For any observed phenomenon, there can be many possible explanations. A chance-based mechanism could be one explanation. We usually associate chance as being indifferent to purpose, and intelligent design as being with a purpose. When a mechanism appears to be unconcerned with or incognizant of any possible outcome, we term it a chance-based, or random mechanism. In other words, chance is invoked when there appears to be no preference for one particular outcome over another.

While a chance-based mechanism can be one of the possible explanations for a phenomenon, we only consider it seriously when the probability of the proposed mechanism is significant. When the probability is insignificant, we must eliminate this possibility and consider other options. Otherwise, we may fall into what the mathema-tician/philosopher Dembski calls the ‘chance-of-the-gaps’ fallacy:

‘Statistical reasoning must be capable of eliminating chance when the probability of events gets too small. If not, chance can be invoked to explain anything. Scientists rightly resist invoking the supernatural in scientific explanations for fear of committing a god-of-the-gaps fallacy (the fallacy of using God as a stop-gap for ignorance). Yet, without some restriction on the use of chance, scientists are in danger of committing a logically equivalent fallacy’one we may call the ‘chance-of-the-gaps fallacy’. Chance, like God, can become a stop-gap for ignorance.’ [Demski, 98]

To illustrate this principle let us consider three examples. The first is from a movie, related by the same author. The event related concerns the supposed spontaneous combustion of a person.

‘In the movie ‘This is Spinal Tap’, the lead singer remarks that a former drummer in the band died by spontaneously combusting. Any one of us could this instant spontaneously combust if all the most rapidly moving air molecules in our vicinity suddenly converged on us. Such an event, however, is highly improbable, and we don’t give it a second thought.’ [Dembski, 98]

Let us consider two other examples: footprints in the desert and a novel placed next to a typewriter.

Footprints in the Desert

When a bedouin sees camel footprints in the desert, he does not attribute these to chance. He does not think that the wind, by chance, formed those patterns on the sand. Instead, he interprets them as signs that a camel has recently walked along this way. The probability of the chance-based scenario is simply too small. Having seen the patterns characteristic of the wind, the bedouin can be almost sure that the camel explanation is the correct one, even if he has not seen the camel itself.

Novel Placed Next to a Typewriter

Imagine you find a novel left next to a typewriter, next to which sits a monkey. One explanation for who might have written the novel could be that the monkey typed the novel, making words and sentences that make sense, solely by chance. We can view this as a chance-based explanation; up to now we have not witnessed any monkey that can appreciate human literature. To make this explanation more plausible, let us assume that when the monkey completes a page, a human checks the page and if it does not make any sense the page is thrown away. If there were an unlimited supply of paper and ink, and if the monkey were replaced by another monkey when it died, you might expect to see a few lines of meaningful literary work after thousands of generations. In the process you would expect to see mountains of thrown-out pages, containing meaningless sequences of letters. If you knew that the monkey could not live long enough to produce a novel, if you knew that it did not have access to enough paper, or if you could not find any thrown-out pages, you would simply have to eliminate the monkey hypothesis. You would consider other explanations, such as that there was a person who was capable of producing literary work, and this person typed the novel and left it next to the typewriter. The idea that a monkey could produce a novel by typing randomly, without regard to content (i.e. by chance) is simply too small a probability. It is not worthy of serious consideration.

These examples illustrate a general principle; highly improbable and ‘preferred’ (independently specified) patterns cannot be generated by chance-based mechanisms. The footprints in the first example illustrate highly improbable events, and shows us how one arrives at a conclusion by preference or purpose. Since Darwinian evolution relies on chance, there is only one way it can produce the diversity of life found on earth. This can be done by exhausting a significant proportion of the possibilities, producing useless organisms in the process, leaving the remains of the unsuccessful organisms on the way and by eventually producing a useful organism after using up a considerable amount of time, matter and space.

Blind or Not Blind?

Some evolutionists argue that evolutionary algorithms are not the same as a blind search, because they include a fitness function which favors certain outcomes over others. In a way, this imagined ‘fitness function’ evaluates which organisms are the most promising in each generation. To understand the concept of a fitness function, consider the selective breeding of animals. The breeders select the members that have the most desirable properties and continue to breed them. They might breed from only the most fertile chickens or the woolliest sheep and succeed in altering the characteristics of these animals. So, the selection criteria of the breeders can be regarded as a fitness function. However, in the case of selective breeding, the human breeder is the one who defines and applies this function. In the case of Darwinian evolution, there is no room for an intelligent being. So, the imagined fitness function must be a result of the physical laws of the universe. It must be a result of the conditions on earth

What the evolutionary algorithms do is to exploit the information already encoded in the fitness function. So, evolutionary algorithms simply ‘shift’ the problem into a different space. If we assume that this fitness function is a result of the conditions on earth, we have to remember that the conditions on earth are highly improbable and specified. So, if this fitness function is assumed to be capable of design, one must explain how it came to be in the first place. Secondly, this function is ill-defined. Even evolu- tionists themselves have difficulty defining what this function is or how it operates. Various attempts to define this function by evolutionists amount to a tautology in order to justify it. ‘In this formulation, the theory predicts that the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring, and it defines the fittest organisms as the ones which produce the most offspring.’ [Johnson, 91]. Noting this trend, the famous philosopher of science Karl Popper once wrote, ‘some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring.’ Since the fitness function is not well defined, it is also not possible to demonstrate how this function is capable of producing this diversity of life, neither scientifically nor mathematically. In experiments where evolutionary mechanisms were tested, they tend to favor simplicity, whereas in life we see increasing complexity. Limits of the Universe The famous physicist Carl Sagan once said, in reference to evolutionary processes, given enough time, chance will work miracles. While this statement can be true theoretically, one should also consider that chance, given enough time, will produce a disproportionately high ratio of useless outcomes before coming up with a miracle. Furthermore, the universe, as we have observed, has a limited age and a limited amount of matter. So the amount of time that we can assume chance has is limited. The amount of material to be used by the chance-based pro- cesses is also limited. So the next question is, given the age of the universe, the amount of matter in the universe and all the possible sequences of changes that can take place, what is the likelihood of chance producing a single living cell? The answer to this question is important because it will determine whether the chance hypothesis is worthy of our attention. Dembski explains that within the observed universe any probability below a universal probability bound remains improbable, even if it is assumed that all the resources available were exhausted in order to try out all the possibilities. He calculates this number as 10-150, that is 1 over 10 to the 150th power. The details of this calculation and what it means are explained by him as follows:

“It would take at least 1067 times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once.”

In the observable universe, probabilistic resources come in very limited supplies. Within the known physical universe there are estimated to be around 1080 elementary particles. Moreover, the properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 1045 times per second. This frequency corresponds to Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time. Finally, the universe itself is about a billion times younger than 1025 seconds (assuming the universe is between ten and twenty billion years old). If we now assume that any specification of an event within the known physical universe requires at least one elementary particle to specify it and cannot be generated any faster than the Planck time, then these cosmological constraints imply that the total number of specified events throughout cosmic history cannot exceed 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150. It follows that any specified event of probability less than 1 in 10150 will remain improbable even after all conceivable probabilistic resources from the observable universe have been factored in. A probability of 1 in 10150 is therefore a universal probability bound. Implicit in a universal probability bound such as 10-150 is that the universe is too small a place to generate specified complexity by sheer exhaustion of possibilities. Stuart Kauffman develops this theme at length in his book Investigations. In one of his examples (and there are many like it throughout the book), he considers the number of possible proteins of length 200 (i.e., 20200 or approximately 10260) and the maximum number of pairwise collisions of particles throughout the history of the universe (he estimates 10193 total collisions supposing the reaction rate for collisions can be measured in femto seconds). Kauffman concludes: The known universe has not had time since the big bang to create all possible proteins of length 200 [even] once. To emphasize this point, he notes: It would take at least 1067 times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once. [Dembski, 98] It should be noted that the precise value of this universal probability bound is not critical. Even an approximate value is enough to judge a proposed chance-based explanation for an observed phenomenon. Carl Sagan himself estimated the probability of humans evolving from a single living cell as one chance in 102,000,000,000, [Sagan]. Combining this estimate with the universal probability bound discussed above and using common sense, one can easily dismiss the chance hypothesis for the origin of life or for the diversity of life on earth. The Fossil Record Problem Associated with the chance hypothesis, there is also the problem of fossil record which we have not discussed in detail yet in this article. If the chance hypothesis is correct, the failed attempts of the blind processes should vastly outnumber those that are successful. This would imply that in the fossil record we should have found vast numbers of fossils of dysfunctional species compared with a tiny minority of successful species. Just as failed attempts would vastly outnumber successful ones, the fossils of such attempts should reflect the same ratio. While there are signs of extinct species in the fossil record, we do not find a huge record of the fossils of the kind of wild variation we would expect from blind mutations. While the reasons for the extinction of species like dinosaurs are debated, there is agreement that they were successful living organisms during their lifetimes. Conclusion To summarize, when a mathematician calculates the probability of chance producing life on earth, he or she can easily dismiss this explanation because of the aforementioned problems. Life is too complex and intricate. The lifetime of the universe and the amount of matter in it are insufficient to blindly exhaust all possibilities and arrive at the diverse life forms we see on earth. The fossil record does not reflect the ratio of unsuccessful attempts to successful ones we would expect from chance hypothesis. When presented with the chance-based theory of evolution, an objective mathematician would thus feel obliged to say, Either you have to shut off my intellect or I cannot accept this hypothesis. Life must be the product of an intelligent Designer who is All-Wise, Omniscient, Omnipotent and cognizant of what He is doing. The mathematician would thus come to the same conclusion as an unlettered bedouin, who is nevertheless a careful observer and a solid thinker: Camel droppings point to the existence of a camel. Footprints on the sand tell of a traveler. The heaven with its stars, the earth with its mountains and valleys, and the sea with its waves – do they not all point to the Maker, All-Powerful, Knowing, Wise and Caring?

References

• [Darwin, 93] Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin 8, 1860 Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• [Dembski, 98] William A. Dembski, The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998.
• [Dembski, 99] William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, Ill., 1999.
• [Johnson, 91] Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington DC, 1991.
• [Khan] Khan, M., trans. Sahih Al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings. Darussalam Publishers: 1997.
• [Sagan] Carl Sagan, F. H. C. Crick, L. M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 45-46.
• [Siddiqui] Siddiqi, A. H., trans. Sahih Muslim. Kitab Bhavan: 2000.
• [Harf] Harf Information Technology. Hadith Encyclopedia. Egypt: 1996. [Words] Nursi, S. The Words. The Light, Inc.: 1997.

In the West, the theory of evolution continues to be promoted as if it were a proven fact or a secure, testable and tested law-something that no-one in their right minds questions any more. This presentation implies that there is no room, let alone any need, for discussion. The most common media cliché is that the evolutionary chain has been confirmed yet again by yet another discovery of the missing link proving human ancestry from apes. Faced with this kind of promotion and presentation, and the sheer pervasiveness of it, it is no surprise if non-specialists come to accept that the theory must be true, and that it must be accepted by all the specialists, the whole scientific community, with no serious doubters. However, that perception is far from the reality. In the first place, the theory lacks completeness on two major counts and there is no likelihood of these deficiencies ever being made up. In the second, there are major voices of dissent from within the scientific community, alongside alternative theoretical explanations which demonstrate a far superior conformity with observed or experimentally obtained data.

The origin of life

To have any enduring claim to viability the theory of evolution must explain the origin of life in its own terms. It must be able to answer the question, ‘How did life evolve from non-living forms?’ It needs also to explain how the notion of ‘selection for survival’ operates before life exists, to explain how ‘life’ is the best way for non-living forms to exist longer. Just as the theory tells us that, because rhinoceroses with the thickest skin did best in battles with other rhinoceroses, over aeons of time rhinoceroses evolved skins as thick as skins can possibly get while still functioning as skins-so too, it needs to tell us how life is an adaptation. If it is, what is it an adaptation to? Moreover, if life is an adaptation, why is it the same across the whole range of living forms (animal or plant or in-between)? We have innumerable varieties of living forms (adapted, we are told, to different conditions of climate and competition for food resources) but we do not have different varieties of being alive. Is that what we should expect? Should we not expect that the creatures who lived longest (and had offspring the least often) would have out-survived all competition, until eventually they lived so long it was for ever? Or, vice-versa that those who lived the shortest lives (and therefore had more offspring more often) eventually fell back, after aeons of trial and proof, into hardly being alive at all individually, but merely replicating themselves? In fact, of course, the same climate and conditions of competition for food resources support both relatively long- and relatively short-lived forms at every level of complexity and thoroughly intermingled within even the same individual life-form.

Life rests upon an infinitely precarious equilibrium among the proteins, the building blocks of life, found in the simplest to the most complex of living forms. Denying the existence of a conscious Creator, the theory of evolution cannot explain how this equilibrium was established and protected. The theory proposes chance and coincidence as the only scientific way to think about the question. But a scientific way of looking at a problem must have at least some likelihood of being true, if we are to expend energy fruitfully on verifying or falsifying it. In other words, a hypothesis must be reasonable to start with so that we can test and judge it. It must not be irrational: the appeal to chance and random coincidences is nothing if not an abandonment of reason. A protein is made up of the combination of on average 1000-1500 aminoacids in 20 different types in a certain sequence. Even a single error in that sequence renders the protein useless. There is zero probability of this happening by chance, not even if the universe is billions of light-years wide and long. One of the foremost advocates of evolution, the Russian scientist A.I. Oparin confesses this impossibility in his book The Origin of Life (pp.132-133). Even the simplest of these materials (proteins), consisting of thousands of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms, each with a unique design presents highly sophisticated structure. For those who study the structure of the proteins, it is as hopeless for these proteins to have formed by chance as for the Aeneid (the long Latin epic by Virgil) to have been composed by random association of the letters of the Latin alphabet.

Another evolutionist scientist has offered a different analogy with the same conclusion. The probability of a chance formation of only one of the proteins required for life (Cytochrome-C) may be likened to the probability of a monkey writing out the history of humanity by randomly pushing the keys of a typewriter.

What evolution theory defends is exactly this nonsensical assertion. Yet, the examples above are only the probability calculations for the chance formation of a single protein. However, millions of similar impossible coincidences should have been realized consecutively in order for the evolution of life to be effected.

The probability of chance formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is a low as zero. If life requires that certain sequence, it is likely to be realized only once in the whole life-time and space of the universe. Now it could be proposed that some metaphysical power(s) beyond our definition consciously enabled its formation. But to entertain such a proposition is, apparently, not appropriate for the modern enterprise of science. Therefore we have to fall back on the first hypothesis as the best we have at present.

If, as it appears, the theory of evolution is not justified by the information we have, how does it survive? Has questioning it become, among the specialists, a taboo which they violate at the risk of their reputation and their careers? If so, why? We will return to this question.

The problem of transitional forms

Another of many difficulties with the theory of evolution is that the theory requires there to exist or have existed in the past transitional forms. For example, if the theory claims, as it does, that life originated in the sea and then sea creatures were driven (by some force, let us say, a climatic change like a fall in sea-level) to move on to dry land, the theory must produce evidence (or at least convincing argument) of the transitional forms between the sea-creatures and the land-creatures they evolved into. Our present experience of, for example, fish, is that if they come out of the water, they very quickly die. We have no reason to believe that fish were so radically different aeons ago from what they are now. If anything, the evidence is all the other way: that fish as fish were the same then as now. So how could enough of them have lived long enough in shallow-water or no-water to establish in their gene pool the skill to evolve gills into lungs? Nobody can say that maybe some of these fish happened to acquire a lung at the end of the four-millionth year while they were in the throes of death. It is entirely nonsensical. But this nonsense is exactly what the evolutionists assert. The same problem arises when we look for transitional forms between land-bound reptiles and flying birds.

Some allegedly extinct intermediate transitional forms have turned out to exemplify only the temptations of forgery and distortion in the service of falsehood into which some scientists have allowed themselves to fall. For instance, the fish Coelacanth (Rhipitistian Crossopterigian) presented by evolutionists as a transitional form between marine and land creatures, and supposedly extinct about 70 million years ago, was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since in the open seas. Furthermore, the organs that prompted the evolutionists to present the coelacanth as the transitional intermediate form (inner ear alcoves, head typed backbone and swimming bag), do not have these properties at all. The same is true for other fossils presented as transitional intermediate forms. The well-known nature scientist A.H. Clark acknowledges that, since we have no single evidence indicating a transition between fossils and living groups, we must accept that such transitional forms never existed.

A well-known genetic and evolutionist, Richard B. Goldschimdt admits that there is no such a thing as the transitional intermediate form. He explains the differences in species by sudden leaps. Now to say that a species originated all of a sudden is tantamount to saying that it was consciously originated or ‘created’. Although the evolutionists are embarrassed on scientific platforms, they do not have a hard time deceiving the ordinary person in the street, because the theory is so well-packaged. You draw an imaginary schema representing transition from water from land, you invent Latin words for the animal in water, and for its descendant on land, and you draw sketches of both (both wholly imaginary constructs), and the package is completed or, as we should rather say, fabricated. ‘Eusthenopteron transformed into first Rhipitistian Crossoptergian, then lchthyostega in a long evolution process.’ If you put these words in the mouth of a scientist with thick glasses and a white apron, you are half way to convincing most people. For the great many people who see reality through the media packaging of it, this kind of presentation is good enough to be truth: it is easy to believe, it makes no demand on consciousness, or reason, or conscience: we are all here by chance, we are not here by the will of a Creator to Whom we are answerable.

The most common package is, inevitably, the one that relates to

human beings. A central feature is the string of related sketches (all imaginary constructions) of an all-ape, three-quarters-ape, half-ape/half-man figure, gradually ending in a drawing that looks more or less like a European male of average build and features. This is offered as our story, our beginning long ago, our present being now. This string of sketches will be found on virtually every classroom wall, from primary schools to secondary schools and in every popular textbook or encyclopaedia which touches upon the subject, and in the form of stuffed exhibits in every science museum in the West.

In these drawings, half-ape half-human creatures are seen as a family. Having a hairy body, a slightly bent walking posture, and a face in between a man and an ape, these creatures are supposedly drawn from the fossils found by the evolutionist scientists. But the fossils found give information only about the bone structure and skeleton, and examination of the teeth will reveal information about the probable range of diet.

The fossils tell us nothing at all about how hairy the body was that hung upon those bones, nor what kind of nose, ears, lips or hair would once have rested upon the particular skull. But the evolutionists’ sketches picture do, almost always, show the organs like nose, lips and ears, and these are drawn (to fit the theory) and do indeed show something half-man, half-ape. This is not science, it is fiction or, more precisely, it is myth. Another support for this fiction, and another proof that it is fiction, is that the same bundle of bones can give be made to give rise to quite different re-constructions, depending upon the particular theorist’s preference: for example, the three totally unlike re-constructions of the fossil called Australoplthecus Robustus (Zinjanthropus). There is certainly a power behind these presentations of the theory, but it is not the power of reason disciplined by facts and evidence, but the power of myth-making imagination inspired by a particular ideology.

The ideological background to the theory

In order to understand why the evolution theory is promoted and defended so insistently, we need to look to the historical background behind it. Until the modern period, the intellectual life of Europe was basically subject to the authority of the Church. Starting from the 16th century, the order justified and underpinned by the authority of religious beliefs and principles started to conflict with the interests of certain social groups. Acquiring great wealth through commerce but having no political power, these groups began a long struggle to limit the authority of the Church. They did so not only on the political and social fronts but also on the philosophical front: religious beliefs and the authority of religion had to be weakened before the social-political system underpinned by religion could be radically reformed. Almost all the 18th century ‘enlightenment’ intellectuals and 19th century positivists came from these secularising groups and were funded and supported by them. (The French Revolution was the biggest single social transformation realized by their machinations.)

The space opened by the weakening or elimination of religious beliefs was filled by new ideologies generated by the same social groups. The first ideology was liberalism, followed by socialism which developed as a reaction to it. Later came fascism meddled with racism. Despite containing some opposing ideas, these ideologies were all by-products of the new secular system and stood on the same anti-religionist ground. None of them spoke of the man’s responsibility before his Creator or the obligation to organize personal and collective life according to His guidance. Conversely, the principles that necessitated belief in religion were harmful to the new ideologies. One of the most important of these principles is that man was created, as the Church had always held (following the same belief in Judaism), by God in His own image, for the purpose of doing His will and worshipping Him.

It was very noteworthy that communism, the most radical and outspokenly anti-religious of the modern ideologies, showed a particular zeal for the theory of evolution. Karl Marx wrote of Darwin’s Origin of Species in a letter to his comrade Friedrich Engels (dated December 18, 1860) that this book presented the natural-historical basis for their critique of capitalism (Marx and Engels’ Letters, vol.2, p.426).

Darwinism laid the basis for fascism which is one of the by-products of the new secular order. Holding some human races superior to the others, this notion proposed that some races were in advance of others in the evolutionary process. This trend called Social Darwinism inspired many racists from Arthur de Gobineau to Adolf Hitler. Darwin himself prepared the ground for racism by proposing that the white man was more advanced in evolutionary terms.

Besides communism and fascism, the capitalist ideology dominant in the Western world and now in nearly the whole world, needs people to believe in evolution. To undermine people’s commitment to religion and moral principles, to reduce their aspirations and relationships to merely economic ones, it was necessary to convince them that man was not created by God as a morally responsible being. It is very noteworthy that major capitalist dynasties like Rockefeller and Carnegie come first among those who have granted funds and other support to the flourishing of Darwinism in the U.S.A. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, in their book The Hidden History of the Human Race, explain how the Carnegie Institution was virtually aiming for the victory of the scientific cosmological vision over the old religious cosmologies. The Rockefeller Foundation supports the same materialist cosmology and serves the mission of ‘modern civilization’, aiming to confine the concepts of God and spirit to the mythology museum. The evolution propaganda promoted in the distinguished media organs of the West, and reputable science journals is a consequence of this ideological requirement.

Conclusion

No ideological program, whatever the illusions of its supporters, and whatever their means of promoting and packaging their untruths, can survive for ever. Precisely because man is God’s creature, made for nobility of being and action, he must and will seek truth, albeit temporarily deviated.

All the information revealed by modern biology shows that the origin of life, especially the molecular structure of living creatures, cannot be explained by coincidence in any way. The transcendent consciousness ruling over the whole universe is the ultimate evidence of God’s existence. As a matter of fact, some eminent names in microbiology have come to the point where they cannot defend evolution any longer. Instead, another theory has begun to get a long overdue hearing among these scientists: the theory of conscious design. The scientists defending it remark that it is very evident that life has been created by a conscious designer.

Following the classical Newtonian physics and under the spell of developments in science, physicists of the 19th century claimed that they could explain every phenomenon in the universe. E. Dubois Reymond, at a meeting held in memory of Leibniz in the Prussian Academy in 1880 was a bit humbler: ‘There have remained eight enigmas in the universe, three of which we are unable to solve yet: The essential nature of matter and force, the essence and origin of movement and the nature of consciousness. The three of the rest that we can solve although with great difficulties are: The origin of life, the order in the universe and the apparent purpose for it and the origin of thought and language. As for the seventh, we can say nothing about it. It is the individual free will (quoted in A. Adivar, Ilim ve Din (Science and Religion), Istanbul 1980, p. 282).

The sub-atomic world threw all scientists into confusion. This world and the ‘quantum cosmology’ which it introduces, rather than being a heap or assemblage of concrete things, is made up of five elements: the mass of the electron in the field where an action occurs (M), the mass of the proton (m), the electrical charge which these two elements carry, the energy quanta (h)-the amount of the energy remaining during the occurrence of the action-and the unchanging speed of light (c). These five elements of the universe can even be reduced to action or energy waves travelling through space in tiny packets or quanta. Since the quanta required for an action are special to it and exist independently of the quanta required for the previous action, it becomes impossible to predict the exact state of the universe. If the universe is in t1 state now, it cannot be predicted that it will be the same in t2 state. Paul Renteln, assistant professor of physics at California State University, writes: ‘Modern physicists live in two different worlds. In one world we can predict the future position and momentum of a particle if we know its present position and momentum. This is the world of classical physics, including the physics described by Einstein’s theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity. In the second world it is impossible to predict the exact position and momentum of a particle. This is the probabilistic, subatomic world of quantum mechanics. General relativity and quantum mechanics are the two great pillars that form the foundation of 20th-physics, and yet their precepts assume two different kinds of universe.’ (American Scientist, Nov.-Dec, 1991, p.508)

The real nature of this sub-atomic world and the events taking place in it make it impossible to construct a theory to describe them, because they cannot be observed. One reason for their unobservability is that, as Renteln writes in an attempt to propose a theory which he calls quantum gravity to reconcile the two different worlds of classical and quantum physics, ‘the events take place at a scale far smaller than any realm yet explored by experimental physics. It is only when particles approach to within about 10-35 meter that their gravitational interactions have to be described in the same quantum-mechanical terms that we adopt to understand the other forces of nature. This distance is 1024 times smaller than the diameter of an atom-which means that the characteristic scale of quantum gravity bears the same relation to the size of an atom as an atom bears to the size of the solar system. To probe such small distances would require a particle accelerator 1015 times more powerful than the proposed Superconducting Supercollider.’

At the outset of this century, electrons surrounding the nucleus of an atom were thought to orbit the nucleus like planets in a miniature solar system. However, later researches modified that view. The electron is now understood to be more of an energy field cloud fluctuating around a nucleus. The nucleus itself seemed to be composed of two smaller constituents-protons and neutrons. However, in the 1960s, physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig confirmed by experiments that protons and neutrons were made up of even more elementary particles, which Gell-Mann called ‘quarks.’

Quarks cannot be seen, not just because they are too small but also because they do not seem to be quite ‘all there.’ Quarks are better described as swirls of dynamic energy, which means that solid matter is not, at its fundamental level, solid at all. Anything you hold in your hand and which seems solid, is really a quivering, shimmering, lacy lattice of energy, pulsating millions of times every second as billions of fundamental particles gyrate and spin in an eternal dance. At its most fundamental level, everything is energy held together by forces of incredible power. This is not all that makes us unable to predict even the nearest future of the universe. According to Werner Heisenberg’s theories, at just the time when we can know either where a particle is or how fast it is travelling, we cannot know both. This is because the very act of measuring the particle alters its behaviour. Measuring the particle’s speed changes its position, and measuring its position changes its speed. 

However, the unpredictability in the sub-atomic world does not change anything in our everyday, predictable world. Everything works according to the basic laws of classical Newtonian physics. Why is this so and how should our view of the world and events be? Scientists who believe in the existence of God and His creation of the universe suggest that creation was not a single event. That is, God did not create the universe as a single act and then leave it to operate according to the laws He established. Rather, creation is a continuous act (creatio continua). In other words, roughly like the movement of energy or electricity and its illuminating our world by means of bulbs, existence continuously comes from God and returns to and perishes in Him. Through the manifestation of all His Names, God continuously creates, annihilates and re-creates the universe. Some medieval Muslim scholarly saints such as Muhy al-Din ibn al- ‘Arabi and Mawlana Jalal al-Din al-Rumi called these pairs of acts as the continuous cycle of coming into existence and dying. Because of the incredible speed of this movement, the universe appears to be uniform and continuous. Rumi likens this to the fast spinning of a staff on one end of which there is fixed a light. When spun at speed, the light on the end of the staff appears as if a circle of light. Unable to explain the extreme complexity of existence and the events taking place, some scientists assert that everything is in chaos and attribute the formation of the universe as it is to mere chance. According to them, other universes could have formed, they simply did not, and there is no reason that the universe is the way it is. Given that it is impossible for even three or more unconscious things moving at random to come together by themselves to form even the simplest entity, it is highly questionable whether a rational person can accept that the wonderful order prevailing in the universe according to which we can direct our lives can be explained without attributing it to a supernatural intellect. A. Cressy Morrison writes:

The proverbial penny may turn up heads ten time running and the chance of an eleventh is not expected but is still one in two, but the chance of a run of ten heads is very small. Suppose you have a bag containing one hundred marbles, ninety-nine black and one white. Shake the bag and let out one. The chance that the first marble out is the white one is exactly one in one hundred. Now put the marbles back and start over again. The chance of the white coming out is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white coming out first twice in succession is one in ten thousand. Now try a third time, and the chance of the white coming out three times in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one in a billion. Try another time or two and the figures become astronomical. The results of chance are as closely bound by law as the fact that two and two make four. All the nearly exact requirements of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the thickness of the earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of carbon dioxide, the volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his survival-all point to order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to the fact that, according to the inexorable laws of mathematics, all these could not occur by chance simultaneously on one planet once in a billion times. It could so occur, but it did not so occur. (Man Does Not Stand Alone, New York, pp.98-9.)

Attributing the impossible to chance is a trick of the human mind, its stubborn resistance, which confuses a theoretical possibility with the actual facts. For example, it is possible that the Pacific Ocean has now changed into milk, but actually it has not. As it is impossible to construct a building on a flowing stream, God Almighty spread over the unpredictability of the sub-atomic world the veil of the speed of its movement and made the universe dependent on what we call laws. It is for this reason that everything in the outer face of nature works according to the basic laws of classical Newtonian physics. However, it is a matter of controversy between the two schools of Ahl al-Sunna wa ‘l-Jama’a whether the universe has a continuous existence working according to established laws and things accordingly have perpetual properties or God continuously creates the universe and orders each component of it what to do at every moment. The followers of the Maturidi School assert that God created the universe and set it to operate according to certain laws which He established, giving each thing certain properties. For example, fire burns because God gave it the quality of burning. Whereas, the followers of the Ash’ari School maintain that the universe does not have a perpetual, established existence and reality. Nor do things have essential qualities of themselves. God creates the universe anew each ‘moment’ and directs it continuously by ordering each thing to do what it must do. For example, fire does not essentially have the quality of burning, rather, God gives it the order to burn and it burns. Since according to the dictates of life in the universe, He usually orders it to burn, we think that fire essentially has the quality of burning.

As we accept the ‘relative’ truth of both Newtonian and quantum physics at the same time, we can also accept the truth of the views of both schools of Muslim faith. As a matter of belief and as life at the most fundamental level of existence as in the sub-atomic world points out, God is continuously active, creating the universe anew and directly administering it. While at practical level, life will be impossible for us if we do not accept or assume the uniform continuity or stability of existence. What would life be if we were conscious that the sun would not rise tomorrow morning or that we might not live a second longer, although it is theoretically conceivable both that the sun might not rise tomorrow and that we might not survive a second longer?