It is uncommon that we observe the background details of a well-produced film or notice the subtle masterpieces behind a state-of-the-art play. Aside from those that are very observant, these elements usually only come into view when production experiences a horrible mishap, perhaps if an actor’s costume is ruined or they forget their lines. The same can be said for the quiet mechanisms and systems, which our lives are dependent on, on a daily basis, namely our organs and their exceptionally complex makeup that we often take for granted. This issue aims to take a deep look at some of the processes that affect us every day that we usually do not think about.

Modern medicine is perhaps one of the greatest blessings of our time, as synthetic drugs are able to cure complex diseases in previously unknown ways. These medicines undergo intense research, testing, and scrutiny before being released to the general public. We quickly rush to the doctor’s office and pop a few pills when we feel ill, yet we rarely ponder over highly exhausting and costly process of developing these drugs.

Our hearts never rest from the moment we are born to the day we die. This organ we don’t usually think about pumps onwards multiple times per minute and allows us to perform our daily functions. In her piece in this issue, Ceyda Sablak reminds us how delicate the anatomy of this organ is and why we should maintain a healthy, balanced life of physical and spiritual activity, as many spiritual masters have seen a connection between our biological heart and our spiritual well-being.

Stem cell research has been a common point of discussion, debate, and controversy in the past few decades. Researchers argue that they possess an almost endless number of possibilities while advocates argue that they are derived in an unethical manner. The science behind them is fascinating, and the potential that they possess is undoubtedly inspiring.

Lastly, it turns out that our tears are integral to keeping our eyes healthy and itch-free. A lack of tears can result in a multitude of annoying and harmful disorders that can severely affect a person’s life. Searches have been underway to find the perfect “alternative tear” for those that suffer from tear related disorders. Who would have thought that something so simple contributes so much to our normal happiness and peace?

Various studies exist about these compartments – which controls the expression of the soul through the body, which is responsible for memory, intelligence, belief, hatred and love. The brain’s two hemispheres have different functions and specialize in different areas. For example, linguistic abilities and tongue functions are usually controlled by the left hemisphere, while musical abilities and the ability to comment and analyze complex images are controlled by the right hemisphere. However, it is not possible to state that the forebrain functions independently from the hemispheres of the brain. The Wernicke’s area, located on the upper tail of the temporal lobe, is responsible for language comprehension, and the Angular Gyrus that is a mediator between sound and vision, is responsible for linguistic and mathematical operations. For this reason, the Angular Gyrus is accepted to be related with superior consciousness and intelligence. Scientists have proven that intelligence and consciousness decrease more dramatically upon the destruction of these areas when compared to the destruction of the forebrain. Therefore, for the spiritual functions to be able to operate in the body, it’s essential that these areas of the brain function.

The more accepted view, at least today, is that spiritual characteristics and personality function independent of the brain. A convincing proof disregarding this view is that during many tumor surgeries, even though the body’s vital activities remain intact, after removing tissue from the brain, spiritual characteristics sometimes degrade. Another proof is the surgery performed to remove the forebrain of depressed patients (a prefrontal lobotomy). The patients vital activities were not disrupted upon surgery and their mood improved for a while. For a short amount of time, patients stopped suffering from serious neurological and psychiatric disturbances. However, when the patients were observed several years after the surgery, it was concluded that the patients lacked the functions of the forebrain and these surgeries were abandoned. The most prevalent side effects related to the removal of the forebrain were:

• Loss of the ability to solve complex social problems,
• Loss of the ability to take sequential steps in order to resolve a complex problem,
• Loss of the ability to multitask,
• Loss of determination, effort and desire to do activities,
• Loss of the ability for a community response when faced with a problem,
• Loss of ethical values and the feeling of shame,
• Loss of coherent thought even though the ability to speak and understand what is said is not lost,
• Instant emotional changes: from kindness to frustration, passion, violence and insanity,
• Inability to use artistic or naturally existing talents for the sake of a purpose.

These dysfunctions made it apparent that there was a correlation between the forebrain and spiritual characteristics.

Single neurons, not from the human brain, were inoculated in the lab and an experiment was carried out.. Studies showed that these neurons were not a means to highly intellectual capabilities, such as intelligence; whereas when neurons taken from the forebrain were inoculated and experimented on, it was found that they were a means to uniquely human capabilities like intelligence. Complex problem solving and the capacity to make discoveries were found to be correlated with the forebrain. It is not possible to explain such a fact without taking the soul into consideration. Spiritual characteristics such as sadness, happiness, joy, peace, patience, compassion, and love are all the results of complex interactions within the brain. However, it is not convincing to say that they are only results of electrical or chemical interactions within the brain.

The prefrontal area is where all thoughts coming from lower brain areas (such as sight, hearing, and feeling cortex areas, and the thalamus and hypothalamus) are gathered and processed to be enriched. Many information and memories gathered from different parts of the brain come together in the prefrontal area to be synthesized into deeper thoughts. Active memory is when different pieces of information are synthesized together and form a thought; and this thought is later acted upon. This allows to accurately surmise future events, and to plan for them.

It also allows for a rapid, appropriate response to the signals gathered by the five sensory channels. It allows for predicting the consequences of actions before performing them and for resolving problems of a complex medical, mathematical, ethical, moral, or philosophical basis. It can also postpone emotional responses for an appropriate time, measure the consequences of verbal and physical communications, use will power to measure the ethical and moral consequences of actions, and use information gathered from all channels to diagnose a problem. People who have damaged prefrontal cortexes, have serious difficulty synthesizing information and processing it to form coherent thoughts (active memory). This situation shows us that the prefrontal cortex enables consciousness and highly intellectual actions.

Another function of the prefrontal cortex is to enable focus about a specific topic. Taking this into consideration, the prefrontal cortex is semi related to attention. An existing proof for this is that people with damaged prefrontal cortexes are unable to concentrate and their focus is easily disturbed. Individuals whose prefrontal cortex has been removed or damaged can acquire a spiritual consciousness; however due to their handicap, they are unable to express their thoughts in a serial and sensible fashion for more than a minute. They can be easily distracted from the original subject. The prefrontal cortex allows an individual to accomplish a process of thought despite distractions, and allows for communication between the soul and the mind.

To sum it up, the prefrontal cortex is correlated with intellectual characteristics such as consciousness, intelligence, and self control, and also relates to how well we perform our moral values. For example, if the prefrontal cortex is unable to function, the individual does not feel shame anymore. This makes people believe shame is related only to the prefrontal cortex. However, the brain is merely a bridge between the body and the soul. Our brain is a bridge and curtain for our soul, which is the source of our spiritual characteristics. When we physically have a problem with our brain, the soul carries on its existence as before, however it is unable to express its consciousness, intellect, and will power in this material world.

What are complex systems?

If there are multiple elements (variables/factors) interacting with each other in the creation of an event or a being, this structure is called a “Complex System.” For example, in the air system, air and water molecules are a factor. Plants and animals in an ecosystem can also be considered as a factor. These are interconnected to one another in a way hard to imagine and have impacts on each other. Systems with these specifications display complex situations throughout time. For example in the medical field, a disease is described multi-factorial if many factors (causes) take part in its development. However in the past, these laws, specifications, and progress-dependent patterns of the multifactor diseases had to be overlooked due to the lack of a suitable paradigm to study with. But today, with the complex system paradigm, we have a greater access to the inner dynamics of these multi-factor diseases.

Multi-factor systems in terms of structure and function exhibit complex features during the process. Thus, complicated features of a complex system have been found to be dependent on the “Force Law” when investigated with the complex system paradigm. They also establish the basis for principles and laws that are occurring coincidentally. According to the Force Law, in all complex systems, small scale changes occur in greater numbers, and larger scale changes happen less often. This state corresponds to the same direct line, when plotted on the x-y plane logarithmically with scale of changes versus chances of events being created. This indeed results in the stability of the system in the macroscale and yet reveals the variability and instability of the microscale. In other words, the state of the macrosystem is put forth momentarily by selection among many micro incidents, which, for believers, is an indication of an ultimate Divine will in possession of infinite power. The information level, energy and interaction strength of such events or beings plays a great role in the possible selection of micro incidents in the grand scheme of causes.

Complex systems that become visible via space-time river also enters a dynamic cycle which is composed of sub-critical, critical, and super critical states. In this way, events and existence become subjected to newer manifestations or degrees of glory, as for believers, life and existence are artworks of God and His Divine attributes in the visible universe, which resembles a drawing board. Living things display an adaptive and dynamic character along with being a complex system. Healthy processes in the human body display adaptive dynamic complex system properties yet exhibit complex behaviors that bring system down like cancer as well. The medical world in recent years have been referring to cancer more so than before because of undetermined factors in its development, hardships encountered during diagnosis and treatment; as cancer is a multi-factored disease, it is necessary to look at cancer with the complexity lens.

The science of complex systems which studies multidimensional and multifactor relations states that in each complex system there are common features, and that these features can also be observed in cancer just like in all other scientific fields and in all scales. The following will focus on the subject since cancer makes a good metaphor in understanding complex systems of behavior.

In complex systems, a whole system means more than the total value of its factors. This principle emphasizes that properties of events and beings that are the sum of many separate factors do not exist in separate units or tend to disappearas each part is handled more individually. The deduction-reduction examples of a peacock coming out of an egg, a tree growing from a seed, and water that consists of various elements are used as metaphors to explain matters that pertain to belief and bear complex system properties. There are many genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, internal and external factors in ontogeny of cancer, however it only develops with the interaction of these elements and differentiates from regular cells. According to widely accepted views, in order for a cell to become cancerous, it is not enough for it to undergo many genetic mutations on its own. The few mutations that take place in a specific order alongside other epigenetic factors could lead to a tumor and cause a “system death” which means much more than the total value of components. That is why death occurs systematically in humans-cell death, tissue death, organ death, system death (excretion and transport) and death of organism.

All complex systems not only have a specific perimeter but they also remain a part of this boundary. This feature brings attention to the fact that there is even a relation between the Sun and and eye of a mosquito. Cancer starts out with a single cell made up of specific inner parameters, in a particular placement within a tissue. It is not possible for a cancerous cell to proliferate for a long time and cause the death of an individual all by itself. It can cause death as a result of communication with surrounding cells, conversion of these into cancerous types, and dispersion through blood vessels into other organs.

Inhibition or the delay of these stages makes up the most significant strategic approaches of the therapy. Because of this, while a cancerous cell is programmed to change its surrounding it also begins utilizing the nutrient sources of surrounding live cells for itself, as if trying to resolve an optimization problem, and causes disruption in the system by displacing other cells with an uncontrolled proliferation potential. This incident points out that there is no such thing as a “minor” in complex systems.

In complex systems, the more diversity exists within a system, the more powerful the system becomes. This principle brings attention to maintenance contingency and sustainability of the system and the conditions that pertain to it, for the lifespan of complex systems correlates directly with the abundance and diversity encompassed in it. This viewpoint could be observed in the case of a normal cell turning malignant. A mature tumor is a group of differentiated cell types that can provide interaction with neighboring cells through intra- and inter-cellular structures (matrix). That is why one of the characteristics of cancer is progress-dependent heterogenity at a cellular level. Because of this reason, although there is only one cancerous cell at the beginning, it can divide into different populations in time. Each population can be considered as an independent (sub-population) population since each has a specific genetic composition. This diversity is one of the major sources of problems in cancer treatment.

A continued relationship of factors with each other in a complex system has critical importance regarding system survival. Metastasis of a tumor not only depends on relations with surrounding cells but at the same time relies on the stimulation of blood vessel synthesis factors (angiogenesis). Two events are required for the dispersal of cancer cells freely; the first is the reduced interaction with other cancer cells. This can be possible with regulation of cell-to-cell connection molecules (adhesion). Second is the formation of new blood vessels via stimulation to connect with the bloodstream from the vicinity of the tumor. Finally, cancer cells that have reached their target of joining the blood stream should be able to leave the circulation, penetrate the new tissue, and manage to grow again. Metastasis is a situation for cancer cells to regulate limiting factors according to their new conditions to survive.

Behaviors in complex systems which display more features (emergent situation) that are not present in the units or even in the total value of constituents are plentiful and complicated, yet principles as causes behind these rich motifs are simple and determine the function of the system. Cancer disease arises from the execution of three simple basic principles of interaction, proliferation, and dispersion in cancerous cells. Interaction, proliferation, and dispersion do result in a healthy cell if it happens properly in the correct place, time, and dosage; otherwise it results in a cancerous cell. These three principles can cause cancer as a complex system disease or a healthy life which also displays characters of a complex system. Critical factors that control the management of these principles are location, position, timing, and dosage.

In complex systems, minor scale changes in initial conditions can lead to major effects after a certain amount of time, like a small snowball getting bigger as it rolls. Metaphorically, this situation is called the “butterfly effect” which assumes the possibility of a hurricane in one part of the world resulting from a complex chain of events starting with the strokes of a butterfly in another far corner of the world. Most of the adaptive complex systems are called “self-organized systems” in the scientific jargon, however these may exhibit such behaviors that are hard to overlook and believers would attribute to Divine guidance rather than to their so-called self-organization capacity. These systems organized with Divine guidance reach a “critical state” at the end. One of the models that were developed to explain this critical state is called the “sand pile model.” The system is named sub-critical when sand particles start to pile up on a surface, since at this stage the system is not affected from the fall of the next sand particle. As sand particles pile up, they reach a critical state in which every new particle added to the pile can lead to one of the following: 1. Nothing will happen; this is called the super-critical state. Particle can stay on top or roll down to the bottom of the pile. 2. Particles that hit the top of the pile affect other particles and can cause a small avalanche. 3. Sand pieces hit the top and cause some displacement of other particles. These displaced particles successively can cause a bigger avalanche.

This bigger avalanche again restores the system back into a sub-critical level. All complex systems arrive at these stations of sub-critical, critical, super-critical and again sub-critical successively in the flow of time. At each station they are dressed with a form of existence corresponding to a different macroscopic situation. So the outcome of the next situation is contingent on the mean average of microstates and thus points to a manipulator, who wills it to be that way. As a result, a minor event can lead to a “point of no return,” a stage called catastrophe, a super-critical state. These stages result in the continuum of the universe as it transforms and renews itself. A cancer cell also stops by the above mentioned stations and step by step, like a snowball turning into an avalanche, it can impact the whole body after reaching the super-critical stage, and lead to death. That is why early diagnosis (made during sub-critical or critical level) increases the chances of treatment, yet late diagnosis (at super-critical level) decreases therapy outcomes.

There is no hierarchical chain of command or control of causes on each other in complex systems. In other words, not only is there not a single factor in control of the system, but also a great number of factors function in a nonlinear mode of interaction. The development and progression of cancer as a complex system is controlled through interaction of internal and external factors, genetic, epigenetic, physical and metaphysical, tangible and intangible elements. Initial conditions that prepare the basis for cancer progress does exist in human genome, for genes that play a role whether in development, suppression, or regulation of cancer are built in the human genomic library from the beginning. Embryonic development is maintained with proper activation of these regulatory genes in the correct time and place during pregnancy. However, same genes may initiate cancer if not properly expressed in the right time, place, and level after birth. Moreover, all the factors that the zygote is left exposed to during its interaction with the surroundings leave a mark (memory) on the system. This is called “system exposition.”

Exposition forms microstates that will lead to positive/negative development of the organism through interaction with genetic and epigenetic memory of the system. That is why programmed cell death is put in place to eliminate damaged and dysfunctional cells that form in the system.

Cancer, as a consequence of progress-dependent corresponding interaction of genome and system exposition, is a system that can display chaotic behavior. Because of this, spiritual factors as well as physical ones may cause a “butterfly effect” in development of cancer and there is no single center of command that is designed to control each of these in the causation chain. This being the case, one cannot help but wonder how causes can comply with the force law of all complex systems and that they share common features without a hierarchical command on each other.

Each complex system is composed of holographic sub-systems. The human body is an ecosystem of various systems placed within each other. The well-being of the ecosystem depends on proper interaction and health of these sub-systems. A tumor can be considered as a local ecosystem (sub-system) where various species and clones exist in a human ecosystem. While each tumor grows, there are living and dead clone populations in it. One billion elements exist in a tumor as small as 1 cm3 (1 gr). If we omit cell death, this corresponds to the 35th generation of an abnormal cell. Ten more generations later this reaches one trillion cells. This way, a population that started out with a single cell exceeds the total number of humans ever lived throughout history. So, human death with cancer starts with the disruption of one single cell. Once reached a super critical stage, system death occurs when the cancer branches out via blood circulation and disperses into various organs, leading to disconnection between them.

Cancerous cell reminds us that there are no minor events in the universe and points out that the health of our social and spiritual world takes shape according to the rules of complex systems. As a side thought, we may easily infer from cancer that underestimating any seemingly minor misbehavior or a sin and failure of immediate action to make up for it may lead to undesired consequences in our social and spiritual lives. It is also significant to be aware that we do not have an absolute control over our future and we cannot determine whether we will attain healing or not; however we can and we should try with science to elucidate some of the tangible causes of the disease and can point out some possible ways of treatment.

In line with Professor Nasr’s ideas, and in an effort to seek knowledge in a holistic way, this issue examines diverse topics from science and spirituality. The lead article draws attention to “seditious organizations and followers of Satan who hold a grudge against people-particularly against believers.” With a comprehensive introduction on Satan’s rebellion and his role in the “controversy between unbelief and faith,” Fethullah Gulen calls believers to be on their guard against Satan’s contemporary followers and their temptation.

“Life is too complex to have occurred by mere chance,” says Ahmet Yildiz in his description of energy conversion in the microcosmic world of the cell in our body. Just like in a power plant, there is “a dynamic environment that involves constant formation, breakdown and repair of constituents” in a cell which is perfectly equipped with a command center, defense mechanisms, and the replication and repair systems of DNA.

In “The Last Prayer for Giants” we discover the wisdom in a Prophetic command to plant trees even when one knows doomsday is imminent. The importance of being kind to and protecting nature is emphasized in this allegory.

In return for our kindness to nature and thankfulness, God the All-Merciful

blesses us with many benefits from nature. Patchouli, for instance, is not only famous for its fragrance, but also a useful plant in medicine, in repelling pests, and even in cleaning our homes. There is more in “Health and Natural Balance with Patchouli.”

How do we achieve a balance between our jobs, personal lives, and families

and still serve the sole purpose of our existence-to worship God and seek His pleasure? How is it possible that God will grant believers eternal life although we can only achieve a limited number of actions in a limited lifetime? What is the secret of converting the finite into the infinite? The answer is in Vedat Akyuz’s essay on sincerity.

Medicine, like other fields of science, has developed enormously with techniques which surpass our imaginings. “Open Heart Surgery” is about a technique in which the heart is temporarily stopped while the body is connected to an artificial mechanism. Enis Turker describes this operation which opens a gateway for us to reflect upon the complex functions of our body, which are nothing but divine miracles.

We inherit our hereditary characteristics from our parents. The basic unit responsible for inheritance in our body is the gene. More technically, a gene is a hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. Genes are like words on the long string of DNA. The description of the fundamental process of synthesizing proteins from the information on genes is called the “Central Dogma.” According to this dogma, DNA is used to synthesize RNA, and in turn, RNA is used to synthesize proteins. Hence, this dogma dictates the link between genes and proteins. Proteins are actually a translated and three-dimensional version of the linear information stored in genes.

The Structure of DNA

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is our repository of genetic information. Although there are organisms such as RNA viruses that possess RNA (ribonucleic acid) as their genetic material, virtually all other living organisms inherit their genes through DNA. Hence, DNA is vital for the existence and perpetuation of life on Earth.

In a simple comparison, DNA can be likened to a sequence of letters where each letter is a single nucleotide, and the alphabet has only four letters: A, T, C and G. Although this alphabet is extremely small compared to those used in human communication today, we are still capable of capturing the vast size of human DNA with this analogy: Our DNA is composed of a sequence of nearly 3 billion (3,000,000,000) of these letters. What this means is that, if you were to type out your genetic code, you would have a 5,000-volume encyclopedia, with each volume containing 400 pages, and each page having 1,500 letters! But then, how do we even fit this formidable size of information in every single cell of our body? The answer lies in the astonishing folding, packaging and wrapping steps DNA goes through upon synthesis. Positioning nucleotides side by side, each DNA molecule would take up about 6 feet (~2 meters) of space. However, after all the packaging steps, DNA becomes compact enough to fit in not only a cell, but also in the microscopic nucleus of each cell.

Genes and the Human Genome Project

Unfortunate for our alphabet analogy above, the 3 billion nucleotides in DNA do not contain any spaces to let us know where each word begins and ends. The Human Genome Project accomplished the task of unraveling what these 3 billion letters are (each one is one of A,T,C and G) and this was a major achievement of humanity. However, it was not until then that we realized the real challenge DNA posed us: Where were the genes in DNA? In other words, how would we understand the words and sentences in this 3-billion string of letters? Apart from efforts to discover the DNA sequences of other organisms, it is not unfair to say that the interest and workforce once focused on the Human Genome Project has now almost completely shifted to this latter “real” challenge of discovering the genes in DNA.

How we wish life could be that easy! Just as completing the human DNA sequence made us realize that we did not know where the genes are, discovering some genes allowed us to understand that we would still be missing a major part of the picture even if we knew exactly where each gene was. Do we not frequently encounter instances in everyday life where one word means different things depending on context? So, is there any good reason to think that genes on our chromosomes will be any less complex? Unfortunately not. Quite to the contrary, the sense is growing that genes are actually far more complex and intricate than we originally thought. For one thing, a single gene may not cause an immediate effect, but may interact with a network of other genes to produce the final effect. Diseases that are caused by individual genes are actually very few, a famous example being cystic fibrosis. But diseases that are affected by the interaction of many genes are far more numerous and prevalent, for example, breast cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Type 1 diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis and obesity.

This latter group of diseases is appropriately called “complex diseases.” Efforts are under way to decipher the intricate genetic and protein networks responsible for such diseases; however, there are so many (known and also unknown) variables that biologists have already called for help. Research problems such as complex diseases that require the interaction of biologists, mathematicians, computer scientists and statisticians alike have led to the advent of the currently very popular field of “Systems Biology.” Viewing the cell as a large factory, this field aims to understand all molecular networks and interactions that make up the very sophisticated machinery in living systems. After deciphering how cells operate flawlessly as a complex system, humans will be better able to discover causes of diseases, and will also be in a much better position to manipulate cells to cure diseases.

The idea of manipulating cells and cell components such as genes and proteins has actually led to “Synthetic Biology,” which is, in essence, the engineering approach to Systems Biology. Synthetic biologists try to engineer gene and protein networks in the cellular machinery to program cells for synthesizing custom-tailored molecules. This can be in the form of redesigning or producing mass amounts of existing molecules, or synthesizing nonexistent molecules that have medical or other potential uses. The overall significance of the field can be well understood by the following quote from one of the pioneers of the field, UC Berkeley professor Jay Keasling: “(Synthetic biology is) doing for biology what electrical engineering did for physics and what chemical engineering has done for chemistry.”

One example of synthetic biology comes from Jay Keasling’s lab. In collaboration with the Gates Foundation and OneWorld Health, the first nonprofit pharmaceutical in the US, Dr. Keasling’s lab is engineering a new metabolic pathway in E.coli to produce the precursor to artemisinin, currently the most effective treatment for malaria. The prospects include a drastic drop in cost, from dollars to dimes. Moreover, success in redesigning a metabolic pathway in bacteria holds great promise for reproducibility for other similar pathways important for the pharmaceutical, cosmetics and food industries.

Genomics vs. proteomics

Molecular biologists, today, are inundated with neologies ending with the suffix “-ome” and “-omics.” The consequence is that the expression “–omics” craze has found its place in the everyday language of these scientists. Basically, the suffix “-om-” refers to a totality of some sort. All the genes considered as a whole in an organism’s cell are called the “genome, and similarly all the proteins this genome can synthesize are referred to as the “proteome.” “Genomics” and “proteomics” refer to the study of the relevant “-ome,” as opposed to studying genes and proteins one by one.

Even though there exist so many –omics words in the literature these days, genomics and proteomics remain the most popular and useful ones. Proteomics can be thought of as the natural successor to genomics because it is fundamentally the next level of complexity after genomics. While scientists explore gene networks and their interactions in genomics, proteomics involves the study of all the proteins and their interactions in the cellular machinery of an organism. Unfortunately, the next level of complexity does not mean “linearly more complex” in this case; studying networks of three-dimensional molecules is an immensely more daunting task than studying those of one-dimensional DNA sequences. However, luckily for us, scientists are up to this challenge. Yet again, we observe a shift in focus in the scientific community from genomics to proteomics.

The main motivation for this shift can be roughly understood with an analogy from marketing or another one from military warfare. In the former, if you want a better marketing strategy for your product, you should target end-users first and foremost. Understanding behavioral patterns and preferences of end-users is much more important than understanding likes of your vendors, because eventually it is the end-user who will determine the demand for your product. In the latter analogy, we think of an army of soldiers who receive orders from a general commander; however, these orders can later be modified or completely annulled by orders from other commanders still in the hierarchical order. If you think about how reliable and informative knowing the orders that each soldier has received from the general commander is going to be, you will understand how useful it will be to have information on genes without supplementary information on proteins. Gene products, either RNAs or proteins, may undergo some steps called “post-translational modification” that are not completely understood, and worse yet may not be completely deterministic (implying random factors).

So, with the help of the analogies mentioned above, we can reason that the shift in focus of the scientific community from genomics to proteomics is mainly due to the fact that biological functions are carried out, not by DNA or genes, but by proteins and (although much less frequently than by proteins) by RNA molecules. For medical and other practical purposes, it is more important to acquire information on the proteome rather than the genome. This, of course, is not to suggest underestimating the importance of the genome. The genome preserves its significance as the origin and source of genetic information. It is just not as beneficial to think about the genome without looking at the final product, that is the proteome.

Conclusion

The completion of the rough draft of the Human Genome Project in 2000 marked the end of the Genetic Era and paved the way to the Genomic Era. The breakthroughs that have taken place since this cornerstone event have been breathtaking, awe-inspiring and maybe even hard to catch up with. The Genomic Era had given birth to different fields in a span of few years, and the biological scientific community has had to shift its focus from genomics to proteomics even without having sorted out the puzzles of the genome. The advent of the “-omics craze” was probably a by-product of this shift because suddenly each sub-field of molecular biology had to adapt a holistic approach in its explorations. Investigating a single entity, whether it be a gene or a protein or another molecule, quickly became stigmatized as “obsolete.”

This transition to a holistic approach has resulted in the interaction of biologists with scientists from quantitative fields such as mathematics, statistics and computer science. These interactions gave rise to truly interdisciplinary research fields such as systems biology, synthetic biology and computational biology. More and more scientists today believe that competence in the future will rely on incorporating expertise from these different fields. With each new discovery, realizing the level of complexity and the intricacy in the design of our body leaves us in true awe. Moreover, these discoveries only make it easier for us to grasp how little we know about the miraculous design of biological systems. On the other hand, this awareness makes us even more motivated to delve into scientific efforts because understanding the science behind creation takes us directly to the understanding of our Creator.

Jason Newfoundland is a PhD candidate in Bioinformatics at University of Michigan.

Notes

1. http://www.answers.com/topic/gene?cat=technology
2. This amazing process is demonstrated in this link: http://www.dnai.org/text/mediashowcase/index2.html?id=556
3. Synthetic Biology: Change on the Horizon, Karsten Temme, http://no.oneslistening.com/277
4. A glossary for –omics words exists at http://www.genomicglossaries.com/content/omes.asp

The complex nature of genetics and its wide implications for all living organisms from viruses to humans provide raw materials for creative imaginations. In the present scenario, many consider it vital to comprehend all the genetic information necessary to support life on this universe. One of the common constraints on the understanding of genetics is the assumption that genes are the sole causes of all activities of living organisms and can explain all aspects of biological life on earth. For example, some believe the behavior and development of an organism can be predicted, if its genetic information is known-this belief is called “genetic determinism.” However, it is true that neither all aspects of inheritance are in all cases well explained, nor that the mere effect of genes on complex traits is well interpreted. The boundaries of the effects of genes on physical existence, development, survival, and the behavior of organisms are not always simple and straightforward. The capacity of humans for genetic manipulation-at least as it is commonly assumed or claimed-is limited in several ways and some of the basic causes of such barriers have yet to be explained. The focus of this article is to point out the limitations on attempts to appoint genes as the driving force of life.

The Central Dogma

Genes are small fragments of genomic DNA, encoding mRNAs which are later translated into proteins that participate in different biological metabolisms, hence conferring different traits on an organism. The biological functions and transmission patterns of genes over generations were being investigated well before the discovery of DNA as hereditary material and date back to the recognition of Mendel’s laws in the early twentieth century. Genetic information is coded in the form of a short string of DNA called a gene, which is employed in the expression of a trait(s) or mechanism(s) through synthesizing a chain of amino acids called proteins. These proteins either can be stored in different body parts or serve as enzymes in various biochemical reactions such as fighting infections. This flow of genetic information from gene–mRNA–protein synthesis is called the “Central Dogma” in biological sciences. In this biological doctrine, a very solid and predictable mechanism is assumed. Prior to the release of the human genome sequence information, the number of genes in the human genome was estimated as ~100,000. However, this estimate was far more than the actual number of genes (~35,000), which led us to question the validity of the “Central Dogma” as an explanation of the complexity of human beings. Out of these ~35,000, only 300 genes are unique to the human species.¹ This is another blow to the authenticity of the original central dogma theory. Are those 300 genes the foundation of all humankind and do they distinguish us from the rest of the mammals? Reducing humankind to its biology and explaining it based on genes has been questioned extensively and could be the subject of another discussion. But even considering such a view valid for purely practical purposes, the big gap between humans and other mammals cannot be due to the existence of this small number of genes.

Recent scientific discoveries have revealed a key point about the structure of genes-that each gene has a set of sub-segments called exons. Each exon can make a new protein. Hence, the gene can be the template for more than one protein. In the presence of other genes and proteins, the code of a particular gene can yield different kinds of proteins under variable circumstances. The flow of information can be both ways, and hence there are no predetermined factors controlling the flow of information. That means, we might know the information on what genes are present, and we can even decode it to know what is in there, but we cannot be sure what result (proteins in this context) will come out at the end when it is in the context of real life.

From physical characteristics to their genetics

Working back from a particular trait and trying to infer the genes that are involved in expression of such trait is a different approach to reveal the role of genes but surely it is not an easy task. Traits that are expressed by a single gene or a small number of genes are known as Mendelian/qualitative traits and their pattern of inheritance is simple and detection of the gene(s) is straightforward. Some of the disease resistance in plants and blood groups in humans are classic examples of Mendelian traits. The main distinction between such traits and the quantitative ones is their discreteness. For example a human being can have only one of four blood types: A, B, AB or O, and each of these groups is solid and no other blood types exist in between. In this type of trait, the role of a particular gene(s) is usually predictable and the pattern of transmissions over generations both for the future and the past can be inferred.

However, only a small percentage of traits is qualitative and expresses Mendelian inheritance. Most traits, such as intelligence, skin color in humans, height of an organism, seed yield of a grain, and diseases that have genetic causes like cancer, are quantitative traits and complex in nature. The ultimate phenotype (what we can see or measure from a trait) emerges from the joint effect of many genes as well as interaction with the particular environment in which the individual develops. The number of genes that is involved in the expression of a particular trait can be hundreds or even more. An objective assessment of each trait and quantification (called the phenotype) is impractical in most cases and could lead to another discussion. But assuming that we can measure a trait feasibly, the inference of genetic bases could still be controversial. Considerable efforts have been devoted to unveiling the effect of genes in the expression of complex traits whose inheritance pattern deviates from Mendelian inheritance. A special genetic technique, known as genetic mapping, is used to identify multiple genes that underlie a complex trait and this has practical applications for crop improvement. In humans, efforts are directed toward the detection of genes which predispose to complex inherited diseases. In this type of situation, the effects of genes on a trait are additive and can only explain a certain amount of change in the trait that we are interested in. Detection of all genes involved in the expression of a quantitative trait is practically impossible. The environment is an important factor with a pivotal role in the expression of such traits. The term “environment” is not restricted to what is present within the cell or surrounding the cell or individual. It rather refers to larger scale effects in the process of biological life that cannot be explained by genetics and the term can be used interchangeably with non-genetic effects.

One of the most striking examples of the role of genes on the expression of the phenotype is the presence of differences between identical twins. Despite the fact that they have completely identical sets of genes, studies have shown that twins can indicate different degrees of psychiatric diseases such as bipolar disorder.² Similar phenomena may be observed in crop species. In crop breeding programs different varieties are usually tested in different environments. In most cases varieties rank differently based on their performance in different environments.³

Genetic background

Genes that do not code any information for the trait of interest can also be a part of the process of expression of the trait. In other words, certain genes can be employed to stop or alter the function of a particular gene. Modifying the utility of a gene can also be done by a series of complicated reactions within each organism through mechanisms known as epigenetics. This type of alteration in gene function is also observed empirically during the process of transferring genes between different organisms through genetic engineering.⁴ Most transferred genes are silenced (turned off) by different mechanisms in a new organism regardless of patterns of inheritance. This is particularly interesting because it clearly indicates that the existence of a particular gene in the body does not necessarily guarantee that it will be functional. Even if it is functional in one individual, it might be silent in others. Even if a gene is functioning in all the individuals carrying it, the degree of expression may be variable.

The end of genetic determinism

With the discovery of the code of genes, we now know more about the biology of living organisms than ever before, as new genetic tools have enabled us to better understand what kind of information is stored in each gene.

Most of the traits of living organisms are affected by the existence of many genes as well as non-genetic effects (denoted as environment in genetics). Although Mendelian traits can be predictable to some degree, yet we can not completely infer all the genes that are employed in the expression of a complex trait, nor the amount of contribution from each single gene and portion attributed by non-genetic factors. So we cannot determine the presence of genes by simply observing the phenotype or expression of a trait.

Considering each individual gene separately will allow us to understand its possible functions more clearly and accurately. Nevertheless, the knowledge of possible functions and structure is not enough to predetermine if the information coded in the gene will be used by the organism, and, even if it will be used, how much of that information will be processed is uncertain. Whether the information that is processed will be observed or not is another ambiguity.

Assuming that we can and will know all components of life by having the knowledge of genes is known as genetic determinism. In some cases, genes are described as independent entities that drive living organisms and manage life because of the assumption that their presence will be enough to predetermine all the biology and the behavior of an organism.

Simply, in order for a gene to be an independent agent by itself, it needs to have the knowledge of all other genes as well as all the non-genetic factors for expression of a simple trait. In reality, genes contain a very limited amount of knowledge which makes them no more than tools or parts of living organisms that are employed in the existence of life on earth. Biological life itself is incredibly complex and its sustainability requires a more comprehensive knowledge that is beyond our current understanding based on the genetic code.

Seyyidhan Mirza is a PhD candidate of Plant Breeding, Genetics, and Genomics. He can be contacted at seyyidmirza@gmail.com.

Notes

1. Siepel A., M. Diekhans, B. Brejová, L. Langton, M. Stevens, C. L.G. Comstock, C. Davis, B. Ewing, S. Oommen, C. Lau, H. Yu, J. Li, B. A. Roe, P. Green, D. S. Gerhard, G. Temple, D. Haussler, and M. R. Brent. 2007. “Targeted discovery of novel human exons by comparative genomics.” Genome Research. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; ISSN 1088-9051/07; www.genome.org
2. Cardno, A. G., Rijsdijk, F. V., Sham, P. C., Murray, R. M. & McGuffin, P. “A Twin Study of Genetic Relationships Between Psychotic Symptoms.” 2002. Am. J. Psychiatry 159, 539-545
3. Epinat-Le Signor, C., S. Dousse, J. Lorgeou, J.B. Denis, R. Bonhomme, P. Carolo, and A. Charcosset. 2001. “Interpretation of genotype x environment interactions for early maize hybrids over 12 years.” Crop Sci. 41:663–669
4. Kooter, J.M., Matzke, M.A., and Meyer, P. 1999. “Listening to the silent genes: Transgene silencing, gene regulation and pathogen control.” Trends Plant Sci. 4: 340–347

Scientists were working on ways of obtaining complex micro or nano (a billionth of a meter) structures by using simple inorganic substances like silicon. Producing a micro-scale device such as a transistor required difficult and expensive processes such as cutting a silicon layer neatly. A species of sponge (tethya aurantia) has proved to be a model for a possible solution.

Like every other creature, sea sponges are given the ability to use chemical substances in the exact proportions they need to carry out their vital functions like an expert chemist. A sea sponge obtains siliceous acid from the water around it a few hundred meters under the sea. By a mechanism where chemical energy is used at high efficiency and silicatein enzyme functions as a catalyzer, this acid is transformed into silicon dioxide or silica, and perfect three-dimensional structures are built from it.

The most noteworthy aspect of this process is that there is no need for the poisonous chemicals or high temperatures scientists use to obtain complex inorganic structures. Sea sponges are granted the ability to build these complex structures far more effectively than the engineers who try to produce semi-conductive materials. When the outer tissue of a sponge is removed, the 2mm-long skeletal structure, which is thinner than human hair and which takes the form of glass needles, becomes visible.

Sponges fall into three categories with respect to the abundance of their cavities and the intricacy of the channels between them. Those with the maximum proportion of cavities and channels are the most desired ones. We can better understand how wonderful are the nano-scale structures within sponges by observing the relation between a sponge and water. When we dip a hand-size sponge in water and take it out, we see that it holds water equivalent to thousands of times more than its own weight. This is caused by the countless nano-cavities invisible to the naked eye within the body of the sponge. In these minute capillary distances, the adhesion and surface tension forces are given a dominant role between water and the substance of the sponge by the divine will. Sponges, which are classified as simple structured animals by some biologists, are granted some specialties to inspire us in making high technology products such as computer microchips and solar cells.

Daniel Morse and two of his colleagues from the University of California are working on some semi-conductive materials with amazing electronic features like turning daylight into electricity. The most important application field of this new technique will be more efficient photovoltaic solar cells. Presently, solar cells are produced under high temperatures and low pressure, which requires too much energy. However, the method taught to sea sponges is highly efficient and does not require high energy. Scientists have managed to produce simpler and cheaper solar cells by imitating sea sponges and using zinc oxide instead of silicon. This way the billion-dollar facilities where the semi conductive materials are produced can possibly be replaced by smaller units of production. The world of living beings has always opened doors to new horizons. Things we take for granted and to which we do not give much thought are waiting to be reflected upon and seen through the eye of wisdom.

References

• Paul Marks, Sea sponge leads way to cheaper solar cells, New Scientist, 24 March 2007, p. 32.

Chaos Theory

Over the last fifty years Chaos Theory has evolved as a new science which assumes that the natural order is irregular, discontinuous and erratic (Gleick, 1987). Newtonian physics implies that there is a rational order to everything, that we can predict the events of any system if we are able to plug in enough variables. The idea behind “chaos theory” is that we can predict what systems might do, but we cannot be sure. Everything exists as a series of possibilities.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century several other sciences have evolved that have sought to solve the problems in prior models. For example, the theory of relativity eliminates the illusion of absolute time and space. Quantum mechanics eliminates the Newtonian dream of controllable measurement processes, as well as the fantasy of deterministic predictability. Chaos theory, the third new science, embraces irregularity as a norm. Scientists from different fields have begun to observe the regular patterns within the irregularity of the natural world.

In the old views of nature, notes Gleick (1987), it was held that simple systems behave in simple ways while complex systems imply complex causes. In the new view, it is believed that simple systems give rise to complex behaviors and complex systems give rise to simple behaviors (Snyder, 1995).

The new science of chaos centers around two points. The first is the exploration of the hidden order that exists within the chaotic systems. The second is the study of how self-organization emerges from chaos (Hayles, 1990).

The three principal conditions for a chaotic system are: (1) that it operates in a non-linear way; (2) that it is iterative (the output of one cycle becomes the input of the next); and (3) that small variations in initial conditions lead to large differences in outcomes. Many systems within educational organizations appear to meet these conditions (Cunningham, 2000).

The concepts of chaos theory can explain the way schools work. For example, teachers do not exist as separate entities, but are affected by the relationships that exist within schools. It may also shed some light on how we can deal with and understand how things in our classrooms, schools, and entire communities are interrelated and all reflect in some manner upon each other.

There are several aspects of chaos theory such as nonlinearity, complexity, butterfly effect, fractals and feedback mechanisms that may have significance for educational settings.

Nonlinearity

In a linear system there is a simple cause and effect relationship; A causes B which causes C, and so on. However, a chaotic system is nonlinear. A may not necessarily cause B at all times. Lots of variables come into play and interact with each other. School systems look like nonlinear chaotic systems, too. In school district A, the purchase of new computers might have a positive impact on student achievement, while in school district B, this might bring little or no gain in student achievement.

It is widely believed that experienced teachers have better classroom control. If you have a veteran teacher in a classroom, you will have an orderly environment and the administrators, thinking in a linear way, might believe that the more veteran teachers in a building, the more orderly the environment will be. That might not be the case in every school district, especially in urban schools; there are instances where young and inexperienced teachers contribute positively to the school environment much more than veteran teachers.

Complexity

Chaotic systems take complex forms, making their precise measurement difficult if not impossible (Glickman, 2001). Different measurement instruments have been put in place to evaluate and compare the performance of a school. However, due to the complex nature of schools, none of these assessment methods seem to measure precisely the school performance and have very limited validity for the following reasons (Cunningham, 2000):

• The prior achievement of pupils is not taken into account and this is a major factor in pupil achievement at a later stage.

• Schools are differentially effective in different subjects and with pupils of different ability, which is not reflected in a single figure.

• Schools change over time; however, the achievement data used reflects only one group and is essentially historical data.

• Student mobility between schools is not reflected in the assessment.

• Social factors, sex of students, ethnic origin and social background are not taken into account. These factors are out of the school’s control.

Therefore, assessing school performance and comparing one to another have become increasingly difficult given the complex nature of today’s schools.

The Butterfly Effect

The butterfly effect means that a small and seemingly unrelated event in one part of a system can have enormous effects on the other parts of the system. Theoretical meteorologist Edward Lorenz made the term ‘butterfly effect’ famous when he argued that a butterfly stirring its wings in Bejing today could unleash powerful storms in New York city next month. One implication of sensitive dependence on initial conditions is the impossibility of predicting not only next year’s weather, but the long term future of any chaotic system (Glickman, 2001).

In terms of school improvement, what we understand from the butterfly effect is that it is impossible to predict the long-term effects of school improvement efforts. Planning in a chaotic system like a school should be medium range (one or two years) rather than long range (five to ten years). Formal planning in an unpredictable system needs to focus on process rather than product with the goal of producing “a stream of wise decisions designed to achieve the mission of the organization” (Patterson, Stewart and Purkey, 1986).

The butterfly effect ensures that no lesson will ever go completely as planned, or have the same effect on any two students. It indicates the need for teacher flexibility in teaching, as well as the need for individual attention to students, each of whom is experiencing a given lesson within his or her own personal context (Glickman, 2001).

Fractals

A fractal is a geometric shape that is similar to itself at different scales. Mid-sized branches of a tree are remarkably similar in shape to the larger branches from which they come. Smaller branches, in turn, are the same shape as the mid-sized branches from which they come, and so on.

Through work with fractal generations, it has become apparent to scientists that predictability does exist (known shapes re-appear), and randomness plays an important and unexpected role. What has been learned is that, within chaotic and seemingly unpredictable systems, structures of order exist through which the system recreates itself.

Complex social systems can also reveal self-similarity on different scales: at each level of the system, specific patterns of organization and culture reappear. Like fractals in nature, schools reveal self-similarity in different scales. For example, a school-wide staff development day, a department meeting, a classroom lesson, and a halfway interaction between a teacher and student might all reveal the same cultural characteristic. Thus, reflective inquiry at the school, team, classroom and individual level can help educators better understand their school culture, change needed, and pathways to improvement (Glickman, 2001).

By being reflective practitioners, teachers can develop their teaching skills, acquire more insightful experience in their fields and learn to look at problems from a different perspective. They also understand their weaknesses, areas of strengths and recognize the repeating patterns of their teaching styles.

Feedback Mechanisms

Chaotic systems contain feedback loops enabling outputs to feed back into the system as input. Feedback can bring stability or turbulence to a system. For example, a thermostat is a feedback mechanism that causes temperature stability. Conversely, when the sound from a loudspeaker feeds back through a microphone, it is rapidly magnified to create a disruptive shriek (Gleick, 1987). Feedback can also cause a system to move toward greater levels of complexity.

Feedback in schools can take the form of student performance data, survey results, quality circles, third party reviews, and so forth. The important thing is that meaningful data on the results of change efforts be made available to teachers, and that they be given opportunities to reflect on the data and redirect their change efforts accordingly.

With all the unpredictability present in classrooms, beneficial feedback is critical for both teachers and students. For teachers, student performance data, direct student feedback, and classroom observation data can all assist them to improve classroom instruction. For students, feedback on their cognitive and affective performance-from teachers, parents, and peers-is an essential part of the learning process. The fact that in chaotic systems like classrooms output becomes input means that the artificial distinctions we often draw between learning and assessment need to be removed: in reality, learning and assessment cannot be separated (Glickman, 2001).

Conclusion

The deterministic view of education that schools are simplistic, cause-effect systems which can be easily manipulated, quantized and controlled is not addressing the problems of today’s schools. From an alternative perspective, chaos theory gives us an understanding that the things we consider unimportant or trivial in our daily lives might have an equal weight in terms of affecting the results as the things we consider important. Just as it is characterized in the Qur’anic teaching that every minute thing or action is recorded in a Book regardless of its proportion. “Whatever your preoccupation (O Messenger), and whatever discourse from Him in this (Qur’an) you may be reciting, and whatever work you (O people) may be doing, We are certainly witness over you while you are engaged in it. Not an atom’s weight of whatever there is in the earth or in the heaven escapes your Lord, nor is there anything smaller than that, or greater, but it is (recorded) in a Manifest Book” (Yunus 10:61). It further suggests that everything we do has a significant impact on us, our communities and ultimately society as a whole.

In conclusion, chaos theory has the potential to offer deeper understanding of how today’s schools function in an ever changing world of our times.

Aydin Kara is a graduate student at University of Dayton. He studies educational leadership and administration. He can be reached at aydinkara33@hotmail.com.

References

• Cunningham, R. 2000. Chaos, Complexity and the study of Education Communities. Institute of Education.
• Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.
• Glickman, Carl D. 2001. Supervision and Instructional Leadership: Allyn and Bacon
• Lortie, D. C. 1975. Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Patterson, J. L., Purkey, S. C., and Parker, J. V. 1986. Productive school systems for a nonrational world. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Even if the defenders of the theory admit it to be just a theory, it is still being presented to the masses as if it were a scientific fact. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence against the theory, and this accumulates, day by day. Recently, the claims of great genetic similarity between apes and human beings have been refuted. The article entitled, “Chimpanzee Chromosome Surprised,” published in Nature reveals that the genes of humans and chimpanzees are far more different than they were thought to be.

An interview was held with Dr Michael J. Behe, a leading American biochemist. Dr Behe, famous for his work criticizing the theory of evolution, has made important contributions to shedding light on the question of the true origin of life:

Dr Behe, could you tell us about your opinions concerning the scientific data given in the article published in Nature that proves the genes of humans and chimpanzees to be very different in reality?

A group of researchers from the University of Tokyo have compared all the letters on the alphabets of the 21st and 22nd chromosomes. The conclusion they arrived at is very remarkable, for it has turned out that there was a far greater difference between the two species, as opposed to what was formerly accepted. Darwin’s theory really gets into trouble here. As a matter of fact, the more we learn about biology, the more trouble Darwinism gets into. If we have a superficial knowledge of living beings, we think them to be simple and we can accept Darwinism, which tries to explain seemingly simple systems through small accidental changes. Within the last thirty years however, we have learned that life is incredibly complex, beyond our imagination. For instance, bacteria, seen by evolutionist taxonomy to be the simplest creatures, have minute but very complicated and perfect biochemical motors that enable them to move. The only way to explain how bacteria can have such a complex mechanism is to accept the existence of a supernatural creation.

Then what does the similarity between the different proteins, genes, and organs of different creatures signify?

Can they be considered as evidence supporting Darwinist claims?

No, similarities between different creatures first of all fail to answer the basic question of biology. That is, how did organs and systems so peculiar and complicated come to exist? Darwinism can give no answer to that.

On the other hand, there are surprising similarities even between the species that are thought to be very different from each other. Between humans and bacteria for instance. . . The question is: “Do these similarities constitute a picture compatible with Darwin’s theory?” In fact, they don’t, because the species which are supposed to be close relatives according to Darwinist claims sometimes turn up to be genetically different. Or some living beings that are supposed to be totally irrelevant to each other have very similar organs or genes. For example, the human eye and the eye of the octopus are almost the same. But of course this does not mean that we are relatives of octopuses. It is more logical to accept that these two eye structures do not come from a “common ancestor,” but from a design that emanates from “the knowledge of a single Creator.”

In my opinion, this concept of “design” is based on the theory of “intelligent design,” which you also support. Do you think this theory explains the similarities between living things better?

Yes, you can explain these similarities through design. We know that many designers or inventors use similar parts in different systems. For instance bolts, nuts, or cables are used in different devices. They are the best pieces to be used in the relevant mechanical systems. Of course, we cannot say that one device with a cable evolved from another. They were designed separately. The intelligent design theory is very consistent in its accounting for such similarities.

The intelligent design theory is sometimes severely criticized by defenders of Darwinism and they have tried to refute it. There is an inclination to present Darwinism as if it were an undeniable part of biology. What do you think is the reason behind this?

The reason is not scientific, but rather there is a philosophical and ideological aspect. Some scientists believe that we must explain the universe and life by natural factors alone. The basis for their belief is presumption that accepts the universe as a product of natural forces alone. But what if this is not so? Even when we see a pair of eyeglasses, we know that it is not a product of natural forces; we can infer that it was made by an intelligent and skilled optician. And life is thousands of times more complex than that. Therefore, we conclude that life must have been created as well. Here, the important point is evaluating scientific evidence without prejudice, as much as possible. Darwinists claim that science cannot accept a supernatural power. But until the mid-19th century, a great majority of scientists accepted the existence of a creative power, namely, God. The claim that science should be materialistic became widespread after Darwin. However, this claim increasingly conflicts with scientific evidence. Science should not try to give a materialistic explanation for life but rather to produce a correct explanation for life. Evidence should be analyzed, even if some people’s philosophical assumptions are disturbed.

Your book “Darwin’s Black Box” has been chosen as one of the most important 100 books of the 20th century by National Review magazine. In your opinion, what was it that made this book so important?

As a matter of fact, the reason for this was not the new and original information found in the book. I only showed the reader that in molecular levels of life there are very sensitive and complex systems and all these constitute evidence for a conscious planning and organization. When most people take a superficial look, when they consider plants, animals, birds, or fish, they can feel that there is some plan and program. But Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is taught in schools, tells us that this order and system in nature can be explained without a Creator. I think the greatest influence of my theory was to show that the Darwinist explanation was too superficial and misleading.

What do you think is the greatest challenge Darwinism faces?

The greatest problem for Darwinism is explaining how new biological structures, how new creatures, come into existence. Darwinism can shed light on how already existing biological structures may undergo small changes. For example, it can offer you an explanation about how the small differences in the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands appeared. But how did birds come to exist in the beginning? How did complex structures like the feathers or wings of a bird form? How did all the sensitive organs and systems like the brain, the eyes, the clotting of blood, all of which require several parts to work in perfect harmony, come to be? It is impossible for Darwinism to explain these, for each of these is a very complex structure that can function only when complete. The most consistent way to account for their origin is to accept the interference of a Conscious and Omnipotent Power, a supernatural Creator.

Do you have any expectations about the future of Darwinism? Do you think Darwinism will survive?

I believe that Darwinism is leaving the stage. It will be seen that explaining life through this theory is not possible and the theory will be abandoned. The process leading to this end has already begun. The reason for this is not what I and scientists like me are doing. The more we learn about life, the better we understand how complex it is. Scientists are beginning to realize that such complex structures cannot be attributed to purposeless and random mechanisms.

As we know, the supporters of Darwinism usually say that they think within scientific grounds, and those who oppose them base their ideas only on religious belief. The picture you are giving seems to be refuting this claim. Do you agree?

Yes, exactly. In the past people used to reject Darwinism on a religious basis. And the defenders of the theory so far have always claimed science to be on their side. But the surprising findings obtained since the last quarter of the 20th century have reversed the picture. Today, our rejection of Darwinism is not based on what we do not know; rather it is based on what we know. Now the followers of dogmatic thought are Darwinists themselves. We present them scientific evidence demonstrating that living beings are created in a planned and programmed fashion, whereas they reject this only due to their philosophical and ideological worldviews.

There are insistent narrow-minded defenders of old theories that occurred before scientific revolutions. But then science is victorious against false theories. I think this is what will happen to Darwinism soon.

Who is Michael Behe?

Dr Michael Behe, still teaching biochemistry at Lehigh University, shook the scientific world with his book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution in 1997. The National Review magazine defined his work as “one of the most influential books of the 20th century.” In his book, Dr Behe has put forward a new theory called “the intelligent design” in order to explain the origin of life. Today, there are hundreds of scientists, several institutions and scientific foundations that support the intelligent design theory. As a result of these organizations, the Darwinist claims in the school books in Georgia, Ohio, and New Mexico states have been taken out. The debates concerning this in other states are still going on. The organization Discovery Institute, which leads the intelligent design movement, is presided by Bruce Chapman, one of the consultants of Ronald Reagan.

Human and Chimpanzee Genes Have Proven to Be Very Different

The latest scientific research for comparing the genetic structures of humans and chimpanzees has revealed there to be a far greater difference between the two species than was thought to be. In the research carried out by a group of scientists presided by Dr Todd Taylor in Riken Genome Science Institute in Yokohama Japan, human and chimpanzee genes were compared one by one for the first time. The conclusion surprised the scientists, who had expected to find a great similarity. Dr Taylor et al. published the result of their research in their article in the famous science magazine, Nature. In the article entitled “Chimpanzee Chromosome Surprised” the first detailed comparisonhas revealed that human and chimpanzee genes are unexpectedly different.

Formerly, it was claimed that there was a 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee genes as a result of some limited comparison, and this proof was often repeated in support of evolutionist claims. Dr Fujiyama et al. for the first time made a detailed research on the subject. The scientists who meticulously compared the 22nd chromosome of chimps and the 21st chromosome of humans, which are claimed to be similar, found that 68,000 DNA units in total were different. The researchers have stated that in the 231 genes they studied, they determined a great deal of difference, approaching 83%, and that 23% percent of the genes they studied were completely irrelevant.

Sydney Morning Herald newspaper commented on this result, saying “chimps are not as close to us as they were thought to be.” Dr Jean Weissenbach, the leader of Genoscope, a genetic research institute in France, agreed and pointed to the fact that chimpanzees have thousands of genes that are different from us.

Honesty, defined as honor gained by action or conduct, is an inevitable part of our private and public life. But its implications for public life in a democracy are far more important. We can do a better job of passing on a sense of the value of honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility to the next generation in a democratic society. Teddy Roosevelt, while governor of New York, said: Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community.(1)

It is not an easy task to resolve the problem of honesty in democratic governance. To the extent that knowledge gives power, to that extent do lies affect the distribution of power; they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived, altering his choices at different levels.(2) Bok, a writer and philosopher currently serving as a distinguished fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, explains the importance of honesty in public life by emphasizing how lying harms social trust:

The importance of honesty in public life is as follows. Lying and deception clearly do not affect only isolated individuals. As lies spread “ by imitation, or in retaliation, or forestall suspected deception “ social trust is damaged. Yet trust is a social good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. Social goods are non-excludable, individuals cannot be prevented from sharing them, and they are available for the public to enjoy. Examples include the lighthouse, peace and security, and law and order. When social trust is damaged, the community as a whole suffers; and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.(3)

In the public sphere, lying or the suspicion of lying has an added consequence: the proliferation of bureaucracy and regulation.

Gutmann and Thompson see deception, the action of deceiving or cheating, as closely related to secrecy and confidentiality. They consider the following factors in which citizens can permit public officials to engage in deception: the importance of the deception’s goal; the availability of alternative goal-achieving means; who will be deceived (other officials, other governments, all citizens); accountability (the possibility of approving deception in advance or discovering it later); and containing the deception (its effects on other actions by officials).(4)

Requirements of honesty

The principle of honesty, when applied to public policy and administration, has several requirements. The first one is the obligation to avoid lying. The Iran-Contra affair and other cases raised the perennial question of whether official lies should be permitted for the public good. When John M. Poindexter, President Reagan’s national security advisor, was accused by Congress of an unapologetic embrace of truth, he replied that he had acted in what he thought were the country’s long-term interests. Even those who disagree with Poindexter’s judgment acknowledge that certain situations warrant deception. But was this particular situation exceptional enough to warrant it?

The second requirement is being truthful when presenting information to superiors and the public. For example, a public official cannot make exaggerated claims (or vice versa) about what a proposed program will do in order to generate enthusiasm for it.

The third requirement is respecting other people’s ability to gather and present accurate information relevant to public policy. In other words, honesty requires that an official does not try to prevent or suppress studies that challenge his or her view. Deception involves intentionally (or negligently) causing someone to believe something that the deceiver knows (or should know) to be false. Political deception is not always easy to recognize, because it seldom comes in the form of an outright lie.(5)

The fourth requirement is to keep the public well-informed. This cannot be overemphasized, for an informed public is an essential ingredient of democracy. Yet in practice, some officials (e.g., the president, mayor, policy makers, or military people) have found an easy justification for both secrecy and deception. They believe that ordinary citizens, even sometimes other government officials, cannot understand such complex problems as military operations, international security and national defense issues, and other such matters. The people’s apparent inability to do so gives public officials a kind of right to deception. Since average citizens cannot possibly know the whole truth about specialized subjects, lying to them is permissible “ provided that there are some good reasons. Sometimes, government officials use the same ethic when they decide not to inform citizens of government involvement in various complex issues.

Conclusion

In a democratic society, these reasons cannot be used to justify giving anybody permission to deceive whenever they consider it necessary. The social good and public interest should not be used as excuses for deception; rather, they must be a reason for honesty. The ethical education of public officials, public awareness, open and transparent public administration, clear rules, policies, and regulations might ease the job of public officials in terms of ethical dilemmas. Such practices also might help them by providing consistency in decision-making, understanding the values reflected by that decision, and reaching more reflective judgments. Findings reported in several analytical studies indicate that ethics education is making a difference. We cannot afford, intentionally or unintentionally, to be a partner in producing a new generation of leaders who are ethically illiterate and morally misguided.

Footnotes

1. Theodore Roosevelt, The Eighth and Ninth Commandments in Politics, Outlook (12 May 1900). Online at: www.bartleby.com/58/7.html
2. Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Pantheon, 1978), 20.
3. Ibid.
4. A. Gutmann and D. F. Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1998), 48.
5. Ibid.