Episode 52 – Will They Give Me a Nobel Prize?

Will They Give Me a Nobel Prize?

Peace be upon you. Since the beginning of our critique of pseudoscience, there has been an objection repeated very often, summarized as: "Keep one thing in mind: any one of these sheikhs, if he really refuted the theory of evolution, or part of the theory of evolution, in other words: refuted all the sciences that come with it, why doesn't he submit his research paper and win the Nobel Prize?! Why?" "Someone! Can someone answer me?" I will "answer you" today, and "answer" those who ask questions like yours.

So, according to these people, as soon as I send a solid scientific paper supported by evidence, in which I refute the theory of evolution, journals such as "Nature" and "Science" will eagerly seize it, and the Nobel Prize committee will embrace me and say: Brother, may Allah reward you; where have you been all this time?! You saved us from misguidance and showed us the falsehood of the theory of evolution, so as a reward for your great work we will grant you the Nobel Prize. Wonderful idea! Why don't I actually do it?

Before I go to all that trouble and try it, let us look together at the story of the paper related to hand function, published in the journal "PLOS ONE" in 2016, so that afterward we can study together the likelihood of my receiving a Nobel Prize.

(Sound effects)

The "Creator Gate" Scandal

A team of Chinese researchers conducted detailed experiments showing the precision of the hand's function and its suitability for performing the daily activities humans need. The paper is full of experiments, illustrations, analyses, and equations. But the researchers dared to use their minds. Imagine! They did not stop at the boundaries set by materialism, as we mentioned in the previous episode, which prevent the mind from drawing the obvious conclusion from "Science" (empirical science), namely that these hands, with their magnificent structure, must have a Creator who created them by will for specific purposes. So the researchers dared to write the word “Creator” three times in the paper. The Chinese team? Yes! And you will see why!

In the first passage they wrote: “The clear functional relationship”—in the hand, that is—“indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of this connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.”

In the second passage they wrote: “There is no doubt that the coordination in the hand points to the mystery of the Creator’s invention.” It is as though the researchers were stunned by the magnificence they saw—and they had every reason to feel wonder and amazement!

The Miracle of the Creation of the Hand

Brother, open an anatomy book and read the chapter on hand anatomy, or watch a video about anatomy. And here we are speaking about the hand from the wrist down only, because that was the subject of the Chinese team's research. Read about the twenty-seven bones in your hand, and the structure of the eight bones in your wrist that enable your hand to perform different kinds of movements. Look at the types of muscles in this hand; your thumb, for example, needs four muscles to carry out its various movements and functions! Contemplate the cartilage that prevents the bones from rubbing against one another! Then contemplate the tendons and ligaments that connect the different bones and connect bones to muscles so that the hand can perform various movements. Each one is in its proper place, interwoven with the network of blood vessels and nerves!

Contemplate how the hand is connected to the forearm and its muscles by a network of ligaments, and you can feel this when you clench and extend your fingers. This hand covered with skin is an astonishing world! Every time you go one millimeter deeper into it, you discover more ligaments, muscles, bones, cartilage, nerves, blood vessels, sheaths, fatty tissues, the lymphatic circulation, and more. An interconnected, interwoven, integrated, ordered network, in which everything performs its function. An astonishing world on which we rarely reflect! So what about when you move to physiology, "the science of bodily functions," to see how this magnificent structure enables the hand to do everything a human needs in terms of movements, which was the subject of the Chinese scientists' research. So they were right to say in their paper: "There is no doubt that the coordination in the hand points to the "mystery of the creator's invention" (the secret of the Creator's creativity)."

As for the third place in their research paper, this team said: "In conclusion, we say: our study may help improve our understanding of the human hand and confirm that this mechanical structure is “the proper design by the Creator” for skillful performance of many functions after the evolutionary redesign that occurred in the hands of our ancestors over millions of years." Aha! So the researchers do not deny that humans descend from animal ancestors and they use the word “evolution”, but they state that there must be an act of the Creator in designing this hand; perhaps, for example, they mean that the Creator directed this evolution in some way. What matters is that there is purpose and will! And this challenges the role of chance, to which the followers of the theory of evolution cling.

