Episode 39 – The Atheists’ God of the Gaps

Peace and God’s mercy be upon you.

What has led distinguished scientists in their fields to make statements of the utmost absurdity and comedy concerning the universe and life? Today we shall see, along with a discussion of the following three objections that reflect errors in thinking:

1. The theory is the most widely accepted scientific explanation in scientific circles.
2. You cannot reject the theory of evolution until you provide an alternative to it.
3. When we say that God created living beings, this is not a scientific answer; rather, this method is called God of the gaps.

In the introduction to our episodes on the myth of evolution, we promised you systematic episodes that organize thought. Today’s episode, brothers, is a distinctive example of that, as you will notice, God willing, so stay with us.

The First Objection: “The Theory Is the Most Accepted Scientific Explanation”

The Story of “the Most Accepted Scientific Explanation”

A: “The sun is hot today—very hot.” B: “There is no sun.” A: “Man, there it is; I cannot look at it, and sweat is pouring from me.” B: “That is not a sun. Exclude for me the possibility that it is a sun.” A: “Exclude what?” B: “It is either an optical illusion, or we took hallucinogens that made us think the sun had risen. We did not take hallucinogens, so the possibility remains that it is an optical illusion. My theory says: ‘What is before us is an optical illusion; that is the most widely accepted scientific explanation.’”

This is the story of the most widely accepted scientific explanation: the most widely accepted explanation after the only correct explanation has been excluded. Nothing remains except forms of nonsense, and then you are told to choose one of them.

Acceptance of the Theory among Scientists

It is said: “The theory of evolution is the best theory for explaining living beings because it is the most widely accepted in scientific circles.” Most accepted by whom? By scientists. Which scientists? The scientists who excluded the only correct explanation in advance, then approached the universe looking for any other explanation.

Franklin Harold’s Testimony

This appears with complete clarity in the words of the evolutionary biochemistry professor Franklin Harold in his book The Way of the Cell. Harold says on page [205]: “We must reject as a matter of principle the option of intelligent design as an alternative to chance, but we must acknowledge that at present there are no detailed Darwinian explanations for the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a diverse collection of wishful speculations.”

Let us recall, brothers, that we are not saying intelligent design; rather, we are saying that there is a knowing, choosing Agent whom eyes cannot perceive. An explanation of this kind is rejected by Harold and the evolutionists as a matter of principle—rejected beforehand, not put forward for discussion in the first place. Do not explain to me that the sun exists by saying that it is a sun.

The Problem of the Cell’s Formation

Yet Harold expresses in his book the inescapable perplexity, saying on page [245]: “The components of the cell as we know them are so tightly integrated that it is difficult to imagine any function having arisen apart from the others. Genetic information is copied and read only with the help of protein enzymes, which in turn are themselves products of those genes; energy is produced by enzymes, while enzymes themselves need energy in order to be produced.”

In simple terms, Harold points to the foolishness of the idea that the cell formed little by little, cumulatively, as in the analogy of the blind men’s airplane and natural selection. How is DNA copied to produce many cells in an organism and to produce proteins? Through enzymes. Then how did these enzymes arise? By reading genetic material. So which came first? How can randomness and chance derive one from the other? They cannot. Neither can form without the other.

All right, let us pass over this problem. How did these enzymes form? They needed energy. Then how did this energy arise? And so it is with the systems of the body: interwoven, dependent upon one another; there is no visible loose end or foundation stone on which the miserable evolutionary randomness and blindness can work. Imagine that the instructions for manufacturing a computer are on a CD. But the problem is that without a computer, one cannot read what is on the disc at all.

Harold Confirms the Lack of Understanding of Life’s Origin

Harold says at the end of his book: “It would be welcome to end this book with loud celebratory words, saying that science is taking slow but confident steps toward solving the greatest mystery. But honestly, this is not the right time for rosy poetic words. The origin of life seems to me as incomprehensible as it has always been, something fit for wonder rather than analysis and explanation.”

Thus Harold confirms again and again that this is not a matter of time. The matter does not appear explainable at all within the framework of evolution.

Commitment to Materialism

But despite all this, the existence of a Creator outside the tangible material framework must be excluded. Why? Because Harold is committed to a materialist explanation of the universe, as he says on page [190]: “Let me make it unambiguously clear that, like the overwhelming majority of contemporary scientists, I see the living world as the product exclusively of natural material causes.”

The Conflict in the Western World

So this is the story: a conflict that took place centuries ago in the Western world between corrupted religion and experimental science; between the Church, its irrational supernatural reports, and its false theories that it wanted to impose on the one hand, and the science people saw as a tangible reality on the other. Westerners fell into this duality. They could have sought a sound system for life, one without this contradiction—the system we claim is Islam, as we shall prove, God willing, in Journey of Certainty.

They could have approached Islam impartially. Its sources have remained pure: there is no contradiction in it between sound reason and sound transmission from God and His Messenger. Nor is there any contradiction between perception, including experience, and sound transmission; all of them are from God. “If it had been from any other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” [An-Nisa’ 4:82] Sound transmission, including revelation, reason, and perception are sources of knowledge that complement one another and whose gears turn in one pattern to achieve sound knowledge. When we say “knowledge” in the Islamic framework, it includes all these sources.

But entering Islam was not an option at all for most Westerners; there was a great barrier in their souls against it, and their leaders turned them away from it. From here began the journey of misguidance and wandering to this day. Their decision was to sanctify science based on perception, such as observation and experiment, consider it the sole source of knowledge, and divorce religion altogether—rejecting it as a source of knowledge—or assign it boundaries as an emotional option without considering it a source of science. Accordingly, every explanation they offered for any cosmic phenomenon had to be a materialist explanation based on perception, such as observation or experiment. After that, believe whatever you wish about the unseen, but do not mix the two.

The Either/Or Fallacy

With this psychological complex, many Western scientists approached the universe to explain what it contains, with the complex known in logical fallacies as “Either/Or Fallacy”: restricting matters to two options, both of them wrong. We do not accept Christian clericalism in the classroom; therefore the only option is materialist explanation. “Let intelligent design into schools today, and school prayers will be practiced tomorrow.”

They completely ignore the correct explanation: living beings must have a knowing Creator, free from the distortions of the Christians. These are the scientists who give their stamp of approval to a theory, and then it is said: “This theory is the most widely accepted explanation in scientific circles.” The correct statement would be: in circles that reject the only explanation in advance, “For what is beyond truth except error?” [Yunus 10:32]

Richard Lewontin’s Testimony

Do you want to know more about their mentality? Read the words of Professor Richard Lewontin, a scholar of mathematics, genetics, and evolutionary biology, and author of Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. You will be shocked by his words because of their great frankness. I made every effort to verify that they were correctly attributed to him and, as usual, provided links that allow you to review and verify them.

Richard Lewontin says in his article “Billions and Billions of Demons,” published on The New York Review of Books in 1997: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that conflict with rational intuitions is key to understanding the real conflict between experimental science and metaphysics. We favor experimental science despite the obvious absurdity in some of its constructions, despite its failure to fulfill many of its exaggerated promises about health and life, and despite the scientific community’s tolerance of stories without evidence of the ‘take it as it is’ type. All this is because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. The matter is not that the methods and institutions of science compel us to accept materialist explanations for the world of phenomena; on the contrary, we are driven by our prior commitment to material causes to create a system of investigation and a set of concepts that produce materialist explanations, however contrary to intuition those explanations may be and however puzzling to the uninitiated. This materialism is also absolute: we must not allow any Divine Foot to enter through the door. “For we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Examples of Absurd Explanations

Brothers, you saw with me examples of absurd explanations that contradict the self-evident principles of reason in the previous episodes, especially in the last two. But let us add a new joke from the evolutionists’ jokes.

The Evolution of Breast Milk

The evolutionary professor George Gamow wanted to propose a mechanism for how breast milk appeared in mammals. He tells you in his biology book that some baby reptiles began by chance to lick their mother’s sweat to feed themselves. Consequently, some sweat glands began to secrete a better and better fluid until this fluid turned into milk. In other words, sweat, which is for getting rid of bodily waste, turned through frequent licking of its glands into nutritionally complete milk. It contains a great variety of proteins, antibodies, sugars, vitamins, and other things. This is supported by a scientific paper published in [2012] proposing that milk glands evolved from “Apocrine-like glands,” a paper far from obscure and cited by many scientific papers.

But is this not an absurd explanation? Yes—and what is the problem? We told you in advance that we are prepared for absurd explanations in order to preserve sacred absolute materialism.

The Position of Experimental Science on God’s Existence

Would you like another example, my brother? Read what Nature published in [1999] by Dr. Todd “Todd,” who said: “The most important point is that it must be clear in classrooms that science—experimental science—including evolution has not proved the nonexistence of God, because this science is not permitted to take this matter into account in the first place. Even if all the data indicated an intelligent designer, this hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not within nature.”

The Definition of Scientific Theory

After all this, read the definition of scientific theory according to the National Academy of Sciences in the United States. Theory: the best and most coherent explanation for a set of natural phenomena observable in nature, which can integrate facts, inferences, laws, and tested hypotheses.

Add to this definition: within the absolute material framework—meaning the sacred one—with care taken to exclude the existence of a Creator, whatever absurdity and contradiction of reason and its self-evident principles this method entails.

The Second Objection: “God of the Gaps”

Here you may become confused and say: is not explaining scientific phenomena through the existence of a Creator the same as the idea of God of the gaps? Of course not.

The Concept of God of the Gaps in Corrupted Religions

What is the idea of God of the gaps? It too is one of the remnants of corrupted religions from the Middle Ages. Someone became ill. Why did he become ill? God made him ill. Perhaps God was angry with him because he mocked the Church. Then the microscope was invented; we saw microbes and learned that they cause disease. Aha! So you had a gap in knowledge about the cause of illness, and you filled it by saying that God did such and such. A clash then occurred between explanation through the existence of God and explanations from experimental science.

The Concept of Causes in Islam

In Islam, there is no rupture. God decrees illness for one of us. Does that mean illness has no material causes? It does have them, and the Law affirmed them and commanded us to take measures to guard against them, as in the Prophet’s saying—peace and blessings be upon him—: “Cover the vessel and tie the water-skin,” meaning to prevent food and drink from being struck by epidemics. Microscopes were made and microbes were discovered. What is new for our faith? Nothing except an increase in faith. When we saw these microbes, we knew that their precise, perfect structure must have a Creator. Sound reason, which is a source of knowledge, requires this. The discovery of microbes did not replace faith in the existence of a Creator, as the foolishness of atheism assumes.

All right, illness occurs; God heals. “And when I am ill, it is He who cures me.” [Ash-Shu’ara’ 26:80] Does this mean there are no causes of healing that I should take? Of course there are: “There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colours, in which there is healing for people.” [An-Nahl 16:69] The Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—was asked: “O Messenger of God, should we seek treatment?” He said: “Seek treatment, for God has not placed a disease without placing a cure for it, except one disease: old age.” [Its chain is authentic]

The Integration of Sources of Knowledge in Islam

Rain falls through the action of the sun, which evaporates water; then it condenses around nuclei at low temperatures in the upper layers of the atmosphere, and winds drive it so it falls as rain. All this is perceptible experimental science. At the same time, the sun and the sea must have a Creator; the laws of evaporation and condensation at particular temperatures, compression and rarefaction that move the winds—all of this must have a Creator of these laws. Laws do not create actions by themselves; they are descriptions of the actions of a choosing agent who made things run in this way. All these are rational necessities, and reason is a source of knowledge. Thus the story is complete without conflict between reason, perception, and experiment.

The Creator and Causes

Thus:

1. Scientific phenomena must have a Creator.
2. This Creator has made causes for phenomena.

These are two truths produced by using reason and innate disposition regarding what lies under perception and experiment, even though eyes do not perceive this Creator Himself. If someone has created a conflict between the two truths, that is his problem. This is not a problem in our religion, praise be to God. If the Creator tells us that He sent down water as mercy or punishment, that does not mean material causes are cancelled; rather, He sent it down through these causes as mercy or punishment.

The Difference between God of the Gaps and Faith in the Creator

Regarding living beings, we have two questions. First: must they have a Creator? Second: how did the Creator create them? As for the first question, we established from episode [13] of Journey of Certainty that its answer is yes: they must have a Creator who brought them into existence deliberately and by will; they did not come through chance or randomness. This is a rational necessity.

The second question is: how did the Creator bring them into existence? Did He create them all at once as they are? Or did He transform some of them into others? Here you may use perception and observation and draw hypothetical scenarios for what existed in earlier times, without anyone being able to be certain of anything from that, and without entering now into whether this research is useful or not. We shall review these points later, God willing.

But what I want to make clear now, brothers, is that possibilities become open here and assumptions possible so long as they do not conflict with the sound sources of knowledge: perception, reason, transmission, and revelation whose truth has been demonstrated by evidence. All of this comes after we agree on the premise necessary to every rational person: living beings must have a Creator, just as we have not denied that the sun exists.

If you bring us a device we see for the first time, a complete device with a function, all of us become certain that it has a maker who designed and perfected it and set its function before making it. We may then differ over how he made it: by hand or by a machine in a factory? Where and when? We may differ over all this. But what remains accepted by every rational person is that this device has a maker. To say, “If you do not tell me exactly how it was made, then you must concede that it was not made at all,” is laughable ignorance. The point is not that we filled a gap of ignorance by saying that a Creator exists; rather, we know with certainty from the sound sources of knowledge that there must be a Creator.

The Real Gods of the Gaps

But let me tell you where the gods of the gaps are in this matter. Gods of the gaps are invoked when this truth is excluded and then someone asks: who created living beings? They rush to say: evolution, random mutations, and blind selection. But what do you say about this phenomenon? They answer: it must also be evolution; we shall make an adjustment to accommodate this phenomenon. Until they reach the gods with many names that we discussed in the previous two episodes. Everything becomes a gap that they must fill with one form of the gods of evolution.

Gods of the gaps are invoked when it is said: why do [95] percent of genetic material contain no genes? The answer comes: the gods of evolution did it—“Evolution.” It is chance and randomness. What is the function of this structure in the human body? It need not have a function; do not tire yourself searching for one. Since everything is by chance, it is no surprise to see in every corner creatures and parts without benefit, and the door to discovery is closed on that basis. Why investigate when there is no wisdom governing the universe for us to seek? No one intended things to be as they are for us to seek his intention and benefit from it.

We become ill—should we seek a medicine? The gods of evolution made you ill, for creatures came through chance and randomness. There is no guarantee that this randomness and happenstance produced a cure for disease, so why search? Thus evolution prevents progress, because it answers every question by saying it is a product of randomness. Westerners advanced only when they practically trampled on this nonsense, even if their tongues uttered it, and when they benefited from the sciences of those before them who had not been contaminated by this nonsense.

Whereas in our religion: “Indeed, all things We created with predestination.” [Al-Qamar 54:49] We know with certainty that everything in this universe has a role; it exists only for wisdom, so we investigate and benefit. Look at the difference: evolution produced it—organs without benefit, errors in design. Did we not tell you that it is randomness and happenstance? By contrast, there must be a Creator who brought them into existence with wisdom to perform a function, and we investigate that function and its benefits. Compare the two, then see who truly are the people of the gods of the gaps.

The Third Objection: “You Cannot Reject Evolutionary Theory Until You Provide an Alternative”

From what has preceded, brothers, we understand the falsehood of the claim that you cannot invalidate evolutionary theory until you bring an alternative theory. This is one of the most frequent objections to the previous episodes. Its essence is the sanctification of ignorance: a myth born of a materialist method that rejects the only correct explanation, then enthroned itself over delusions and was told: you will not overthrow it until you bring an alternative, provided that it is not the only correct explanation.

The myth of evolution is false from the outset because it gives the rationally false answer to the first question: must living beings have a Creator? The only correct answer to this question is yes, they must have a Creator. After we agree on this answer comes the second question: how did the Creator create them? We may propose certain hypotheses—He created them as they are, or transformed some into others—then discuss the evidence for and against each proposal. But whether we propose a hypothesis or not has nothing to do with invalidating the myth of evolution, because its answer to the first question is false.

The Either/Or Fallacy Once Again

Therefore, brothers, in organizing our thoughts, we can add to the list of logical fallacies used to promote myths fallacy [13], the either or fallacy: restricting matters to two choices, both of them false—either a corrupted religion that contradicts reason and science, or absurd explanations that contradict reason and science—while ignoring the only correct explanation: that this universe has a Creator described as befits Him in a sound religion, and that He created everything with wisdom and will.

Conclusion

The important question remains: have these Western scientists who proclaim commitment to the materialist method actually adhered to it? Did they truly exclude the unseen from their explanations? Is there even a real thing called the materialist method that can be used in scientific fields? Or will we find, from God’s way, that whoever denies the truth sees every bond unravel so that neither his reason, received testimony, innate disposition, nor experiment remains sound: “And whose affair is ever in neglect.” [Al-Kahf 18:28] This is what we shall answer in the next episode, God willing, so follow us. Peace and God’s mercy be upon you.