Welcome to Islam, - The myth of 'self organization of matter'

Share ::-

:->










Quite aware that the Second Law of Thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to close the gap between the two, so as to render evolution possible. As usual, even those endeavors show that the theory of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.
One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out from the 'Chaos Theory', Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which ordered forms come into existence from chaos )disorder(. He argued that some open systems can portray a decrease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy and the resultant outcome “ordering”, is a proof that “matter can organize itself.” Since then, the concept of the “self-organization of matter” has been quite popular among evolutionists and materialists. They act like they have found a materialistic origin for the complexity of life and a materialistic solution for the problem of life’s origin.
But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract and in fact just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naïve deception. The deception is the deliberate confusion of two distinct concepts, “self organization” and “self ordering.”
We can explain it by an example. Imagine a sea shore with different types of stones mixed with each other -- big stones, smaller stones and very tiny ones. When a strong wave hits the shore, there may appear an “ordering” among the stones. The water will raise the ones with equal weights in equal amounts. When the wave goes back, the stones may possibly be ordered from the smallest to the biggest towards the sea.
This is a “self ordering” process: the seashore is an open system and an influx of energy )the wave( may cause an “ordering”. But note that the same process can not make a castle of sand in the seashore. If we see a castle made of sand, we are sure that someone has made it. The difference between the castle and the “ordered” stones is that the former includes a very unique complexity, while the latter includes only repetitive order. It is like a typewriter typing “aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa” for hundreds of times – because an object )an influx of energy( fell onto the letter “a” on the keyboard. Of course, such a repetitive order of “a” s does not include any information and thus any complexity. You need a conscious mind to have a complex sequence of letters that includes information.
The same thing applies when wind enters a room full of dust. Before this influx, the dust may be scattered around. When the wind comes in, the dust may be collected in a corner of the room. This is “self ordering”. But the dust never “self organizes” itself and creates a picture of a man on the floor of the room.
These examples are quite similar to the ‘self organization' scenarios of evolutionists. They argue that matter has a tendency for self organization, then give examples of self ordering and then try to confuse both concepts. Prigogine himself gave examples of self ordering molecules during influx of energy. The American scientists Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen, in their book titledThe Mystery of Life’s Origin, explain this fact as follows:
“…In each case random movements of molecules in a fluid are spontaneously replaced by a highly ordered behavior." Prigogine, Eigen and others have suggested that a similar sort of self-organization may be intrinsic in organic chemistry and can potentially account for the highly complex macromolecules essential for living systems, but such analogies have scant relevance to the origin-of-life question. A major reason is that they fail to distinguish between order and complexity.
"… Regularity or order cannot serve to store the large amount of information required by living systems. A highly irregular, but specified structure is required rather than an ordered structure. This is a serious flaw in the analogy offered. There is no apparent connection between the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from energy flow through such systems and the work required to build a periodic information-intensive macromolecule like DNA protein.”
In fact, Prigogine himself had to accept that his arguments do no count for the origin of life. He said:
“The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.”
Then, why do evolutionists still try to believe in unscientific scenarios like “self organization of matter”? Why do they insist on rejecting the manifest intelligence in living systems? The answer is that they have a dogmatic faith in materialism and they believe that matter has some mysterious power to create life. A professor of chemistry fromNew YorkUniversityand DNA expert, Robert Shapiro explains this belief of evolutionists and the materialist dogma lying at its base as follows:
“Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.”
This situation makes it clear that evolution is a dogma that is against empirical science and the origin of living beings can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural power is Allaah )God(, who created the entire universe from nothing. Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Welcome to Islam, - Evolutionist claims and the facts

Share ::-

:->









In this article, we will address a number of biological phenomena and concepts presented as theoretical evidence by evolutionists. These topics are particularly important for they show that there is no scientific finding that supports evolution, instead they reveal the extent of the distortion employed by evolutionists.
Variations and Species
Variation is a term used in genetics to refer to a genetic event that causes individuals or groups of a certain species to harbor different characteristics from one another. For example, all the people on earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, or some are short or tall depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.
Evolutionists predict the variations within a species as evidence of the theory. However, variation does not constitute evidence for evolution, because variations are merely the outcomes of different combinations of the already existing genetic information and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information.
Variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information. In the science of genetics, this limit is called the “gene pool”. All the characteristics present in the gene pool of a species may come into view in various ways due to variation. For example, as a result of variation in a reptile species, there may appear varieties that have relatively longer tails or shorter legs, since the information for both long and short legs already exists in the gene pool. However, these variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase in the genetic information of the living thing, which is by no means possible in variations.
Darwinwas not aware of this fact when he formulated his theory. He thought that there was no limit to variations. In an article written in 1844 CE he had stated: “That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this belief is grounded”. InThe Origin of Specieshe cited different examples of variations as the most important evidence for his theory.
For instance, according toDarwin, animal breeders who mated different varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties that produced more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into a different species.Darwin’s notion of “unlimited variation” is best seen in the following sentence fromThe Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
The reasonDarwincited such a far-fetched example was the primitive understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20thcentury CE, Science has posited the principle of “genetic stability” )genetic homeostasis( based on the result of experiments conducted on living things. This principle holds that all mating attempts carried out to produce new variations were inconclusive and that there are strict barriers among different species of living things. This meant that it was absolutely impossible for animal breeders to convert cattle into a different species by mating different variations of them asDarwinhad postulated.
Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his bookDarwin Retired, states: “The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent…The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip.”
Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder of all time, expressed this fact when he said that: “there are limits to the development possible and these limits follow a law.” In addressing this subject the Danish scientist W.L. Johannsen commented:
“The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of indefinite departure.”
It is time that evolutionists were honest with themselves and realized that Science has its limits; it can only be a means of understanding the complex design underlying all Creation, it can never be a Creator itself.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Welcome to Islam, - The water cycle and the seas in the Quran

Share ::-

:->









When the verses of the Quran concerning the role of water in man’s existence are read in succession today, they appear to express ideas that are obvious. The reason for this is simple: in our day and age, we all know about the water cycle in nature to a greater or lesser extent.
However, if we consider the various ancient concepts on this subject, it becomes clear that the data in the Quran does not embody the mythical concepts prevalent at the time of Revelation, that had developed more according to philosophical speculation than observed phenomena. Although it was empirically possible to acquire the useful practical knowledge necessary to improve irrigation, the concepts held on the water cycle in general would hardly be acceptable today.
Thus, it would have been easy to imagine that underground water could have come from the infiltration of precipitation in the soil. In ancient times however, this idea, held by Virtuvius Polio Marcus inRome, 1stcentury CE, was cited as an exception. Thereafter, for many centuries )and the Quranic Revelation occurred during this period( man held completely inaccurate views on the water cycle.
Two specialists on this subject, G. Gastany and B. Blavoux, in their entry in the Encyclopedia Universalis under the heading ‘Hydrogeology’, give an edifying history of this problem.
“In the 7thcentury CE, Thales of Miletus held the theory whereby the waters of the oceans, under the effect of winds, were thrust towards the interior of the continents; so the water fell upon the earth and penetrated into the soil. Plato shared these views and thought that the return of the waters to the oceans was via a great abyss, the ‘Tartarus’. Until the 18thcentury CE, this theory had many supporters, one of whom was Descartes. Aristotle imagined that the water vapour from the soil condensed in cool mountain caverns and formed underground lakes that fed springs. He was followed by Seneca )1stcentury CE( and many others, until 1877 CE, among them O. Volger …”
The first clear formulation of the water cycle must be attributed to Bernard Palissy in 1580 CE. He claimed that underground water came from rainwater infiltrating into the soil. This theory was confirmed by E. Mariotte and P. Perrault in the 17thcentury CE.
In the following passages from the Quran, there is no trace of the mistaken ideas that were current at the time of Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, )may Allaah exalt his mention(.
The Quran says )what means(:“We sent down water from the sky, blessed water whereby We caused to grow gardens, grains for harvest, tall palm-trees with their spathes, piled one above the other – sustenance for )Our( servants. Therewith We gave )new( life to a dead land. So will be the emergence )from the tombs(.”]Quran 50:9-11[
And )what means(:“We sent down water from the sky in measure and lodged it in the ground. And We certainly are able to withdraw it. Therewith for you We gave rise to gardens of palm-trees and vineyards where for you are abundant fruits and of them you eat.”]Quran 23: 18-19[
And )what means(:“We sent forth the winds that fecundate. We cause the water to descend from the sky. We provide you with the water – you )could( not be the guardians of its reserves.”]Quran 15:22[
There are two possible interpretations of this last verse. The fecundating winds may be taken to be the fertilizers of plants because they carry pollen. However, this may be a figurative expression referring by analogy to the role the wind plays in the process, whereby a non-raincarrying cloud is turned into one that produces a shower of rain.
The Quran says )what means(:“Allaah is the One Who sends forth the winds which raised up the clouds. He spreads them in the sky as He wills and breaks them into fragments. Then thou seest raindrops issuing from within them. He makes them reach such of His servants as He wills. And they are rejoicing.”]Quran 30:48[
And )what means(:“)Allaah( is the One Who sends forth the winds like heralds of His Mercy. When they have carried the heavy-laden clouds, We drive them to a dead land. Then We cause water to descend and thereby bring forth fruits of every kind. Thus We will bring forth the dead. Maybe you will remember.”]Quran 7:57[
And )what means(:“Hast thou not seen that Allaah sent water down from the sky and led it through sources into the ground? Then He caused sown fields of different colors to grow.”]Quran 39:21[
And )what means(:“Therein We placed gardens of palm-trees and vineyards and We caused water springs to gush forth.”]Quran 36:34[
The importance of springs and the way they are fed by rainwater conducted into them is stressed in the last three verses. It is worth pausing to examine this fact and call to mind the predominance in the Middle Ages of views such as those held by Aristotle, according to whom springs were fed by underground lakes. In his entry on Hydrology in the Encyclopedia Universalis, M.R. Remenieras, a teacher at the French National School of Agronomy )Ecole nationale du Genie rural, des Eaux et Forets(, describes the main stages of hydrology and refers to the magnificent irrigation works of the ancients, particularly in the Middle East. However, he notes that an empirical outlook ruled over everything, since the ideas of the time proceeded from mistaken concepts. He continues as follows:
“It was not until the Renaissance )between circa 1400 and 1600 CE( that purely philosophical concepts gave way to research based on the objective observation of hydrologic phenomena. Leonardo da Vinci )1452-1519 CE( rebelled against Aristotle’s statements. Bernard Palissy, in his Wonderful Discourse on the Nature of Waters and Fountains both Natural and Artificial )Discours admirable de la nature des eaux et fontaines tant naturelles qu’artificielles; Paris, 1570( gives a correct interpretation of the water cycle and especially of the way springs are fed by rainwater.”
This last statement is surely exactly what is mentioned in the Quran )chapter 39, verse 21( describing the way rainwater is conducted into sources in the ground.
The subject of chapter 24, verse 43, is rain and hail )which means(:
“Hast thou not seen that God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them a heap. And thou seest raindrops issuing from within it. He sends down from the sky mountains of hail, He strikes therewith whom He wills and He turns it away from whom He wills. The flashing of its lightning almost snatches away the sight.”
The following passage requires some comment )which means(:
“Have you observed the water you drink? Do you bring it down from the rainclouds?Or do We? If it were Our will, We could make it salty. Then why are you not thankful?”]Quran 56: 68-70[
This reference to the fact that God could have made fresh water salty is a way of expressing Divine Omnipotence. Another means of reminding us of the same Omnipotence is the challenge to man to make rainfall from the clouds. In modern times however, technology has surely made it possible to create rain artificially. Can one therefore oppose the statement in the Quran to man’s ability to produce precipitations?
The answer is no, because it seems clear that one must take account of man’s limitations in this field. M.A. Facy, an expert at the French Meteorological Office, wrote the following in the Encyclopedia Universalis under the heading Precipitations: “It will never be possible to make rain fall from a cloud that does not have the suitable characteristics of a raincloud or one that has not yet reached the appropriate stage of evolution )maturity(.” Therefore, man can never hasten the precipitation process by technical means, when the natural conditions for it are not present. If this were not the case, droughts would never occur in practice – which they obviously do. Thus, to have control over rain and fine weather still remains a dream.
Man cannot willfully break the established cycle that maintains the circulation of water in nature. This cycle may be outlined as follows, according to modern ideas on hydrology:
The heat from the sun’s rays causes the water from the sea and other water surfaces on Earth to evaporate. The water vapour that is given off rises into the atmosphere and, by condensation, forms clouds. The winds then intervene and move the clouds thus formed over varying distances. The clouds can then either disperse without producing rain, or combine their mass with others to create even greater condensation, or they can fragment and produce rain at some stages in their evolution. When rain reaches the sea )70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water(, the cycle is soon repeated. When rain falls on the land, it may be absorbed by vegetation aid its growth; the vegetation in its turn gives off water and thus returns some water to the atmosphere. The rest, to a lesser or greater extent, infiltrates into the soil, from where it is either conducted through channels into the sea, or comes back to the Earth’s surface network through springs or resurgences.
When one compares the modern data of hydrology to what is contained in the numerous verses of the Quran quoted in this paragraph, one has to admit that there is a remarkable degree of agreement between them.
Summarized from: The Bible, the Quran and Science

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M