Expelled (Documentary about the atheist stranglehold over science in the USA)

[Maripat]

Fair enough. So why is putting up a set of lies and deceit such as demonstrated in the video under discussion seen as "beneficial" - yet the propagation of truth is not? You say "So far you are not making a good case.", when all I do is stand up for the truth and honesty, rejecting false claims and pointing out deceit.

There is a tyrannical evolutionist establishment in the biological sciences and that what has been pointed out in the documentary. To call it lies and deceit smacks of an agenda cut-off from truth and honesty.

I don't know your field of expertise.

He specializes in Ifta - Islamic opinion on issues arising in the life of Muslims.

If I write "here on Earth" there is a reason why I do so. The Theory of Gravity consists of 2 parts, one is fact here on Earth and the other is not proven at all.
http://www.numericana.com/answer/physics.htm is if you are REALLY interested.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7220925AAwEBXl is a non-scientific-jargon-loaded example of what I mean.

We do NOT fully understand gravity yet.

We know awfully lot. Even Newtonian gravity tells us enormous amount of information. The rest, actually most of it, is taken care of by Einstein's general theory of relativity. The only unknown part is whether it is quantized or not and that is a fact that we might never know the answer to. To verify any quantum theory of gravity we need those energies that might never be available to mankind. This is the main criticism of string theory - the most viable candidate for a quantum theory of gravity.

We do, however, understand evolution. Just like we know that gravity on this planet can be accurately measured and don't question this, we know that evolution is a fact here. Whether it will be shown to work the same way on another planet is a different story. For some reasons, religious people seem to instinctively reject the concept of evolution.

Evolution is a theory and there are many scientists who do not believe in that. Unfortunately we Muslims were caught on wrong foot on that matter in the sense that we did not debunk it in its infancy but Christians scientists never accepted it. Because of its historical blunders the Church the Christian society was not in a position to take on the bulldozer of Darwinism but it does not mean that they accepted evolution. And science might be value neutral but all science is not atheist science. Evolution becomes scientific only if atheistic view is taken as the dominant view. And on that front also the view is changing - the creationists are giving a good fight to the atheists in the context of evolution. May they win hands down.

We had a Dr. Syed on our show last Saturday who says that evolution was developed based on Muslim research and is totally compatible with Islam. So how do I decide which Muslim scholar is right? The one telling me it is compatible or the one telling me it is incompatible - when I have proof that in reality it is true?

He is entitled to his opinion but he better be very careful in his actions - he might easily walk out of Islam without knowing it. That is the danger one always faces when going out on a limb.

The main contention with the evolution theory is that it is used by its proponents to prove that there is no God. Now this premise is wrong to begin with. God is all about faith and science is all about observational reality.

I am NOT an evolutionary biologist, ....

Least implication of the admission is that you have to declare that you have made a personal decision to believe in theory of evolution. You are trying to pedal ToE as a fact. Even a scientist can not do that for the hall mark of scientific theories, a la Karl Popper, is their falsifiability. A hypothesis might be elevated to the level of a theory but a theory can never be elevated to a fact. Every theory is always open to falsification. Albert Einstein too asserted that it will only take a single experiment to prove his theory wrong.
What we know about evolution is that there are a large number of biologists who do believe in evolution but they do remain challenged by others and the position of evolutionists does not look as secure any more as they historically have been.

so for me it means that it is a change in how tall humans are today compared to humans 500 years ago and how whales evolved from wolf-like creatures. Is this based on evidence? Yes. We have sufficient indicators to know that humans grew and are still growing and we have the step-by-step development of a canine developing an ear for underwater hearing and all steps from Pakicetus all the way to whales. This is from memory, so I don't remember all the in-between names and differences.

No complain about your memory - but you are merely iterating evolution and we do not agree with that in these quarters. And you too will do yourself good by not siding with the tyrannical evolutionist camp. The most glorious manifestation of atheism, in some ways even bigger than Darwinism, called Marxism lies dead in the history of USSR. We buried it in Afghanistan - with little bit of American help. Why cling to the appendix called evolution?

You are pointing out the essence of a huge problem - a problem that I am trying to address: names, terms and definitions. Yes, you WILL find seemingly contradictory terms when reading publications. Because if I try and use scientifically correct words, others complain it is too complicated. If I make it more easily understood I lose precision. Absolutely correct observation. Do I have the solution? No.

This does not square up. You say that you are not a scientist and then you make a claim that you use precise scientific terms.

But then look at examples here on the forum: people have their own agenda when it comes to using pejorative wording and some try to obfuscate matters by deliberately using vague terms.
That's why I object to the usage of Darwinism, as it does not explain succinctly what is meant by the ToE.

We do have an agenda here. It is called Islam. That is the only currency in this land.
And if any leverage is provided to talk about any thing else then it is merely because of the courtesy which part of Islamic creed. Of course if some one is using vague terms you can always ask for clarification.
Now the other agenda that you have, atheism, is indeed miserable - to say the least. If it gets deleted here then there is not going to be any one amongst Muslims who will regret that. This might be very unpleasant to you but if you have come to a Muslim forum then you must understand that you have come to those people who are completely and whole heartedly against atheism. There is absolutely no likelihood to provide any space to atheism in our life. I suppose I am not vague.

If this is tough then there are soft things also available here. Islam for example. You claim to be interested in understanding Muslims and their attitudes. This one is a simple thing and in deed very interesting and fascinating. We believe in one God, in Prophethood and in hereafter. We detest obscenity, forbidden things and rebellion. We love bravery, charity and modesty. We have hope for future in this world as well as in the hereafter. (No atheism does not provide either of them - it is there in Selfish Gene by Dawkins, just for example.)

Once you know these overall things about Islam and Muslims there still remains the fascinating world of details - you can fruitfully engage in its exploration.

And you might set your own agenda too - as long as it is compatible with Islam. But the best thing, as I have said earlier too, is Islam - the religion to which I happily invited you. I reiterate that once gain. You do have enough intellectual challenges with in the frame work of Islam - including whole of science. Lord willing you shall not be intellectually starved in Islam. I suppose you yourself are not looking for more than that. But your word gets preference in this context.

[faizol]

bla bla bla

see? Just anything that goes against evolution must be coming from some Christian apologetics website. Tsk tsk tsk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15228837

The vermiform appendix: not a useless organ.
Zahid A.
Source

Department of Anatomy, Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore. aliyaimtiaz@hotmail.com
Abstract

The appendix has often been seen more as a nuisance rather than an important part of the human anatomy. Early misconceptions have led to the indiscriminate removal of the appendix from the body. Long thought to be an evolutionary remnant of little significance to normal physiology, the appendix has more recently been identified as an important component of mammalian mucosal immune function, particularly B-lymphocyte-mediated immune responses and extrathymically derived T-lymphocytes. This structure helps in the proper movement and removal of waste matter in the digestive system, contains lymphatic vessels that regulate pathogens, and lastly, might even produce early defences that prevent deadly diseases. The appendix is one of the guardians of the internal environment of the body from the hostile external environment.

PMID:
15228837
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

cited by 10 other articles.

[StopS]

I should have said: The term applies to people who ascribe to either one, or both. The atheist who believes that God does not exist is a subset of the atheist who does not believe that God exists. The latter only believes that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God, whereas the former additionally believes that there is sufficient evidence for the non-existence of God.

Hahaha, now you got me confused.

Lack of belief in the existence of evidence for the existence of a god
lack of belief in the existence of a god
belief that no god exists

That would be my personal scale. Can we agree on this?

Where the third is a positive claim which would require evidence.

[mh16388]

the only reason i participated in this discussion with stopS was because:
he claimed we believe in something that has no proof while he believes in something that has proof.

we believe in Divine Inspiration upon the Prophets (AS) and the Last Prophet (PBUH) and have adopted their teachings as our way of life. He has chosen to judge everything on science or his faculty of observation/intellect etc.

what i basically tried to accomplish was to demonstrate how his claims about science were completely false. in doing so i expounded on the following:
- scientific theories, are based on assumptions. within the boundaries of that assumption your theory stays valid. outside of it either the results are too unpredictable or the theory fails flat out.
- scientific theories rely upon instruments to provide empirical data. the instruments are all finite precision which means they have a limited degree of accuracy. for example: we can measure the speed of sound accurate to 'x' decimal places. this 'x' is the accuracy. beyond which we have 'believed' that our results will not change significantly so as to affect outcomes. but then that is not the case. therefore using finite precision instruments to fathom proven beliefs is simply illogical. more so what is illogical is the fact that one denies in the authenticity of a 'belief'. for they themselves undeniably rely heavily on belief as just demonstrated. though in reality their beliefs are nothing.

now what i accomplished using these demonstrations were the following:
- StopS does not have the required scientific knowledge to speak for or against science. he demonstrated this by admitting he had not read an actual scientific paper. in all probability his knowledge of science came from media and/or lectures of some 'scientists' he wishes to 'believe' in.
- he is unaware of the limitations of science. this was shown by his ignorance of precision of instruments and the application of assumptions.
- he contradicts himself by getting emotional (and personal) with those who argue with him though he claims this is not the case with atheists whenever their 'theories' are challenged. he later claimed atheism has nothing to do with science (hereby using his ow logic making it a 'belief') and yet brings up science whenever he can.

therefore anywhere he pops up (or indeed any other atheist or non-muslims/muslims) challenging Islam with 'science' then you can use the above discussion as a guide to destroy his arguments. and save countless people from doubts, coined by our nafs and shaytaan.

and yes i have a degree in engineering. though this does not matter much.

[mh16388]

God is all about faith and science is all about observational reality.

actually i would have to disagree with that. Allah (SWT) has given us faculties of observation and intellect precisely to recognize Him. for example my masters' thesis is in dynamic control systems. in a nutshell you have to design your system in a way that given a reference signal the output 'tracks' the reference.
in nature this is everywhere. lets take the example of the planets. They follow a system of equations to follow a particular path or orbit. now we discovered those equations but who gave them in the first place?if we humans stop making the machines work by giving them the said references to track (and the energy to run) would the machines work?no. they will sit idle. hence Allah (SWT) gives the reference to 'everything' to work upon. and it does.
even so-called imperfections are perfect. i do not wish my system to track a straight line. i wish it to track a zigzag signal with random amplitude. if my system is designed 'perfectly' it will do just that. but i wanted it to follow something others may conceive as random/unpredictable etc.
we humans have freedom of will. we have been designed that way. yet whatever we do Allah (SWT) always knew about it. so we still track what was laid down for us. yet unlike inanimate objects we are not compelled to do so. they cannot choose but we have a choice. yet we choose what was already written down for us.
all this can be perfectly explained via just one branch of engineering.

[Maripat]

the only reason i participated in this discussion with stopS was because:
he claimed we believe in something that has no proof while he believes in something that has proof.

we believe in Divine Inspiration upon the Prophets (AS) and the Last Prophet (PBUH) and have adopted their teachings as our way of life. He has chosen to judge everything on science or his faculty of observation/intellect etc.

what i basically tried to accomplish was to demonstrate how his claims about science were completely false. in doing so i expounded on the following:
- scientific theories, are based on assumptions. within the boundaries of that assumption your theory stays valid. outside of it either the results are too unpredictable or the theory fails flat out.
- scientific theories rely upon instruments to provide empirical data. the instruments are all finite precision which means they have a limited degree of accuracy. for example: we can measure the speed of sound accurate to 'x' decimal places. this 'x' is the accuracy. beyond which we have 'believed' that our results will not change significantly so as to affect outcomes. but then that is not the case. therefore using finite precision instruments to fathom proven beliefs is simply illogical. more so what is illogical is the fact that one denies in the authenticity of a 'belief'. for they themselves undeniably rely heavily on belief as just demonstrated. though in reality their beliefs are nothing.

now what i accomplished using these demonstrations were the following:
- StopS does not have the required scientific knowledge to speak for or against science. he demonstrated this by admitting he had not read an actual scientific paper. in all probability his knowledge of science came from media and/or lectures of some 'scientists' he wishes to 'believe' in.
- he is unaware of the limitations of science. this was shown by his ignorance of precision of instruments and the application of assumptions.
- he contradicts himself by getting emotional (and personal) with those who argue with him though he claims this is not the case with atheists whenever their 'theories' are challenged. he later claimed atheism has nothing to do with science (hereby using his ow logic making it a 'belief') and yet brings up science whenever he can.

therefore anywhere he pops up (or indeed any other atheist or non-muslims/muslims) challenging Islam with 'science' then you can use the above discussion as a guide to destroy his arguments. and save countless people from doubts, coined by our nafs and shaytaan.

and yes i have a degree in engineering. though this does not matter much.

Lot of insight there.

But when talking about science the best instrument is Karl Popper's theory of demarcation. He came to the conclusion that the hallmark of scientific theories is their falsifiability. If you are given a theory then it is scientific if you can propose an experiment that will decide about the truth in it - that will either verify it or will prove it wrong.

StopS indeed does not have science background but he does have the paraphernalia of modern western atheists - flippancy, flamboyance and aggression. Personally I am not inclined to invite atheists to Islam for Allah (SWT) says clearly that it is the same whether you call them to truth or not, they shall not believe. But he does come back again and again to SF and thus I made an invitation to him assuming that there might be some spark of doubt about atheism in his heart. I hope this latest round of banning will be utilized by him in some brooding over life and death.

actually i would have to disagree with that. Allah (SWT) has given us faculties of observation and intellect precisely to recognize Him. for example my masters' thesis is in dynamic control systems. in a nutshell you have to design your system in a way that given a reference signal the output 'tracks' the reference.
in nature this is everywhere. lets take the example of the planets. They follow a system of equations to follow a particular path or orbit. now we discovered those equations but who gave them in the first place?if we humans stop making the machines work by giving them the said references to track (and the energy to run) would the machines work?no. they will sit idle. hence Allah (SWT) gives the reference to 'everything' to work upon. and it does.
even so-called imperfections are perfect. i do not wish my system to track a straight line. i wish it to track a zigzag signal with random amplitude. if my system is designed 'perfectly' it will do just that. but i wanted it to follow something others may conceive as random/unpredictable etc.
we humans have freedom of will. we have been designed that way. yet whatever we do Allah (SWT) always knew about it. so we still track what was laid down for us. yet unlike inanimate objects we are not compelled to do so. they cannot choose but we have a choice. yet we choose what was already written down for us.
all this can be perfectly explained via just one branch of engineering.

Again lot of insight there.
There are machines.
Engineers deal with them. My personal experience is that their natural inclination is towards belief.
Then there are biological machines.
And indeed it is an insult to call them machines. Let me give an example. An amoeba moves in water and in the course of its movement it changes its direction. Now this will be against Newton's first law but the amoeba did achieve that. Hence we have stumbled upon some thing more than a machine. We call them living beings.
Biologists deal with them. Owing to the Curse of Darwin too many, though not all or even the majority, are inclined to disbelief. The disbelieving minority rules over the believing majority.
Then there is the man. Living being par excellence. The best of created things.
You need biologists, physicians, psychologists, sociologists to deal with them and even then you are no where. Even after defining eight different kinds of intelligences and IQ in human being you need EQ (emotional quotient). And beyond that. That is called spirituality.

If we stop here and look back we realize that science was left far behind. Science usually means observational and empirical knowledge. In matters related to human beings we must go far beyond that.
It makes empirical and experimental knowledge look rather insignificant.

This is what I was trying to point out in my statement to StopS.

[mh16388]

Lot of insight there.

But when talking about science the best instrument is Karl Popper's theory of demarcation. He came to the conclusion that the hallmark of scientific theories is their falsifiability. If you are given a theory then it is scientific if you can propose an experiment that will decide about the truth in it - that will either verify it or will prove it wrong.

StopS indeed does not have science background but he does have the paraphernalia of modern western atheists - flippancy, flamboyance and aggression. Personally I am not inclined to invite atheists to Islam for Allah (SWT) says clearly that it is the same whether you call them to truth or not, they shall not believe. But he does come back again and again to SF and thus I made an invitation to him assuming that there might be some spark of doubt about atheism in his heart. I hope this latest round of banning will be utilized by him in some brooding over life and death.


Again lot of insight there.
There are machines.
Engineers deal with them. My personal experience is that their natural inclination is towards belief.
Then there are biological machines.
And indeed it is an insult to call them machines. Let me give an example. An amoeba moves in water and in the course of its movement it changes its direction. Now this will be against Newton's first law but the amoeba did achieve that. Hence we have stumbled upon some thing more than a machine. We call them living beings.
Biologists deal with them. Owing to the Curse of Darwin too many, though not all or even the majority, are inclined to disbelief. The disbelieving minority rules over the believing majority.
Then there is the man. Living being par excellence. The best of created things.
You need biologists, physicians, psychologists, sociologists to deal with them and even then you are no where. Even after defining eight different kinds of intelligences and IQ in human being you need EQ (emotional quotient). And beyond that. That is called spirituality.

If we stop here and look back we realize that science was left far behind. Science usually means observational and empirical knowledge. In matters related to human beings we must go far beyond that.
It makes empirical and experimental knowledge look rather insignificant.

This is what I was trying to point out in my statement to StopS.

aoa,
Jazak Allah. learned a lot

[dr.ati]

One of the guys which appeared in this documentary is Dr David Berlinski. Among the people who have recently written on atheism and its connections with science , i find him the most articulate one.His book in response to Richard Dawkins God delusion under the title "The devil's delusion: atheism and its scientific pretensions" is a must read. Here is he interviewed about the book http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc
He has read a rich essay on Darwinism "The deniable Darwin" which can be read here http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db...darwin0696.htm