New developments in scientific thought and hypotheses testing are changing the ways we think about truth and certainty.

Not only do scientific decisions rely heavily on tools and procedures of quantitative analysis, but also on social life and daily decisions. I want to start with a story from the judiciary system about the misuse of an important quantitative tool of the scientific community, Hypothesis Testing. It’s about the overturned Amanda Knox case in Italy. In 2007, she was accused of killing her roommate and sent to jail. The odds of DNA matching in the case of accidental death were reported as incredibly rare by a forensic data analyst, who examined data with regard to incidents of crime, concluding that the accident is not statistically an accident. The judges then made their decision based on this rareness, a single value, named p-value. Later, this was overturned (New York Times, March 27, 2013), because of a misinterpretation by the judges and lawyers, of the rare probability. What factors forced the judiciary system to make this decision based on a single value alone? Honestly, this is the story of the century and a story of Hypothesis Testing. This article introduces the logic behind their decision, draws attention to the misuse of data, and mentions alternative logics to this traditional approach on the matter (in March 2013, Italy’s Supreme Court ordered a retrial and found the two suspects guilty on January 30, 2014).

What is Hypothesis Testing?

We live in a data-driven world. Statistical inference is the process of drawing conclusions or decisions from data. The Hypothesis Testing procedure in the Neyman-Pearson paradigm is one of the procedures of this process, widely used in the scientific community for over a century. In this mindset, two complementary hypotheses are first defined: one is the conventional thesis (the null hypothesis) accepted to be true by default; the other is the alternative thesis (the alternative hypothesis) that needs evidence from data to falsify the null hypothesis. It results in a single value, called p-value, which is calculated from the data using theoretical model assumptions. A p-value is a measure – in probability sense, ranging from 0% to 100% – of how much evidence you have against the null hypothesis. The smaller the p-value, the more evidence you have against the null hypothesis. One may combine the p-value with the significance level to make decisions on a given hypothesis. This is also called significance testing. It has an accept-reject mindset (dichotomous decision or binary logic); in such a case, if the p-value is less than some threshold (usually .05) then the null hypothesis is rejected. Basically, it is a black or white decision, without considering the contrasts between them. This interpretation has been widely accepted in the twentieth century of scientific research, and many scientific journals routinely publish papers using this interpretation for the results of hypothesis tests, even though there are current tendencies not to use this. Let’s take a look at the history of this black-white logic.

History

The history of the process of hypothesis testing starts with Fisher (1890-1962), around the early twentieth century. Later, the contributions of Pearson (1857-1936) and Neyman (1894-1981), who were early fathers of statistics, about the interpretation of the hypothesis tests were integrated into present-day applications. Fisher’s approach focuses on inductive inference about a single hypothesis, whereas the Neyman-Pearson approach informs future behavior based on a test using two complementary hypotheses (Newman 2007).

These approaches are strongly influenced by Popper’s logic of falsification. Falsification can be defined as the act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory. This logic asserts that sufficiently improbable events can be considered impossible. A p-value suggests whether a null hypothesis is sufficiently improbable to be considered practically falsified in the sense of a logical refutation (Newman 2007). When we come back to the Amanda Knox case, the decision the judges made and justified is followed from this falsification logic in hypothesis testing. Another criticism with this mindset is: how fair it is to rely on a single value that yields a rare result? Are we going to generalize one lucky drawing of raffle tickets to believe all tickets are winners?

Logics and proofs

We use logical flaws and biases in our daily life. Finding the logical flaw in scientific papers is something most readers aren’t interested in. Instead, the results are believed as a fact. One of the widely used flaws/biases is in seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs or a hypothesis in hand (Mercie and Sperber, 2011). We tend to prove or show the accessibility or superiority of arguments by bringing evidence. Failure to prove that a treatment – say, a low fat diet – is effective is not the same as proving it is ineffective.

Let me give another example to clarify this: The New York Times editorial news reported on February 9, 2006, “Millions of Americans have tried to reduce the fat in their diets, and the food industry has obligingly served up low-fat products. Yet now comes strong evidence that the war against all fats was mostly in vain.” Actually, in the hypothesis testing mindset, the evidence collected from research should either reject the null hypothesis which is “diet is ineffective,” or fail to reject it. The mindset in testing is not about finding evidence to support the null statement. It is also not about proving the alternative hypothesis, “diet is effective.” Rather, it is basically looking for evidences to falsify the null statement. In the report, the “evidence” the reporter meant should be against the null hypothesis, not against the alternative hypothesis. Data is collected to falsify the null hypothesis, not to prove its truthiness, because the null is already accepted to be true unless convincing evidence is collected against it.

Let me give another example of this paradigm. As Newfoundland (2013) described, a person is innocent until proven guilty by bringing convincing evidence. The jury can’t say “he is innocent,” instead, the jury uses evidence that produces reasonable doubt to reject his innocence.

Developments in inferential paradigms

The accept-reject paradigm in inference represents a conventional wisdom. There are other, or currently developing, paradigms in inference, too. One of the dominating paradigms is the Bayesian-likelihood approach. After enjoying much wider acceptance in social and natural sciences, the Bayesian method suggests different views of hypothesis testing. The Bayesian approach is a method of data analysis in which subjectivity, conditionality, or past information is used to update the hypothesis as additional evidence is acquired. This approach in hypothesis testing offers a dynamic structure in probability calculation so hypotheses, and decisions, are not seen as a static truth; instead, they are updated with current data and the decision is stated in the sense of likelihood.

In our court room example, the Bayesian inference is applied to all evidence presented, with the past information being combined with the current evidence. The benefit of a Bayesian approach is that it gives all historical information so the decision is unbiased all along as the past data (prior knowledge) is used correctly. This paradigm changes the way statistics are calculated and how the result and inference are interpreted. Currently it is widely appreciated in quantitative data analysis, especially after convenient software exists for its implementation. However, the criticism to this approach, made by many, is found in its subjectivity. Objectivity and handling prior knowledge is a concern here so that different people, having different opinions, may arrive at different results.

Another developing paradigm: Fuzzy Logic

Fuzzy logic is another method in quantitative decision making. In contrast to binary logic (yes-no, or accept-reject), fuzzy logic can be thought of as gray logic, which allows a way to express in-between data values. It emerged in the development of the theory of fuzzy sets, by Lotfi Zadeh (1965). Fuzzy logic is mostly seen as a branch of artificial intelligence that deals with reasoning algorithms used to emulate human thinking and decision making. It handles the concept of partial truth using linguistic variables, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. The concept of partial truth would be subjective and would depend on the observer. For example, for the temperature of the weather, we want to determine when to say cold, warm, and hot. The meaning of each of these concepts can be represented by a certain membership (called a fuzzy set). The concept of each would be subjective. One might consider cold for all values up to 40 0F. In Figure 1, the meanings of the expressions cold, warm, and hot are represented by functions mapping a temperature scale to “truth values” ranging from 0 to 1. A point on that scale has three truth degrees, one for each of the three functions (expressions). The vertical line in the figure represents a particular temperature that the truth values (see three arrows) are measured. Since the red arrow points to zero, this temperature may be interpreted as “not hot.” The orange arrow (pointing at 0.2) may describe it as “slightly warm,” and the blue arrow (pointing at 0.8) “fairly cold” (Fuzzy Logic, 2013, para. 6). A rule could then be adopted, like for example, if “slightly warm” then stop the fan.

Picture was obtained from

Fuzzy logic uses truth degrees as a mathematical model of the vagueness phenomenon, and it summarizes data analysis in facts with truth degrees, and leaves the decision to the observer. Its advantage is its ability to deal with vague situations with respect to linguistic variables. While the significance testing for a hypothesis declares one accept or reject, fuzzy logic allows for degrees of acceptance or rejection. However, in fuzzy logic, the notion of truth doesn’t fall by the wayside, but it is expressed in degrees and offers possibilities for different situations. Regarding inference, fuzzy logic uses the mindset ‘everything is a matter of degree and open to interpretation,’ and this mindset is also adopted to machine learning, which is considered a more suitable mindset with human reasoning instead of binary logic. The constraints in fuzzy logic are found in its tools and interpretations when complex inputs are considered.

The developments of paradigms in statistical inference have similar fates as in the developments of mathematics, geometry, and physics. According to the Euclidean parallel postulate, in space, there exist no two parallel lines that intersect each other. However, after Non-Euclidean geometry was developed in the nineteenth century, a wider geometrical and mathematical reasoning stemmed from it; accordingly, the geometry of the physical universe and particles came to be understood better. The development of Riemannian geometry, offering that distance properties might vary, resulted in the synthesis of diverse results concerning the geometry of higher dimensional surfaces and the behavior of geodesics on them. It also made Einstein’s theory of general relativity justifiable. Likewise, as time passes, we witness wider paradigms or logics that abandon or correct former approaches in scientific decision making tools. This is a good reason why teachers and professors should update their current teachings as to be consistent with convincing trends, as well as to train students to be ready for wider paradigms in the future.

Conclusion

In today’s scientific community, the way decisions are made and fallacies proved, are changing as new paradigms emerge. In order to make better decisions or to validate claims, many aspects and methodologies should be considered. One way to avoid mistakes as much as we can would be to expect fallacy points to exist in human mental processing during decision making, and improving and seeking better alternatives with well-established wisdoms.

(Thanks Ugur Sahin for reviewing the preliminary copy of this article.)

References

• Fuzzy Logic. In Wikipedia. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
• Kass, Robert E. 2011. Statistical Inference: The Big Picture 1. Statistical Science, 2011, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1-9, DOI: 10.1214/10-STS337, Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
• Mercier, Hugo, Dan Sperber. 2011. “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 34, 57-111.
• Newfoundland, Jason. 2013. “The Cell Phone-Brain Cancer Controversy.” The Fountain Magazine, Jan-Feb, Issue 91.
• Newman, Michael C. 2008. “‘What exactly are you inferring?’ A closer look at hypothesis testing.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 1013-1019, 2008.

Introduction

Human beings have wrestled with questions about the origin of our existence and the fabric of our universe for thousands of years. This questioning formed the discipline of cosmology. Dr. Natarajan explores the nature of our world and shares her perspectives about how new scientific discoveries are reshaping our understanding of the universe and our place in it. Until very recently, the universe had been considered a vast empty space. But the Dark matter theory states that the universe is not empty, but rather filled with an invisible matter. As new mysteries unfold, Dr. Natarajan points out that it is our fundamental human curiosity that leaves us no choice but to explore the universe and how we fit into its grand picture.

M&B: Dr. Natarajan, you work on dark matter in the universe. What is the theory?

It turns out that the bulk of the matter in the universe is not made of ordinary atoms that you and I or the universe that we know and experience is made of, but instead made of this mysterious particle. Ninety percent of all the matter in the universe is dark matter, and we believe this is a set of particles that was created very early in the universe. These particles do not have charge, but they have mass. Since they dominate the mass of the universe, it turns out that they really form the scaffolding in the universe around which all galaxies, stars, and so on, form. They are sort of the basis or the framework within which normal atoms actually cool to form star galaxies, and then have generated us.

M&B: What is the evidence for their existence?

The reason dark matter remains a mystery, – although there is incontrovertible evidence for the existence of dark matter – is the fact that you only detect it indirectly. What I mean by that is you detect its presence because it has mass, and since it doesn’t have any charge it doesn’t couple to any radiation. So you don’t see radiation in any wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum: no X-rays, no gamma rays, no visible light, nothing. But since dark matter has mass, it aggregates gravitationally, so they feel gravitational pull towards each other and they cluster. It’s the clustering of the dark matter, the fact that it gets compact, that we detect the effects of dark matter.

M&B: What happens near the regions where dark matter clusters? In your research papers you use the bending of the light rays. How do you observe it?

The primary evidence is the gravitational bending of light produced by these aggregates of dark matter. The universe is really composed of a smooth distribution of dark matter, with a lot of clump regions where this dark matter has aggregated, and then enabled the formation of galaxies. The presence of these large amounts of dark matter causes light from background galaxies coming towards us to bend. The actual shapes of galaxies that are behind a big clump of dark matter, which is along our line of sight, are actually distorted when we see it. The dark matter in general is smoothly distributed everywhere in the universe. But there are these particular regions that are denser. So we can look at regions in which the dark matter is not so densely distributed, look at the shapes of undistorted shapes of galaxies, and then use that to infer how much distortion we’re actually seeing when we see a lump, and infer its existence from the distortion. Because the strength of the distortion is directly proportional to the mass, you can directly infer how much mass there is between us and those objects.

M&B: Is there evidence other than the bending of the light rays?

The other evidence eludes to the fact that dark matter actually gives the basis for the formation of stars and galaxies. If you look at the motions of stars and galaxies, you find that, unlike the solar system, if you look at the velocities of the planets in the solar system as a function of distance from the sun you find that it’s falling. So the planets in the inner regions are moving very fast; they feel the gravity of the sun much more strongly than the outer planets, which are not actually moving as fast. So if you plot the velocity from the center or from the sun outwards in the solar system, the velocities are falling. Whereas if you go to a galaxy and you do the same experiment, you look at stars at different radii and you try to see what their speeds look like. They are speeding up as you go outwards. And the only way they can do that is there is something that is sitting outside the galaxy that holds it up as it were, and has gravity. And it turns out that our current picture is that most galaxies have very extended dark matter halos. The key point is that there’s a lot of dark matter sitting outside the galaxy well beyond where we see the stars.

The other compelling lines of evidence for the existence of dark matter come from larger scale observations of the universe. One of the leftovers of the big bang or relic of the big bang is this microwave background radiation that is detected today in the universe. It was a very hot radiation that has cooled with the expansion of the universe, and we are bathed in it. I mean it’s everywhere, in every direction, and measurements of the directional dependence of the microwave background shows that it’s very uniform. But in one part it’s anisotropic, so there are cool zones and hot zones in the sky. On very small scales we see these cold and hot spots. And these and isotropy’s in the microwave background are exactly predicted by this model, the cold dark matter model, which I said you know is postulated on the very early generation of the universe and these dark matter particles.

M&B: So we know that they exist. But what is their essence? What are their properties?

This is still a mysterious kind of beast. In fact, we don’t know the nature, but it appears that it’s collisionless. It’s very counterintuitive. That’s one of the things I find fascinating about the fact that it is so counterintuitive. These particles are actually collisionless. What that means is that when two dark matter particles approach each other, they pass through each other, they don’t actually bounce off of each other, so these particles don’t collide, which means they don’t have pressure, because pressure is generated by collision. So they are pressureless particles that have mass. Gravity holds them together, but they don’t actually collide.

So a current understanding of dark matter is that it’s definitely generated very early in the universe and that it clusters very strongly and it’s distributed on very different scales in the universe, so there’s like a smooth background and there are lots of clumps on top of it and so on.

M&B: As far as the mass of Dark Matter how much mass are we talking about? If there is no clustering, something like in the volume of the earth, for example, how much total dark matter mass do we have?

Well I guess the thing is at the position of the earth and at the position of the sun from the center of our galaxy. We are not really dominated by dark matter anymore, so dark matter at that radius doesn’t constitute significant portion of the mass. We are bathed in it, but the density is quite low. It’s at the innermost part of our galaxy where the density is very, very high, so we actually expect that the inner most regions of our galaxy is a very complicated, violent place where not only do you have a black hole which we know exists. This is a black hole that is not made of dark matter. This is a black hole that has gobbled gas and grown to about a million times the mass of the sun, and which is sitting at the center and it creates a very violent place for stars because it can rip them apart and so on. And this whole system is sort of embedded in this very, very dense region full of dark matter.

M&B: How is your everyday work? Where do you get data about the light rays coming near the regions with high Dark matter density?

A: I’m a theoretical person and what that means is that I actually build models but models that are guided by observations. The theory has transformed in the past 10 to 15 years because of the amount of data that technological progress has given us.

For example, the Hubbell space telescope has really transformed the kind of modeling that can be done. So I actually use data that other people have procured. They’ve cleaned it up and they give it to me. These are very distorted images of background galaxies whose shape has been distorted because of the huge amounts of dark matter that is contained in a cluster of galaxies.

M&B: The bending of the light rays is predicted by the general relativity theory. Is it what you use for your calculations?

A: It’s a beautiful theory. I think that people really have understood the iconic status of Einstein. What is most fascinating about him for me is the profound insights that he had of such despaired phenomenon. There was a way in which he was able to see connections and synthesize. You know the whole understanding that the geometry, the fate and the contents of the universe ought to be linked is a profound insight. And I think you know it’s incredible that he enabled, you know, his mind enabled him to formulate it in the way that he did, which has allowed people like me to use general relativity and the sort of elegance of general relativity because of how simple it is in fact to apply and test.

M&B: This looks like an intriguing line of work?

I want to stress that this is a particularly wonderful time for cosmology. It’s a particularly special time. I don’t want to use the sort of often abused golden age as it were, but it’s the confluence of technological progress with the kind of data that we can obtain and the level of understanding that we have built up. This is a very special time to be doing this kind of work. And while the mystery of what dark matter might be made of, you know, it may or may not get solved in my lifetime.

M&B: If you want to describe your work, what term would you use?

In a more descriptive way, I guess. What I really do is I build a story line. I build a story line for the universe. I mean, I build a story of the sequence of events of how a structure forms and assembles. The key there is that you are guided, you have a few snapshots, so you have a bit of data, but then you have to extrapolate and you make some predictions. The goal of the kind of work that I do is to make predictions, and have them be taken seriously, to either be falsified or shown to be true, and what’s exciting about this particular time is that people can falsify your theories or your models in a very short time.

M&B: Isn’t it interesting that we can actually make a story out of universe?

Well, I mean, I think that what is fascinating, and this is a personal view, what is fascinating about cosmology is the… you know it’s mystical and it’s mysterious at the same time and it’s highly abstract. It’s not intuitive because the scale that I’m working with in terms of distances, masses, and energy are just unfathomable. So there’s a real irresistible pull for certain kinds of people to do this kind of work. And I think the universe is a pretty good subject for a narrative because of the range of phenomena that occur in it. This is possibly why in all ancient civilizations there is some notion of cosmogony and this idea of fascination with where we came from. I don’t want to sound arrogant by saying that it’s the fundamental question, but you know it’s an inescapable question for anybody to ponder where we came from.

M&B: Is there a sense of awe that motivates you in your studies?

There is a sense of wonder that the universe generates and I think that you know personally for me I’m a bit of an adventurist, and I think if I can imagine myself, if I had been born 200, 300 years ago I would have been one of those explorers. And I think there are people like that amongst us always, who want to explore in different ways. I mean, there are some people who want to explore via music. And there are frontiers that they want to break through in music, and they have the creativity to do that. And I think that for a lot of us who are doing science, and cosmology in particular, there is a sense of exploration, there’s a sense of examining or grappling with things that are really at the limits of our capabilities in a way.

M&B: In some ways one of the most important fruits of the process and coming along it’s our imagination. And the human imagination is also a part of the universe.

Absolutely. It is an inescapable part of the universe and what is fascinating is the idea that we have the capability to even contemplate the origin of the universe given that we are a part of the universe.

M&B: Many people approach science in a utilitarian way and this is not what you are doing.

I think that the fact that it is not utilitarian is precisely what attracts me to it. I think it is the other side of the coin of this, which is why we probably aren’t as well funded and we ought to be better funded than we are, because this is such a fundamental human curiosity. There is enormous public interest in what we do and the level of funding that we have does not reflect that. For instance, obviously medicine is very critical. It’s critical to our existence. But the disparity in how they are funded and how the pure sciences are funded is sort of disturbing. Because I think as a culture, as a world, we can afford to indulge in understanding basic sciences partly because there are spinoffs from all the work that we do. It is unpredictable, and I think that is what’s fascinating. There are no guaranteed benefits to human kind and society today that cosmologists can bring. However, they satisfy this hunger for knowing and going beyond, you know, satisfying your hunger and thirst on a day to day basis.

Mustafa Tabanli is a producer at Ebru TV. He conducted this interview for Emmy Award winning television series Matter&Beyond.

Bio

Dr. Priya Natarajan is a Professor of Astronomy and Physics at Yale University, and an Associate at the Dark Cosmology Center, which is part of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Her research interests include cosmology, gravitational lensing, and black hole physics. She earned a B.A. degree in physics and mathematics at M.I.T. and her doctorate at the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge in England, where she was a member of Trinity College and elected to a Title A Research Fellowship that she held from 1997 to 2003. She is currently on leave from Yale to take up her Guggenheim Fellowship. She is deeply invested in the public dissemination of science and is currently a member of the Science Advisory Board for the public television series NOVA.

http://www.astro.yale.edu/priya/

The earliest records belong to ancient China. In 1235 Sung Tz’u, a Chinese “death investigator,” wrote a book entitled The Washing Away of Wrongs (translated by McKnight, 1981) in which what was known in forensic science at that time was detailed. In this text, an actual forensic entomology case was recounted, with the best known historic case being given. A murder had been committed in a little village in China. A man had been hacked to death with a rice-harvesting sickle. Because the village was one where rice was grown, everyone possessed a sickle, which meant that there were therefore many suspects. A professor at UC Davis, Robert Kimsey, explains how the murderer was caught; “The local magistrate very cleverly lined up every one of the farmers with their sickles out in the field. He walked up and down the line and pointed to the man who had committed the murder. The evidence he used to identify this man as a murderer-who later confessed, by the way-was the fact that green bottle flies were attracted to this man’s sickle. And nobody else, of course, had green bottle flies on their sickle because the flies were only attracted to a surface that had blood on it. No matter how rigorously you cleaned your sickle, you would still have remnants which these flies would be able to detect.”

Since those times, forensic entomology has made great progress. The way insect evidence helps justice works through the successive colonization of a corpse by a predictable succession of arthropod species. Different types of insects start coming right after death occurs. Organic remains, like flesh, blood, waste material, bone marrow, and hairs all attract certain types of insects. Owing to the time difference between the decaying body parts, the flies arrive at different times. They consume the parts that are nutritious for them and leave the body for another group.

As a manifestation of the divine name Quddus (the All-Holy), dead bodies decompose and nature is kept clean. Thus, the process started by microorganisms is made faster by the insects. Blow flies are among the first group of workers in this respect, whereas the dermestids, for instance, do their duty in the later stages of decomposition. The larvae of dermestids are not found before the body dry outs. The larvae and adults feed on dry skin and hair, as well as other dry dead organic animal matter. Dermestids are a common pest in homes, as well as being undesirable in insect collections and taxidermists collections at museums.

The first month after death is the most effective time for the application of forensic entomology. When death takes place, the insects start to arrive within minutes. However, it should be noted that insect evidence does not always tell us about the exact time of death. But at least we can infer that death occurred at a time that is greater than the age of the larvae that are developed in the body. If we have sound knowledge about the life cycles of the relevant insects, we can make more accurate predictions.

Another thing entomology helps us find out is the location of a murder. Sometimes a victim is moved after a murder in order to get rid of important evidence. For instance, a victim can be taken to a mountainous area after being killed in a town at low altitude. Entomologists can tell you about the habitat of the insects found on the body and give one a good idea about where the murder took place. Many insects live in very special geographical conditions. The altitude, temperature, and vegetation all affect the types of insects that live in the area. Furthermore, a meticulous entomological study will tell you whether the body has been, moved, the season in which it was killed, and whether the murder was committed indoors or outdoors.

Entomologists even help forensic experts with the cause of death. Particularly when the body has already decayed, it can be difficult for the police to determine the cause of death. In normal conditions, insects lay their eggs in certain parts of a body. If there are open wounds however, they will also lay their eggs there. So, if any eggs are found in unusual spots they indicate a probable wound.

When a murder or suicide is suspected to have resulted due to poisoning and if the body is decomposed, toxicological analyses that are made on the insects or the larvae taken from the body can help.

Bergeret (1855), who resided near Paris was the first westerner to use insects as forensic indicators. The body of a baby was found behind the plaster mantle in a house, and an investigation was begun. Bergeret determined that the assemblage of insects associated with the corpse pointed to a state of decay that dated back several years; consequently, the question of guilt was thrown upon the earlier occupants of the house, and not upon the current ones.

Case histories have documented the utility of medicocriminal entomology and point out the unique contributions that this field of science has made. Nuorteva et al. (1967, 1974) presented a series of cases from Finland in which blow flies were used as indicators for indoor as well as outdoor death scenes, and where the immature (larval) or adult stages were used for identification. Leclercq (1969) provided a typical case scenario and outlined how insect data were used to corroborate information obtained from other sources. Bernard Greenberg (1985) outlined several cases, including a description of how laboratory fly-rearing data were used to calculate the number of accumulated degree hours (ADH) required for certain blow fly species to develop, and how such data were applied to the solution of a murder case in Illinois. In another recent case, Greenberg described how the absence of insects in a seemingly straightforward death scene led to a killer’s confession. A window next to the victim had been open when the body was found, thus giving the impression that the murderer had forced entry into the room the night before. However, the air conditioned room was cool, even though it was very hot outdoors. In reality, the killer was known to the victim, had a key, and had returned to “set the stage,” opening the window just prior to feigning discovery of the corpse. The insects thus had insufficient time to colonize the body as the window had been closed prior to the return of the killer. When confronted by this biological reality as pointed out by medicocriminal entomology, the killer confessed.

A Hungarian ferry skipper had been condemned to life imprisonment for the murder of a postmaster, whose stabbed body had been found one evening in September on the ferry. The ferry skipper had arrived at 18:00 that day, and the body of the murdered postmaster had been found some hours later. The autopsy was performed the next day at 16:00. Masses of yellowish fly eggs and numerous newly hatched larvae of 1 to 2 mm in length were present, and the findings were recorded in the autopsy report. No attention was paid to this observation at the trial, however. On assumed evidence, the ferry skipper was condemned to life imprisonment in spite of his swearing that he was innocent. Eight years later the case was reopened. At the new trial, