. If you realize that these are indeed scientifically accurate statements not known to people of those times, then I don’t think you will have the excuse that your reasoning mind hasn’t found anything in religion.

I will answer your jumping spider question in a separate post, as this is getting too long.