Intelligent Design

Question:-

Recently several books have appeared attempting to prove that there is no God and that the concept of God is a delusion and that there is no Intelligent Design in the Universe. How do you explain this from the Islamic point of view, which is based on the very opposite? There appears to be a campaign in the West to introduce "Intelligent Design" into the school curriculum and this is bitterly opposed by many scientists. What is your attitude as a Muslims to this controversy?

Answer:-

It is not possible to prove the non-existence of things. Nor is God an object in the Universe, but is defined as the origin of all things. Things are proved by reference to the self-consistency in a system of fully comprehensive experiences. The belief in the non-existence of God is a self-contradictory statement, an absurdity. It is like a blind man trying to prove that colours do not exist. Science itself depends on certain restricting assumptions that drive the seeking, selection and interpretation of observations and these re-appear in the conclusions. It gives us a description of the Universe, but cannot tell us what it is that causes the Universe to conform to that description. It is partial knowledge that keeps changing as knowledge increases. Reality is more than what we have knowledge of. Knowledge is more than descriptions and Life is more than knowledge. It requires adjustment to Reality, which also requires motives and action. Mankind requires a system of life that facilitates conscious adjustment and this requires an appropriate system of thought.

From the Islamic point of view the fundamental principle that underlies the Universe is also within man - The spirit of Allah is within them - they contains a spark of the divine that also gives them consciousness, conscience and will and ought to make them aware of God. But they have lost this awareness owing to mental attachment to created things, to sense objects. This is like losing awareness of the pattern when looking at a small part in it, or of the sky full of stars when the sun rises. It is the cause of all human malfunctions in perception, motivation and behaviour. This can be reversed through an appropriate discipline.

"(Allah) Who made good everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust. Then He made his progeny of an extract, of a fluid held in low esteem. Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit, and made for you the faculties of hearing, and sight and heart; little is it that you give thanks." 32:7-9

"Surely, We have created man in the best of moulds. Then We reduced him to the lowest of the low; Save those who believe and act right; for theirs is a reward unfailing." 95:4-6

"And be not like those who forgot (or forsook Allah), so He made them forget (or forsake) their own souls: these it is that are the transgressors." 59:19

"Say: I exhort you only to one thing that you awake for Allah's sake." 34:46

"And the soul and Who fashioned it, and enlightened it with what is wrong and right for it! He indeed is successful who causes it to grow (or purifies it)! And he indeed is a failure who corrupts it!" 81:7-10

It is becoming increasingly evident to many people that the decline of religion and particularly religious instruction has caused the erosion of morality, standards of behaviour and life purposes and this continues to do so at a rapid rate. As a consequence a great number of psychological, social and environmental problems have escalated beyond the resources to deal with them and this threatens the disintegration of society.

There is, therefore, an attempt to reintroduce religion but in a more sophisticated form that the better educated people of the modern age can understand and accept. This is certainly a valuable thing to do.

Apart from this, the progress of science and technology appeal only to the external man, the physical and the intellectual side and this has been achieved at the expense of the deeper spiritual aspects of his being and to his values, motives and feelings and left him emotionally starved and even diseased. There is, therefore, an increasingly widespread longing for deeper significance and self-fulfilment.

Unfortunately there are many narrow minded scientists who do not understand religion at all and fear that the reintroduction of religion will lead to an erosion of progress and a return to an irrational age. Though science itself might give them some kind of spiritual fulfilment, they appear not to have understood that science deals with the existence in a relatively superficial manner. It describes mechanisms. It tells us "how" but not "why". Both are legitimate questions. We require and live by facts as well as meaning and values, by causes, effects as well as purposes. We require not just facts, but we also need to process these to organise and make sense of these in order to adjust and we need to act and participate in the creative and transformation processes of the Universe. It is utterly foolish to suppose that science is the whole of truth or of reality. There is most certainly consciousness, intelligence, purposiveness, order and information in the world around us besides matter and energy. It is as if when speaking to another human being, these scientists are content to think of him as a robot made of complex electronic circuitry, ignoring that there is a conscious feeling individual behind the mechanisms. Do they really suppose that the Universe consists merely of the descriptions in their text books?

Scientists want proof for everything. But what do they regard as proof? Does it not boil down to experiencing something? And does it not depend on the capacity of the person to experience and understand it? Is it not true that scientific theories depend on the amount and kind of information available and change as more knowledge is gained? One could ask: What keeps the planets in their orbit? The explanation is the force of Gravity. But what proof is there that Gravity exists? But the fact is that the view of Gravity has changed from that of Newtonian to that of Einstein's Relativity Theory. The general answer is that things are proved by their effects or manifestations. That is, of course, also the religious view. God is defined as the source of all things, and His existence of God is proved by the fact that the Universe exists, that it contains order, that we and other creatures possess consciousness and intelligence and that Prophets and Messengers have arisen to tell us about God. More directly, people do have experience of the presence of God and they corroborate this experience. Some degree of consciousness of the wholeness of things, of the unity behind diversity, is necessary. But modern life and education, unfortunately, has caused fixation on objects and on words.

It is true, of course, that there are some very naive versions of religion and ideas of God and intelligent design and that these are rejected by the more intelligent people. But it is also fair to say that some scientists as others oppose or reject the idea of God and of intelligent design because they have no experience of these owing to the fact that their motives, attention and efforts are directed elsewhere, and they do not understood these concepts, but are merely rejecting their own misconceptions. They tend to think in literal, intellectual, mathematical or physical terms, but cannot see that language can be used symbolically to refer to deeper psychological experiences and their patterns. God is not an object in the Universe, but transcends it and is also imminent in it and within ourselves. All Reality can be regarded as the thoughts in the mind of God and the advance of human knowledge is a progressive contact and approximation to this. The concept also implies that there is an overall unity and all things are inter-related and interact directly or indirectly. The concept provides a framework in which all things can be interpreted in a comprehensive, harmonious and consistent manner, making sense and giving purpose.

It is noticeable that there is an inconsistency in the attitude of many scientists:- While they wish to deny the existence of God they do not mind admitting:- (a) That the Universe is like a huge Brain or Computer and that the reality we see is the result of its processing. (b) That intelligence, consciousness and information are aspects of the complexity of physical systems. (c) That total Reality is much greater than that which exists in our knowledge and is most probably much greater than the known Universe. (d) That at the more fundamental sub-atomic level the solidity, distinctions and determinism of matter disappears altogether and we are left with a quantum world of descriptions that are grasped only by mathematical minds. (e) That there is constant unconscious interaction between the inner processes within us and those taking place in the external world at many levels of which we can become conscious. (f) That all the forces of nature have differentiated out of a single original force. (g) That the Universe and all things in it have an origin in the Big Bang and this indicates that the cause of it must lie outside it.

The naive opposition of scientists to religious thought is as narrow minded and prejudiced as in the past the opposition of the religious clergy was to science. Indeed, history shows that science itself has had to make progress in the face of opposition by scientists trapped in a rut of conditioned thinking. Ultimately Science as Religion is also based on both evidence and faith in its procedures and capabilities and the opposition to science is not based on scientific investigation. For many people it is simply an alternative faith. Nor is there any justification for identifying the general concept, Religion, with a particular one, namely Christianity, or their opinions about it.

The conflict between Science and Religion is only a problem for the West, not for Islam. which incorporates science in religion. Islam also lacks the narrow-minded view of religion and has a much wider view of science as a self-consistent system of thought, goals and practices that enhances perception and understanding, modifies motives and provides practical applications for the physical, mental and spiritual benefit of man defined as progressive adjustment of man to Reality. As Allah is the creator and maintainer of all the laws and processes of the world, there is no conflict in Islam between “creation” and “evolution” and all things are means through which He works; creation is a gradual process through stages, mutations can be regarded as creative acts and natural selection is ultimately divine testing and selection. However, evolution is primarily a spiritual process that has physical consequences. Indeed, it is integral to the essence of Islam that the function and duty of man is to strive to evolve spiritually. (Quran 91:7-10)

Critic:-

You have made a case for "Intelligent Design". Almost all scientists say that religion has nothing to do with science. Introducing it into science is impossible. What is being suggested under the heading "intelligent design" is replacing science with religion. And that they oppose.

Comment:-

I am interested in comprehensive education. It is my thesis that Religion has to do with life and that the scientific endeavour is part of life. So Religion is most certainly concerned with science.

I am obviously advancing an Islamic view, not a Christian or secular one. Nor am I speaking about introducing religion into science, but about the fact Scientists are opposing the entry of Religion or the idea of Intelligent Design in schools. This bias is no different from the opposition of religious people against the entry of science in schools.

Critic:-

It is interesting that you say science is consistent with Islam but you have written articles attacking scientists and the scientific method before.

Comment:-

You are mistaken. I do not attack science and scientists but the biases and narrow mindedness of some scientists and others.

I have stated it time and again that the scientific attitude - to ask nature through observation and experiment as opposed to mere speculation, logical or otherwise - is not just compatible with Islam but iintegral to it.

Critic:-

You say that "Things are proved by reference to the self-consistency in a system of fully comprehensive experiences." Godel is waiting for you, my friend, as I said before. But you never listen...

Comment:-

I have replied to this before but you obviously do not comprehend. Godel's is a Logical argument that shows that it is not possible to describe the whole of something by means of parameters that apply to the parts.

But it is the aim of science to propose self-consistent Theories, through inspiration or otherwise that can be refuted if possible by new evidence. But if no new evidence contradicts it but confirms it then the probability of its correctness increases. If it is contradicted then the Theory is modified or replaced.

The aim of science is the Unified Field Theory - the self-consistent Theory of everything. It is my assertion that Islam has already got it but it requires insight, inspiration, enhanced consciousness to see it.

Critic:-

The heart of the matter is that science *is* a big problem for Islam, at least the "comprehensive universal" Islam that you seem to need to tout at every opportunity.

Comment:-

Science is no problem for Islam, though it may be for some people, Muslim, Christian or others. Islam is the "Religion of Truth" by definition (Quran 9:29, 61:9). Islam is also "Surrender to Allah" by definition where Allah is the fundamental Reality, the origin of all things. We read:-

"And follow (or pursue) not that of which you have no knowledge; verily, the hearing, the sight, and the heart, of all of these it shall be asked (to give an account). And walk not on the earth proudly (insolently); verily, you can not rend the earth asunder, nor can you stretch to the height of the mountains." Quran17:36-37

I am telling you what I know and believe. You can accept or reject it as you desire - it makes no difference to the Truth or to me. You obviously do not know what I know and do not wish to know.

Critic:-

It is hard for me to make progress here, since you have obviously no intention of finding out what Kurt Godel actually said and why his work is relevant. It has nothing whatever to do with "the whole being the sum of the parts".

Your assertion that Islam (or for that matter, any "logical" system) can be both self-consistent and simultaneously "comprehensive" (by which I assume you think there is no question that it cannot answer) is quite simply impossible. This is true even if I were to concede to you that Islam is self-consistent and logical. That is the truth I have been teasing you with.

Comment:-

I am perfectly aware of Gödel’s work and I was telling you about an implication of it. But you have not understood.

I have told you the Islamic point of view - rendered in Western mode of thinking. To repeat: Allah is by definition the fundamental Reality, the origin of all things. His existence is proved by the existence of the Universe and the order in it, the existence of consciousness by which we know things and the existence of Prophets who are the bridge between Allah and the world.

This is the Unified Theory that is unfalsifiable because it is wholly comprehensive and every thing else are details in it that we explore through science, art, economics, politics and everything else and interpret in a self-consistent manner.

A mathematical description is only a part of it and does not constitute proof if it is not understood but merely consists of marks on paper or words in the mind. Mere verbal, logical arguments are futile. What we want to know through experience is what it is that forces the Universe to conform to these mathematical or other forms of description. We want to know the Reality. We define knowledge as the awareness of Reality. I cannot help it if you do not comprehend.

If you want some kind of purely logical proof, the following can be advanced, but I doubt whether that will be comprehended either:-

(1) The first and fundamental certainty is that Reality exists. If it did not then nothing would.

(2) The second certainty is that Consciousness exists. If it did not then we would not know Reality.

(3) The third certainty is that the contents of consciousness exist. There are three types:- (a) those we attribute to the external world giving us the notion of matter. (b) those we attribute to the inner world of thoughts, images etc. (c) those we attribute to interactions between the other two and gives us the notion of energy and life.

Another proof could be as follows:-

All our knowledge is relative in that it depends on comparisons and relationships. Therefore, Relativity must also be relative. It is relative to the Absolute. That is, nothing can be understood ultimately except in relation to the Absolute.

Critic:-

Islamic tenets are not in question. I am talking about systems. It has been proved that it is not possible to prove both that a system is comprehensive and self-consistent.

Comment:-

Have you not noticed that we start with a fully comprehensive system by definition i.e. that Allah is the origin of all things. We do not want to prove that it is self-consistent, but we want to interpret all our experience in a manner consistent with this. However, as Allah is One and the origin of all things then all things must form a self-consistent whole. On the other hand our concept of Allah is that He is the Absolute and able to do and give rise to anything He wills. There could be many Universes with different sets of Laws. We do not require that they should be consistent with each other. The notion of consistency applies to parts, things that are limited, things that relate to each other, relative things. It does not apply to the Absolute. But the many separate systems that the Absolute may give rise to will be self-consistent and mutually consistent at a transcendental level.

The idea of comprehensiveness and self-consistency are of course ideas in the intelligent mind. They are not sensory experiences. But, nevertheless they are real features of the World. There is Order and Intelligence in the world and these notions are connected, and they have causes. Intelligence refers to the power of adjustment and is therefore, something that directs processes and organises energy. In our concept of Allah, He is the ultimate source of all causes.

Question:-

From reading your chapter on Biology I got the impression that you believe that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has many holes. Yet you say that the theory does not contradict Islam – e.g. mutations and natural selection can be regarded as the will of God. Do you believe in Macro-evolution? Did species change into new species over time? Did man descend from ape-like creatures? Or is Adam just a mythological figure representing the first conscious and spiritual human-being, symbolising the human race? Let me get the point straight. Are you saying that evolution according to the mechanistic (Newtonian) model should be dismissed and we should look for a different model. I read somewhere that there are four World Hypotheses (fundamental ideas) that were invented to explain existence, namely Formism > Mechanicism > Contextualism > Organicism. It seems to me that you adhere to the latest. Do you think this is the final hypothesis or will there be another one to come as we gain more insight in the world?

Comment:-

I see Western Science as an incomplete view that is progressing gradually towards a fuller view. However, it cannot be regarded as a comprehensive system that takes into consideration all aspects of life. It has limited objectives. It is not a religion. It has limitations. In particular it is based on the Western prejudice that divides things into mind and matter, idealism and materialism, subject and object, the observer and the object, the spiritual and the physical, all connected with the distinction between master and slaves, owners and workers, priests and non-priests. This appears to be the result of the fact there was a controversy between the Church and Scientists - science having come mainly from the Muslim world which was in conflict with the Christian in the crusades and also because of the distinction between master Islam has no such distinction and this means that scientific facts can be interpreted differently in Islam.

Scientists rather than science, appear to have a Materialistic Mechanistic view of existence which is unjustified. Experience shows us inertia, resistance, not matter which is a metaphysical term, a projection of the mind exclusively attributed to external reality.

I see the Mechanistic view as arising from Materialism (a result of removing idealism and the subject or observer) and also the result of Greek Logic which requires that the inference must necessarily follow from the premises. This is not a necessity of thought or reason and words are not the same thing as the things they refer to or experiences of them. Facts can be arranged, described and explained in more than one way. There can be no objection that science should investigate nature, describe it and find explanations and immediate causes for phenomena. But there can no justification for dogmatism as the search for knowledge is a progressive process. Nor can there be any justification for Atheism because things are constantly arising and have a beginning, and nothing can come out of Nothing. If we have an infinite series of causes, each giving rise to the other, then nothing could exist because it would require an infinite time for it to arise. One would need a concept of something that contained this infinite series. Ultimately there has to be something that is self-existing, uncaused, that is responsible for all things that exist, including consciousness, life, order, intelligence, energy and matter.

It is necessary to understand that modern science is based on the two opposites, Determinism and Chance, the latter arises because the former is assumed but is unable to explain all phenomena. But it is not at all necessary to think in that way. These notions appear to arise from Greek Logic. For one thing it is formal and purely verbal and does not require one to refer to anything experienced or real. You can see this from the following:-

Tala is a Gumbo (2) Gumbos are Pingles (3) Therefore, Tala is a Pingle.

For this argument to work, the words Tala, Gumbo and Pringle must have a meaning and must, of course, have the same meaning throughout. But the meaning may not correspond to anything real and it may be different for different people and even in the same argument. One might, for instance, have a particular cat in mind or a fictitious one at one point and another at another point.

Secondly, the inference cannot produce anything that is not already contained in the premises. The argument is deterministic – the Conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, the assumptions that establish the premises simply reappear in the conclusion.

Thirdly, the axioms on which the arguments are based are instructions not facts and refer to a restricted set of possibilities. For instance, we are told A is A, Either A or not-A, not both A and not-A. In fact, there is a range of greys between white (A) and black (not-A).

Fourthly, different people can select a restricted set of concepts, premises or even natural phenomena according to some criterion, whim, prejudice, desire, experience, knowledge, or insight and reach different conclusions. Or they can select a set of appropriate concepts, premises or natural phenomena in order to reach a desired conclusion based on whim, prejudice, conditioning, or experience. There is also a difference in depth and generalisation of concepts and ideas.

The whole of science is based on Newton’s three Laws of Motion which depend on this kind of logic. According to the First Law of Motion things are assumed to be totally dead and inert and all motions remain the same in speed and direction until a force causes a change. According to the Second Law of Motion, the change in motion is proportional to the force. The notion of force is invented as something that enables change and different kinds have been postulated to explain different kinds of changes. Sources must be found for these e.g. the Sun. Note that this law makes all changes deterministic. The proof for the existence of force, that we measure it by the change of motion, is of course a vicious circle. The conclusion is in the assumption which reappears in the conclusion.

One could say the same of existence and the Universe as whole. A force is required to cause changes in it and even to bring it about from nothing and we can call it Truth, the order or information creating Intelligence, called the Word or the Command in Islam, and its source as God. We can regard the various forces as aspects of this fundamental force. But though we have the same problem of a vicious circle in this argument, it is wholly justified because we are speaking of the Whole of Reality which has nothing outside it and must be self-existing and self-consistent. No assumption need be made about determinism and its contradiction, randomness.

The third Law of Motion states that the action and reaction are opposites and equal. This, in fact, brings us back to the original state before the force comes into being. We have a Zero from which arises +F and –F and they cancel out to return to Zero. But this Zero cannot possibly refer to the Whole of Reality because a cause is still required by our minds for the arising of +F and –F. And when we speak of the Whole then all causes are within it. They are intentions so that “cause” is the same as “purpose”.

According to Quantum Theory, fundamentally the events at the Quantum level are indeterminate and statistical rules apply. But all things are recognised by the information or order in them and they consist at the fundamental level of quantum events. This implies that these events cannot be random. Chance is merely another name for ignorance as is Mechanistic Determinism.

The progress of civilisation shows the same stages as the development of the child and the world - from the physical to the biological to the psychological. Though all three exist being aspects of the same thing, there is a gradual shift of emphasis. For instance. the child is first concerned mainly with its own body and food and is self-centred. Then it begins to develop a stronger emotional life and more social interactions. There follows increasing intellectual development and, if progress is not arrested, man enters a spiritual phase. The world is first mineral, then it develops a biosphere and then come human beings that produce a culture of ideas and art, and they may well develop further. In science we first have physics and chemistry, and then biology becomes more important, and gradually psychology will become dominant. Civilisations are first concerned with economics, then increasingly attention is placed on social affairs as now, and there will be a time when the emphasis will be on psychological matters. These changes bring about changes in technology as well as in ideas, attitudes, motives and consciousness.

The development of knowledge can proceed in three ways:- Association, analysis and synthesis - horizontally by the accumulation of facts, downwards from wholes to parts and upwards from parts to wholes. Though all three procedures are involved, in a sense, but not entirely, the religious attitude is the opposite to that of the scientific. Religion proceeds mostly from the whole to the parts - it is deductive - while science is induuctive, proceeding from parts to wholes. And yet it is science that must use deductive reasoning while religion must use induction, inspiration to understand.

As I see it, from the Islamic point of view, evolution is a spiritual process that has physical consequences. All the laws and processes of the world can be regarded as deriving from the Will of Allah. Therefore, Natural Selection is part of Allah's Selectivity and Mutations are His creative acts.

It seems to me that as Allah is the origin of all things and His command is One (65:12, 55:50), then all things arise from an original unity and there is gradual differentiation into the multiplicity. But things remain a single system, and all things are parts of it. The whole of existence forms a single system that is more than the sum of the parts that are inter-connected, owing to the order in it. The parts are subsystems that have parts and so on. In systems the parts are inter-dependent and there are many feed-back mechanisms. This requires non-linear mathematics. Systems have order, and the various feed-back mechanisms ensure that the parts must adjust to the whole and the whole exerts controlling forces on the parts. This drives Evolution. Intelligence can be defined as the ability to adjust and is a universal phenomenon that is connected with the flow of information.

Information (Truth) is injected into the Universes by Allah which causes its evolution. The Universe must adjust to this injection and the parts must adjust to the Universe. The Universe has Galaxies which contain Solar systems that have planets.

Take the earth. It contains minerals. It exists within the solar system. The sun sends rays from above to the minerals below causing them to evolve. The combination forms plants and animals. The sun from above sends rays that are absorbed by the plants and in them minerals are converted into plant matter. Plants are eaten by animals which absorb solar rays to convert it into animal matter. Human beings convert their animal matter into human matter through the same solar radiations. This human matter is in the form of culture, the arts, sciences, organisation etc.

So we have a higher force A, acting on a lower factor C to form a middle factor B. The higher force A can act on the factor B (which is relatively lower i.e. acts as C2) to form another middle factor B2 and so on. On the other hand the factor B (being relatively higher i.e. acting as A2) can act on C to form another middle factor, B3, that is lower than B2. There is an ascent and a descent. The Universe has a metabolic process that breaks down into two opposite processes of catabolism and anabolism.

As the Quran says: He knows what rises from the earth and what descends into it. 34:2 and also see 32:5 and 70:3-4, 65:12, 41:12

So when you talk of Adam (mankind) you can think of him as either ascending from earth or descending from heaven depending on whether you are speaking of the body or spirit (32:7-9).

The name Adam is used in three ways:- (a) It refers to the first human conscious being. (b) It refers to mankind as a whole because it descends from Adam. (C) It refers to the first Prophet - a conscious person who taught his other descendants.

----------<O>----------

Contents