The Darwinian Inquisitions

The Creator? "The Creator"? How dare you, researchers? How dare you use your minds to reflect on empirical science to infer that there must be a will, a Creator who created the hand for specific purposes?! How dare you cross the boundaries set by materialism, as we explained in the previous episode? Dr. James McInerney discovered this crime two months after the paper was published! Dr. McInerney specializes in molecular evolution at the University of Manchester, meaning he is one of those who benefit from guarding the idol of the myth of evolution, those who see their fates as tied to the myth; its fall is their fall, as we explained in the Tarzan episode. So McInerney tweeted, saying: "PLOS ONE is now a laughingstock! Proper design by the creator?! This makes the journal ridiculous!" He followed up by saying: "My original tweet was forceful because creationism has been annoying me for more than twenty years!" No problem, Doctor; you can be as annoyed as you please, sir; your personal feelings are beside the point! We would like a scientific discussion of the paper’s contents! Not at all. No scientific discussion, no understanding, no analysis, only an expression of annoyance and disgust!

The Darwinians launched a hashtag titled "Creator gate," meaning the scandal of the word Creator, in the style of the "watergate" scandal. The debate began under this hashtag, and the hashtag "hand of god," meaning the hand of the Creator, was also launched! The Darwinian inquisitions began, and hundreds of comments and reactions were posted on the publishing journal's website, condemning and mocking, and demanding that the paper be retracted immediately. And of course, the myth's "bodyguard," the journal "Nature," entered the fray. "Nature" questioned the authors and the journal, and published it the next day after the storm began in an article titled: "Paper says human hand was designed by Creator, sparks concern; clearly creationist research prompts soul-searching over the editing and review process of scientific papers."

Meaning the problem now is not the crime that the researchers used the word Creator, but how the reviewers missed this word who were supposed to review the paper, and how the journal’s editors missed it even though it clearly points to creationism. How did they fail to discover the crime of using the word Creator? As part of the inquisition, "Nature" contacted "Xiong," the lead member of the scientific research, and asked him how he wrote the word Creator. He said: "In fact, we are not native English speakers, and we completely missed the connotations of some words like Creator. I am very sorry for that!" As if he were saying, "People! It was a linguistic mistake, I swear by evolution, I did not mean it! I seek forgiveness from evolution, besides which there is no creator, and I repent to it!" Remember that the researchers acknowledged evolution, but they associated the Creator with it!

One of the Darwinians, P. Z. Myers, commented, saying: "There are no errors in the information of the paper, as far as I can see, but the authors made a sudden leap in the abstract and in the conclusions," meaning by referring to a Creator. Aha! Remember this well! There is no problem with the information or the experiments, but with the conclusion, according to the Darwinians. And when the scandal spread, some doctors who usually review papers for "PLOS ONE," though they had not reviewed this particular paper, began distancing themselves from the crime, and threatening that the journal had to retract the article or else they would resign from the process of reviewing its papers. Others threatened that unless this paper was retracted, he and his students and research colleagues would have to stop reading all of the journal's papers and citing all of them, not just this paper! Meaning the height of loyalty and disavowal! Since one paper had associated a partner with evolution, they disowned the entire journal; they do not take what is correct from it and leave what is wrong, but drop it entirely from their consideration, in condemnation of it, in disbelief in the Creator whose name once appeared in it, and in loyalty to the gods of evolution. This truly reminds me of Abu Jahl, Umayyah ibn Khalaf, and the rest of the pre-Islamic pagans when they threatened that they and their clans would not deal with Banu Hashim, would not marry from them or marry their women to them, and would not buy from them or sell to them, in condemnation of their having protected the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

This is despite the fact, my brothers, that the principal researcher "Xiong" is a well-established researcher who currently has eighty-six published papers, and that the journal PLOS ONE is a prestigious journal that in 2009 had been granted the Innovation in Publishing Award by the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. Nevertheless, as soon as the word "Creator" was mentioned in the pages of the journal, the journal became the target of Darwinian rage and mockery and had to be completely boycotted, just as the Jews did with Abdullah ibn Salam when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, asked them about him and they said: "He is our best and the son of our best, our master and the son of our master, our scholar and the son of our scholar!" Then when they learned that he had embraced Islam, they said: "He is our worst and the son of our worst, our ignorant one and the son of our ignorant one!"

But, my brothers, the Darwinian lobby is not devoid of "fair-minded" people, so let us see what the "fair-minded" among them said! Evolutionary biologist Marc Robinson-Rechavi from the University of Lausanne said: "I agree with almost everyone that it is inappropriate to mention the word Creator with a capital C in the paper." Aha, meaning if the letter c had been lowercase, it might be said that the word creator here is metaphorical, expressing nature and blind selection. But with a capital C, it is clear that what is meant is the Creator with in whom everyone objects to believing, or even to mentioning! Robinson-Rechavi continues, saying: "There is no human process free of errors, but the important thing now is how the journal deals with this error." Meaning all children of evolution are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent from the sin of mentioning the Creator.

Under this terrible pressure from every direction and under the influence of this thuggery, the journal published, on the same day the storm began, an announcement that it had become aware of the matter and was investigating it deeply. Then it published again on the same day that it apologized for the appearance of the word Creator and for what this indicated: that the language of the article had escaped the reviewers’ scrutiny. Brothers, can you imagine, the state of terror expressed by these successive statements?! The journal was terrified at the thought that people would abandon it, it would go bankrupt, and its staff would be thrown into the streets. The next day, on 3/3/2016, the journal published that it would retract the paper! Notice! Not merely deleting the word Creator, but retracting the entire paper! The paper had become a badge of shame for it that had to be disposed of. The journal announced once again that it apologized for the errors and oversights that led to the publication of this paper!

Of course, for the researchers, canceling the paper meant destroying the efforts they had expended, crushing their scientific future, depriving them of research grants in the future, and it might even mean their bankruptcy and being thrown into the street to clean the shoes of passersby, and perhaps more than that could happen since they are in China and received their support from a Chinese institution. So the researchers tried to convince everyone that the issue was nothing more than a linguistic mistake! And that the original Chinese word had simply been mistranslated by the translator; otherwise, it meant "Nature" (nature)! The head of the research team said: "What we meant was that the hand was designed by nature, meaning the product of evolution! We will change the word Creator to nature in the revised version! We apologize for any problem caused by this misunderstanding of mine! We spent months carrying out the experiments, analyzing them, and writing the paper, please! Could you read the paper before you make a decision?" Meaning, people, look at the experiments and the science in the paper before you condemn it to death over a linguistic error! But the investigations indicated that the academic editor mentioned in the paper, Renzhi Han, had previously worked in the Chinese Evangelical Church in Iowa City! So that was it; the accusation was established, like state security courts in Arab countries: the accused had spoken to someone, greeted someone, or associated with someone supposedly thinking of committing the crime!

If you go now to see the paper on the "PLOS ONE" website, you will see at the beginning: "retraction": the paper has been withdrawn! And you will see the admission that the reviewers had missed the word Creator. Although the journal repented, and made a full evolutionary repentance, and did not merely delete the word Creator, but deleted the entire article as a display of its loyalty to the "sacred calf of evolution" and its disbelief in the Creator, the matter stuck to its reputation; so that if you read about it on Wikipedia, for example, you will see engraved in its record the title: "Creator Gate," meaning the scandal of the word Creator! The journal's Impact Factor dropped from 4.4 in 2010 to about 2.8 in 2018, a metric indicating the number of times its papers are cited.

The pressing and very important question here is: did any of those who attacked the paper and the journal discuss scientifically in order to prove that the structure and functions of the hand do not need a Creator who creates with knowledge and will? Did any of them publish a scientific proposal by which to prove that all of this can come through chance, randomness, and blind selection?! Rather, did most of them even read the paper in the first place?! Of course not. There is no scientific discussion of this subject from these thugs of science! There is only mockery, ridicule, and disgust! “When Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter shrink with aversion; but when those other than Him are mentioned, immediately they rejoice.” [Az-Zumar 39:45] Only mockery and attack: how dare you mention the word Creator? So the story would have been more deserving of being called "IdiotesGate" or "IgnorantsGate" (the scandal of the ignorant), rather than, in English, the scandal of the word Creator.

There is no scientific proposal at all, but rather it is based on a premise treated as self-evident: it is absolutely forbidden to mention the Creator! It is absolutely forbidden to cast doubt on the gods of randomness, purposelessness, and absurdity! It is absolutely forbidden to cast doubt on evolution! “Has he made the gods one God? Indeed, this is a curious thing.” [Sad 38:5] Fine; why is it astonishing? Discuss with us scientifically! “And the eminent among them went forth, saying, ‘Continue, and be patient over the defense of your gods.’” [Sad 38:6] Come on! The gods of evolution are being spoken of badly! “Indeed, this is a thing intended.” [Sad 38:6] There is a conspiracy against the gods!

Can the theory of evolution be refuted?

After all this, dear people, let us return to the question with which we began: [Keep one thing in mind: any one of these sheikhs, if he really refuted the theory of evolution or part of the theory of evolution, in other words: refuted all the sciences that come with it, [in English] Is there anyone? Can no one answer me?] You may say: but the objectors are asking you to publish a paper that refutes the theory of evolution or part of it, not a paper that mentions the Creator. We have explained in detail, dear people, that the theory of evolution simply means: no creation, and that it has been completely emptied of its content, and its pillars have fallen one after another. Nevertheless, its followers redefine it every time and seek no explanation except under its umbrella, because excluding it altogether simply means acknowledging creation. So publishing a paper explicitly declaring the invalidity of evolution means, precisely, a paper that acknowledges creation!

There are researchers from among the Darwinians themselves who have cast doubt on its pillars; they have cast doubt on the randomness of changes and the blindness of selection, in their published papers in "Nature" and elsewhere. But there is one thing that cannot be touched among them: the claim of randomness, and that there is no Creator! If you agree with us on this much, then come criticize the theory, redefine it, suggest another form of it, and publish as you like. What matters is that you write at the end: "Evolution," evolution, because it is the word that means no creation, no purpose, and no wisdom, but pure randomness. Fine, as long as you have cast doubt even on randomness, then there must be will! No problem! It may be "microbial intelligence," microbial intelligence, cellular intelligence; bacteria choose, bacteria decide, viruses are intelligent. Attribute will to anything! But beware of mentioning the Creator!

Brother Ahmad Ibrahim, who specializes in pharmacy, wrote a scientific paper that presents evidence of purpose and will behind the existence of living beings, using the phrase “conscious intervention” without explicitly declaring the refutation of the theory of evolution, and without explicitly declaring the existence of a Creator. He sent it to a scientific journal, and its reviewer, Dr. James McInerney, rejected it and tweeted on his Twitter account, saying: "I was sent a paper to review this weekend, a somewhat strange paper! Then I discovered it was creationist, talking about conscious intervention; it looks scientific but is confused under scrutiny! With the existence of fake journals, we should expect many creationist papers to be published in the future." Brother Ahmad tried to discuss it with him on Twitter, but he simply blocked him!

And notice, dear people, these people say: "The existence of a Creator is something outside the natural world, "Supernatural," metaphysical, untestable," and they claim that they reject it for this reason. As if random evolution is an idea from the natural world and testable. As if a cell forming by chance, then evolving into all forms of living beings by chance, is something witnessed in nature that stands up to testing. We explained in the previous episode why confining knowledge to the natural world is unsound, and that the existence of the Creator is what reason indicates, and that rejecting the indications of reason means overthrowing "Science" itself, whereas the nonsense of pseudoscience is indicated by neither reason nor science.

Of course, dear people, we emphasize that these international journals contain, on the other hand, beneficial knowledge from which we benefit. Indeed, anyone following The Journey of Certainty knows that we cite papers from "Nature," "Science," and other major journals. We present these papers before those who have not placed their minds in the prison of materialism, so that they may point them to the Creator, regardless of whether these papers pointed their authors to Him or not. We use the discoveries, information, and experiments in "Nature" and elsewhere as evidence. As for conclusions that require reason, neither desire, nor the psychological complexes found among the enemies of the Creator, prevents us from reaching them. We take what is correct and leave what is wrong! As for those psychologically defeated, they want us to take what the West has as a package and say: "How can you cite papers from "Nature" and "Science" to refute evolution, when the researchers themselves believe in evolution?" As if these people act according to the statement of the secular Turkish poet Ziya Gökalp when he said: "We want to borrow everything the West has, even the germs in their stomachs." So we say to these people: "No, thank you." Keep the germs and intellectual filth for yourselves. As for us, we have minds with which Allah has honored us. And we too, without doubt, support the principle of "peer review" of scientific papers before their publication. I personally publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals in the field of pharmacology and have participated in the review process for scientific papers.

Darwinian Control and the Nobel Prize

Does what preceded mean that the Darwinians have complete control over publication in international journals? No; but the most famous journals, such as "Nature," "Science," and "Cell," are controlled by them, and so are most journals! And the Nobel Prize is controlled by them! You may say: fine, is this not evidence of the truth of the theory of evolution and the soundness of the materialist method? I say to you: "In recent years, homosexuality has gained dominance and power such that whoever denounces it is criminalized, imprisoned, and persecuted. Does this indicate the soundness of homosexuality, and that homosexuality is true, while humanity's opposition to it before that was false? Or does this indicate that humanity is now living through a stage of reversal of natural disposition and a disturbance of standards on the moral, scientific, and all other levels?" “Say, ‘Not equal are the evil and the good, although the abundance of evil might impress you.’ So fear Allah, O you of understanding, that you may be successful.” [Al-Ma’idah 5:100].

Your inference from their control over the most famous journals and over the Nobel Prize is a well-known logical fallacy called the Appeal to Authority. If we infer the truth of something from the large number of its followers or from their control, we will enter into a growing snowball built on illusion! The large number of followers dazzles imitators, which increases the followers, and so on! We have not yet spoken about the politicization of the Nobel Prize and its lack of neutrality, but what we have explained to you in detail is enough: how the researchers who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry last year had, in reality, their research decisively proven the failure of the theory of evolution! Nevertheless, the Nobel Prize website titled it: "They harnessed the power of evolution," and the Nobel Prize website used this image to express the prize, and they turned the facts upside down, as we explained to you in detail. This is besides the politicization of the other branches of the Nobel Prize, such as the Nobel Prize in Literature, granting it to those distinguished in attacking Islam, mocking the Quran and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the Nobel Peace Prize, granting it to hardened criminals such as Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and other major criminals. So the episode title, "Give Me the Nobel Prize," is only for mockery! Otherwise, we would consider it no honour to receive this tarnished distinction: "the Nobel Prize"!

Once again, there is no doubt, on the other hand, that many of those who have received the Nobel Prize in the sciences have made real contributions, but receiving this prize is not a criterion of truth! How excellent is what Dr. Hossam Abu Al-Bukhari, may Allah grant him relief, said: "The most dangerous and greatest thing that has happened to the Muslim mind in the past two centuries is that it has come to view itself and the Muslims around it through the eyes of its enemies toward it and its religion." We now have large numbers of Muslims who evaluate everything by the standards of their enemies, and do not accept the truth of anything unless it receives their stamp. Imagine if it had been said to the Muslims at the beginning of their call: instead of addressing the ordinary people, go and ask the chiefs of Quraysh to allow you to climb the Kaaba, so that you can preach before everyone, prove to them with evidence the worthlessness of Al-Lat and Al-Uzza, and call them to worship Allah. Do that, otherwise your call is unconvincing.

The Obstinate Do Not Lack Evidence

So those who say: "Publish a paper that refutes the theory of evolution"... Aha, meaning there are no published papers in this field at all, right?! Fine, what about this list published by the Discovery Institute? I have looked at many of its papers, and we sorted them. Some are not explicit enough in criticizing evolution, while on the other hand there is a good number of them published in acceptable journals within the community of observational and empirical scientific research, with respectable impact factors, and they explicitly state criticism of random evolution or the existence of purpose or design in living beings, but of course without daring to explicitly use the word Creator as the Chinese team did! So have those who parrot, "Go and publish a paper that refutes evolution," looked at these mentioned papers and read them? Or do they not know they exist in the first place, and merely glue themselves to the loudest current, which they call the scientific community, despite having no part in it whatsoever, and have never entered a research laboratory in their lives.

Here is an important note, my brothers: we agree with many of these papers that the universe and life did not come by chance, but we do not imitate them in the term "Intelligent design." Our principle of not imitating and not surrendering our minds, which we used with the Darwinians, we also use with the followers of intelligent design. Even the word design is a technical term expressing a process that has its known stages and steps, based on beginning by preparing a small model, then passing through stages of review, correction, experimentation, and feedback, until the designer reaches the selection of the most suitable alternatives or design solutions. Design is a human process resulting from the lack of comprehensive knowledge of the outcomes of matters, and it does not befit absolute divine knowledge. It is a process that passes through two phases: the Concept, then the Execution. That is what design is! Whereas we believe in a Lord who says: “Indeed, Our word to a thing when We intend it is but that We say to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” [An-Nahl 16:40]. The universe and life point not to intelligent design, but to an acting Creator, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Wise. So we take the useful information from the advocates of intelligent design, but we do not imitate them, not even in their terminology. Our approach with everyone is: “Who listen to speech and follow the best of it.” [Az-Zumar 39:18].

For all of the above, dear people, the one who says: "Publish a paper by which you refute the theory of evolution" is making an objection that assumes the problem with the followers of pseudoscience is a problem of evidence, such that if we bring them convincing proof in a scientific paper, then that is it, the knockout blow has been delivered to the theory of evolution, the "Scientific Community" (the community of observational and empirical science) will be forced to acknowledge its fall, and its followers will be ashamed to speak about it after this knockout blow. What we have done in these episodes is that we have shown you how all the scientific facts in the universe point the rational person to the Creator and His attributes, but the arrogant deny this indication. Indeed, some of them use these very same facts to infer absurdity and randomness! How will you convince them of the falsehood of the theory of evolution or other pseudoscientific nonsense by which they try to plug the gap of their denial of the Creator? What evidence would falsify the theory for them when they have made it unfalsifiable? Meaning it does not contain the element, in English, of "falsifiability" in any way whatsoever. Rather, no matter how its pillars collapse, they propose new, more comical assumptions to preserve the name "Evolution."

What image am I expected to show to the blind so that he acknowledges beauty?! When there are “locks upon their hearts” [Muhammad 47:24]; do you expect that as soon as we present the facts to them, they will “fall upon their faces weeping, and it increases them in humble submission” [Al-Isra’ 17:109]? These people do not have a problem of evidence, for they do not discuss evidence with minds stripped of desire, complexes, and diseases of the heart. Therefore, evidence is not evidence for them! Rather, it may be evidence for the exact opposite, so the saying of Allah applies to them: “They will not believe, even if every sign should come to them, until they see the painful punishment.” [Yunus 10:96–97].

It is very important that we understand this, my brothers, so that we do not fall into the error into which some who respond to atheism fall, but unfortunately without knowledge! He says while speaking about what he considers myths about atheism: "The fifth myth is the myth of the knockout blow, where many believe that atheists can be dealt with according to the logic of Muhammad Ali Clay, and that there can be a crushing, annihilating response to everything they say and argue. Simply, this is not possible, at least not for every argument." So our friend thinks that there are arguments held by atheists for which we, the believers, do not possess a crushing, annihilating response! Whereas we read in the Quran: “And those who argue concerning Allah after He has been responded to—their argument is invalid with their Lord.” [Ash-Shura 42:16]. And we read in the Quran: “Rather, We dash the truth upon falsehood, and it destroys it, and thereupon it departs.” [Al-Anbiya’ 21:18]. So when you see that atheists do not believe, that is not because we do not possess a crushing, annihilating response that destroys their falsehood, but because this response does not benefit them, no matter how clear it is, since they are not seekers of truth. And as long as that is the case, then not only the cosmic signs, but as Allah Almighty said: “And even if We had sent down to them the angels, and the dead spoke to them, and We gathered together every created thing in front of them, they would not believe unless Allah should will. But most of them are ignorant.” [Al-An’am 6:111].

"And that there can be a crushing, annihilating response to everything they say and argue. Simply, this is not possible, at least not for every argument! The prophets themselves were not able to do that, so why do we imagine that we can?!" The prophets, peace be upon them, were not able to guide the polytheists because the polytheists do not follow evidence; otherwise, the prophets had the crushing, annihilating response to all the falsehoods of the polytheists, and even sensory miracles: a staff turning into a manifest serpent, and a sea splitting so that “each portion was like a great towering mountain”, a table descending from the sky, a she-camel emerging from the inside of a rock, and a moon splitting! Nevertheless: “But of no avail will be signs or warners to a people who do not believe.” [Yunus 10:101].

So when you say to me: "Publish a scientific paper proving the falsehood of the theory of evolution, or other theories of pseudoscience," I say to you: as for rational people, all that is already published of real science, by evolutionists or others, invalidates the myth of evolution. And what I have published of research in my field invalidates it, because every beneficial paper, whatever its field, indicates precision, regularity, and order in the phenomena of the universe and life. As for the irrational among those with diseased hearts, it is as if you are saying: publish a paper that convinces someone who does not want to be convinced, or brings into submission to the truth someone “who has taken his own desire as his god” [Al-Furqan 25:43] and has closed himself off in fanatical ignorance. So we can only say: “And say to those who do not believe, ‘Work according to your position; indeed, we are working. And wait; indeed, we are waiting.’ And to Allah belong the unseen aspects of the heavens and the earth, and to Him will be returned the matter, all of it, so worship Him and rely upon Him. And your Lord is not unaware of that which you do.” [Hud 11:121–123]. And peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah.