Religion Helps Science to Be Rightly Guided
Science is the investigation of the material world we live in through
observation and experiment. Accordingly, in conducting such investigation,
science will lead to various conclusions based on the information collected
through observation and experimentation. In addition, however, every discipline
of science also has certain norms that are simply taken for granted, or
accepted without further verification. In scientific literature, this
set of norms is called a "paradigm".
This initial outlook charts the "course" of all related scientific investigation.
As is known, the first step in scientific investigation is the formulation
of a "hypothesis". To begin with, for their research topic, scientists
must form a hypothesis. Then, this hypothesis is tested through scientific
experimentation. If observations and experiments verify the hypothesis,
the "hypothesis" is called an "established principle or law". If the hypothesis
is disproved, then new hypotheses are tested, and the process continues.
The formulation of the hypothesis, which is the first step of the process,
is often dependent on the scientists' basic viewpoint. For instance, scientists,
if committed to an erroneous outlook, could base their work on a hypothesis
that "matter has a tendency to self-organize without the involvement of
a conscious agent". Then, they would conduct years of research to verify
that hypothesis. Yet, since matter has no such capability, all these efforts
are bound to fail. Furthermore, if scientists are overly obstinate about
their hypothesis, the research may well last for years, and even for generations.
The end result, though, would be but a huge waste of time and
However, had the point of assumption been the idea that "it is impossible
for matter to self-organize without conscious planning", that scientific
research would have followed a more expeditious and productive course.
This issue, that is, the issue of establishing a proper hypothesis, requires
an entirely different source than mere scientific data. Correct identification
of this source is critical, because, as we explained in the above example,
an error in the identification of a source may cost the science-world
years, decades, or even centuries.
The source sought is God's revelation to mankind. God
is the Creator of the universe, the world and of living things, and therefore,
the most accurate and indisputable knowledge about these subjects derives
from Him. In accordance, God has revealed to us important information
about these matters in the Qur'an. The most fundamental of these are as
1) God created the universe from nothing. Everything is created for a
particular purpose. It follows that there is not a chaos of chance-happenings
in nature or the universe, but a perfect order created with an
2) The material universe, and predominantly, the Earth we live in, is
specially designed to allow for human life. There is a certain
purpose in the movements of stars and planets, in geographical
landmarks, and in the properties of water or the atmosphere, that makes
human life possible.
3) God created all living things. Moreover, these creatures
act through the inspiration of God, as quoted in the Qur'an in the example
of the honeybees, with the verse that begins with, "Your Lord
inspired the bees…" (Surat an-Nahl: 68)
These are absolute truths communicated to us by God in the Qur'an. An
approach to science based on these facts will inevitably lead to remarkable
progress and serve humanity in the most beneficial manner. We find numerous
examples of this in history. It was only possible with the placement of
science on proper a foothold that Muslim scientists, who were then helping
to forge the greatest civilizations in the world, contributed to major
achievements in the 9th and 10th centuries. In the West, the pioneers
in all fields of science, from physics to chemistry, astronomy to biology
and paleontology, were great men of science who believed in God, and who
conducted research for the sake of exploring what He created.
Einstein also maintained that scientists must rely on religious sources
when developing their objectives:
Though religion may be that which determines the
goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense,
what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set
up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued
with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling,
however, springs from the sphere of religion… I cannot conceive of a
genuine scientist without that profound faith.11
Since the middle of the 19th century, however, the scientific community
has divorced itself from this divine source, and come under the influence
of a materialist philosophy.
Materialism, an idea that dates back to ancient Greece, maintains the
absolute existence of matter and denies God. This materialistic outlook
gradually made its way into the scientific community, and, beginning in
the middle of the 19th century, a considerable portion of scientific investigation
was initiated to support it. To this purpose, many theories were formulated,
such as the "infinite universe model" suggesting that the universe exists
since infinite time, Darwin's evolutionary theory claiming that life is
the work of chance, or Freud's views holding that the human mind consists
of the brain alone.
Today, in retrospect, we see that the claims put forth by materialism
were but a waste of time for science. For decades, a great number
of scientists have expended their best efforts to prove each of these
claims, but the results always proved them wrong. Discoveries confirmed
the proclamations of the Qur'an - that the universe was created from nothing,
that it is tailored to suit human life, and that it is impossible for
life to have come into being and evolved by chance.
Now let us consider these facts one by one.
The Losses the Materialists' Obsession With an "Infinite
Universe" Have Caused Science
Until the early 20th century, the conventional opinion of the scientific
community, which was then under the influence of the materialists, was
that the universe has infinite dimensions, that it existed in infinite
time, and will exist infinitely. According to this view, called the "static
universe model", the universe had neither a beginning nor an end, and
was simply a limitless conglomeration of matter. Denying that the universe
was created, this view laid the groundwork for the materialist philosophy.
|Scientists who pursued false goals caused a great
deal of effort to be wasted in science.
Many scientists who espoused materialism, or were partial to such a philosophy,
set the "infinite universe" model as the basis for their scientific research.
Consequently, all research into astronomy and physics depended on the
hypothesis that matter existed in infinite time. For some time, many scientists
labored and toiled to no avail, as science was soon to shatter that misconception.
With his giant telescope, Hubble discovered
that the stars were racing away, not only from us, but also from each
The Belgian scientist, Georges Lemaître, was the first
to recognize the inaccuracy of the "infinite universe" model, and postulated
a scientific alternative to it. Based on certain computations by the Russian
scientist, Alexandre Friedmann, Lemaître declared that the universe
actually had a beginning, and that it was expanding since
that initial moment. He also asserted that it must be possible
to detect the remnants of radiation from that initial moment.
Here, it should be noted that Georges Lemaître was also a priest. Lemaître
strongly believed that "the universe was created by God from nothingness".
Therefore, his approach to science greatly differed from that of the materialists.
The years to come confirmed the correctness of the assumption put forth
by Lemaître. Firstly, American astronomer, Edwin Hubble, discovered with
his huge telescope that the stars were moving away both from us and from
each other. This meant that the universe was expanding, and thus, was
not static as materialists assumed.
In fact, earlier on, Albert Einstein had already theoretically calculated
that the universe could not be static. However, he put the theory to rest,
simply because his calculations did not concur with the widely recognized
static universe model of his time. Even a scientist considered the greatest
genius of the century was intimidated by the dogmatism of the materialist
view, having chosen not to reveal the important discovery. Later on, Einstein
was to refer to that choice as 'the greatest mistake of his career'.
There was another important truth that the expansion of the universe
pointed to: if the universe was getting larger as time went on, then,
following it backward in time meant that it would become smaller; and
if one went back far enough, everything would shrink and converge to a
single point. Calculations showed that this single point should have zero
volume. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of
this point, an explosion which has come to be called the "the
In fact, the reference to this exploding point having zero volume is
but a theoretical expression. The expression of zero volume simply suggests
"nothingness". The whole universe was created from "nothing".
The Big Bang theory clearly demonstrated that the universe was created from
nothing. Nevertheless, further scientific evidence was required in order
for the theory to be widely accepted. In 1948, George Gamov proposed that,
if the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic explosion, as Lemaître
had suggested, there ought to be a definite amount of radiation left over
from that explosion, and that this radiation must be uniform throughout
Scientific confirmation of Gamov's postulate was forthcoming. In 1965,
two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered
the remnants of that radiation. Called "cosmic background radiation",
it was not localized but distributed equally everywhere in the universe.
It was soon realized that this radiation was the echo of the Big Bang,
still reverberating since the first moments of that great explosion. Penzias
and Wilson were awarded a Nobel prize for their discovery.
It required a very short time for the Cobe satellite to find the evidence
to prove the hypothesis of the Big Bang.
In 1989, NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, launched
the COBE satellite into space, for the purpose of research into cosmic
background radiation. Within minutes, the satellite's sensitive scanners
confirmed the measurements of Penzias and Wilson.
Discovery of the evidence confirming the creation of the universe from
nothing in the "Big Bang" staggered materialist scientists. They witnessed
the collapse of their extensive research, their hypotheses, and unsubstantiated
theories, one after the other. The renowned atheist philosopher, Antony
Flew, had these comments to offer about the situation:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will
therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be
embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that
the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St.. Thomas
contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe
had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of
as being not only without end but also without beginning, it remains easy
to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most
fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates.
Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither
easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big
Bang story.. 12
As the above example makes clear, if someone is blindly devoted to materialism
he is reluctant to admit any evidence to the contrary. Even if he must
confess to the fact, he does not compromise his commitment to materialism.
On the other hand, many scientists, who did not resolve themselves unconditionally
to denying God's existence, today accept that God, the All-Powerful, created
the universe. One such example is the American scientist William Lane
Craig, who is known for his research on the Big Bang:
The universe came into being through the explosion
of a single point-mass that had zero volume. This explosion, called
the Big Bang, demonstrated with compelling evidence that the universe
was created from nothing, and permanently demolished the materialists'
claims of an infinite universe.
Indeed, given the truth of the maxim ex nihilo nihil
fit (out of nothing comes nothing), the Big Bang requires a supernatural
cause. Since the initial cosmological singularity represents the terminus
of all space-time trajectories, there cannot be any physical cause of
the Big Bang. Rather, the cause must transcend physical space and time:
it must be independent of the universe, and unimaginably powerful. Moreover,
this cause must be a personal being, endowed with free will... The
cause of the origin of the universe must therefore be a personal Creator,
who a finite time ago brought the universe into existence by his free
Another important conclusion to be drawn from the Big Bang theory is
that, as we have mentioned earlier, a scientific approach based on divine
knowledge will be highly successful in unraveling the mysteries of the
universe. Scientists who proceeded from a materialist philosophy and put
forth the "infinite universe" model, were unable to substantiate it, despite
their best efforts. However, the Big Bang theory, which Georges Lemaître
developed, and which was based on divine sources, contributed to scientific
progress and helped to uncover the true origin of the universe.
When we look at the history of 20th century science, we see that similar
occurrences took place in other fields as well.
The Losses The Claim That "There is No Design in
Nature" Caused Science
Materialists not only proposed that the universe existed since infinite
time, but also claimed that there is no design or purpose in the universe.
They argued that the entire equilibrium, harmony, and order in the universe
was the work of chance. This claim, which dominated the world of science
beginning in the second half of the 19th century, dictated the subsequent
course of scientific investigation.
For instance, certain scientists put forth an assumption called the "chaos
theory" to show that there is no design in the universe. According to
this theory, order may spontaneously form from chaos, and a number of
scientific studies were conducted to support the claim. Mathematical calculations,
studies in theoretical physics, physical trials and chemical experiments,
were all conducted to find an answer to the question, "how can we demonstrate
that the universe is the product of chaos?"
Every new discovery, however, further denied the chaos and chance theories,
revealing that there is an enormous design in the universe. Research conducted
since the 1960s consistently demonstrated that all the physical equilibria
in the universe are intricately designed to render life possible. As research
proceeded, it was discovered that each and every one of the laws of physics,
chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and
electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the
elements of the universe, has been precisely tailored so that human beings
may exist. Scientists refer to this extraordinary design as the "Anthropic
Principle". This is the principle by which every detail in the
universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.
|Only a highly intelligent person can reconstruct
the scattered pieces of Albert Einstein's puzzle seen here.
It is therefore certain that systems far more sophisticated
and perfect than this in the universe were designed by God,
Who has infinite knowledge and wisdom.
With these discoveries, the dictum formerly imposed on the scientific
community by the materialist philosophy, touting that "the universe is
a heap of matter with no meaning and purpose working according to chance",
was exposed to be an unscientific fallacy. Noted molecular biologist Michael
Denton makes the following comment in his book, Nature's Destiny:
How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe:
Just as the racist ideology brought disaster
for humanity by leading to World War II, so did the materialist ideology
drag the world of science into darkness needlessly.
The new picture that has emerged in twentieth-century
astronomy presents a dramatic challenge to the presumption which has
been prevalent within scientific circles during most of the past four
centuries: that life is a peripheral and purely contingent phenomenon
in the cosmic scheme… The evidence provided by modern cosmology
and physics is exactly the kind of evidence that the natural theologians
were looking for in the seventeenth century but failed to find in the
science of their day.14
The "natural theologians" referred to above are the 17th century and
18th century religiously devout scientists who strove to invalidate atheism
on scientific grounds, and thus prove the existence of God. However, as
also stated in the above quotation, the inferior degree of scientific
knowledge at that time did not allow them to substantiate the truths they
perceived, and materialism, deriving support from the same primitive level
of science, grew in authority in the scientific world. 20th century science,
however, has reversed that course, and provided conclusive evidence to
prove that the universe was created by God.
Here, the real point to be considered is the extraordinary amount of
time that has gone into studies to prove the materialist delusion, that
claimed, "there is no purpose and design in the universe". All such theories,
formulae, studies in theoretical physics, mathematical equations, etc.,
eventually proved to be worthless attempts expended in vain. Just as the
racist ideology brought disaster for humanity by leading to World War
II, so did the materialist ideology drag the world of science into darkness
If, however, the scientific community had based its efforts, not on the
misconception of materialism, but on the reality that the universe was
created by God, scientific research would have taken a more proper course.
The Loss The Hopeless Efforts to Prove the Theory of
Evolution Have Caused Science
The most instructive example of an improper orientation for science,
was the adoption of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Having been introduced
to the agenda of scientific study a 140 years ago, this theory is actually
the greatest fallacy perpetrated in the history of science.
The theory of evolution contends that life came about by the configuration
of lifeless matter through chance. The same theory further claims that
organisms which have been formed by chance evolved into other creatures
again by chance. At center stage for the last one and a half centuries,
has been the concerted effort to find scientific justification for this
scenario, whose results though, ironically, proved only the contrary.
Scientific evidence has demonstrated that evolution never
took place, that the possibility of the gradual transformation from one
species to another is out of the question, and that all living
species were created distinctly and in their present forms.
Nevertheless, despite all firm evidence, evolutionists perform countless
studies and experiments, write volumes of books crammed with nothing but
fallacies and errors, establish institutions, hold conferences, and air
television programs, to prove evolution. The exploitation of thousands
of scientists, and measureless amounts of money and resources, for an
unprovable assertion, has certainly been a serious detriment for humanity.
Had these resources been properly directed, such a loss would not have
been incurred, but great strides rather would have been achieved, and
definitive results attained in more pertinent areas of scientific study.
On the other hand, a number of scientists or thinkers have realized
what a grave misconception the theory of evolution has been. British philosopher,
Malcolm Muggeridge, for instance, makes the following comment:
I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution,
especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the
great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel
that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with
the incredible credulity that it has.15
The Scandinavian scientist Søren Løvtrup makes the following remark
in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great
misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false
theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now
people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary
- 'adaptation', 'selection pressure', 'natural selection', etc. - thereby
believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.
They do not … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked
the greatest deceit in the history of science.16
Even a number of evolutionary scientists have recognized
that the theory they advocate does not concur with fact and feel uneasy
about it. "Perpetuation of today's theory (of evolution) as dogma will
not encourage progress toward more satisfactory explanations of observed
phenomena"17, says evolutionist scientist Paul R. Ehrlich
in an interview with Science, where he - though indirectly - admits the
harm blind devotion to the evolutionary theory inflicts on science.
Now, let us look at all the futile effort made to support the unscientific
claims of the theory of evolution, which cost science nothing but a great
waste of time and resources.
The Losses the Claim That "Inanimate Matter Can
Form Life" Caused Science
What is the origin of life? What distinguishes a bird, or a giraffe
from a stone, water, earth, that is, inanimate matter?
The answer to this question has been a matter of curiosity since antiquity.
The predominant views are two. The first idea is that there is a very
fine line between animate and inanimate matter, which can easily be pierced,
and that life can spontaneously arise from inanimate matter. This view
is called "abiogenesis" in scientific literature.
The second idea maintains that there is an unsurpassable border between
living and non-living matter. According to this view, it is impossible
for living organisms to develop from non-living materials, and a life-form
can arise only if it comes from another life-form. This view, summed up
as "life comes only from life", is called "biogenesis".
Interestingly, the idea of "abiogenesis" is connected to the materialist
philosophy, whereas the idea of "biogenesis" stems from religious sources.
The materialist philosophy has always argued that non-living materials
can give rise to living organisms. The Greek philosophers believed that
simple life-forms continuously arose from non-living matter.
On the contrary, divine sources state that the only power to give life
to inanimate matter can be God's creative power. The verses of the Qur'an
It is God Who causes the seed-grain and the date stone
to split and sprout. He causes the living to issue from the dead, and
He is the One to cause the dead to issue from the living. That is God:
then how are you deluded away from the truth? (Surat al-An'am: 95)
To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth:
It is He Who gives Life and Death; and He has Power over all things. (Surat
|In the scientific understanding of the Middle Ages,
people supposed that living organisms could arise from non-living
materials. For instance, it was thought that maggots which developed
on uncovered meat arose spontaneously. However, this idea was put
to rest first by F. Redi's, then by L. Pasteur's discoveries.
In the Middle Ages, when people had a very limited knowledge of nature,
the view of "abiogenesis" prevailed because of certain erroneous observations.
Those who saw that maggots developed on uncovered meat thought that it
happened "spontaneously". They also supposed that mice appeared spontaneously
in wheat grains kept in storage. This belief, also called "spontaneous
generation", was widely accepted until the 17th century.
Experiments conducted by two important scientists, however, laid the
idea of spontaneous generation in its grave. The first of them was Francisco
Redi. Redi showed, with the experiments he carried out in 1668, that the
maggots that appeared on meat did not form spontaneously, but came from
flies laying their eggs on it. Upon this discovery, the defenders of the
"abiogenesis" idea retreated and claimed that, not big organisms like
maggots or frogs, but invisible microbes were produced from non-living
matter. The debate lingered over the next two centuries. The French biologist
Louis Pasteur finally demonstrated, through a series of experiments, that
microbes could not develop from non-living materials either. Pasteur summed
up his conclusion in the following words:
Can matter organize itself? In other words, can organisms
come into the world without parents, without ancestors? that's the question
to be resolved…. There is no known circumstance today in which one can
assert that microscopic beings have originated without germs.18
Redi and Pasteur had one thing in common: both scientists believed
in the existence of God, and that life was created by Him. Their belief
played a critical role in their recognition of the absurdity of the
idea of abiogenesis. Effectively, while a number of scientists under
the influence of materialism (evolutionists such as Darwin, Haeckel,
etc.) had subscribed to the view of abiogenesis, others, who approached
science with proper insight, realized the fact of "biogenesis".
Evolutionist scientists, however, went on resisting this evident reality.
Their blind devotion to the materialist philosophy drew them into a futile
struggle that would last a century. Two materialist scientists, Alexander
Oparin and J. B. Haldane, introduced the notion of "chemical evolution".
According to Oparin and Haldane, abiogenesis did not take place in a short
time, but happened over a long period. In conflict with certain scientific
laws, foremost among them, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, this claim
led the science-world into a stalemate, contributing to a detrimental
amount of lost of time.
Over the course of the century, a number of scientists conducted experiments
in favor of the chemical evolution hypothesis, or exerted great pains
to support the claim with new theories. Huge laboratories, major institutions,
and university divisions were set into action. All these efforts, however,
ended in failure. Well-known evolutionist Prof. Klaus Dose, the Director
of the Institute of Biochemistry, at Johannes-Gutenberg University, confessed
that all attempts to produce evidence for the claim that non-living materials
produce living matter were inconclusive:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin
of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to
a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of
life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions
on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate
or in a confession of ignorance.19
IIf the science-world had not become obsessed with the idea of "abiogenesis",
a materialist fallacy, all such efforts, conducted in the name of "chemical
evolution", could have been channeled to more productive areas. Had
the scientific community started out by recognizing that life is created
by God, and that our Lord alone has the power to give life, all this wasted
time, money and human resources, could have been avoided. Would
such have been the case, science could concentrate on new discoveries
and research useful to mankind, rather than seeking to prove Ancient Greek
Today, the scientific community has demonstrated that non-living materials
cannot self-organize through random events and then join with other non-living
materials to form perfect and highly complex cells. It has also become
obvious that the millions of life-forms we see around us could not have
formed, as evolutionists claim, from cells that came together accidentally.
Certainly, a rose, a peacock, a tiger, an ant, in other words,
no living being, could have come into existence by the will of unconscious
cells made up of the combination of unconscious atoms.
|Today the scientific community has demonstrated
that non-living materials cannot self-organize through random events,
and then join with other non-living materials to form a perfect and
highly complex living thing. God, the Lord of all worlds, created
all things, and He alone has the power to give life.
A scientist performing extensive studies into these subjects is by no
means a product of the common decision taken by unconscious atoms. It
is certainly impossible for unconscious atoms to develop a fully conscious
In this regard, hundreds of years ago it was related in the Qur'an that
life was created by God from "nothing", that God alone gives life, and
no other being but He has the power to "give life". If science had ascertained
the implications of the facts transmitted by God to mankind, it would
not have "toyed away" in inconclusive research for such a long period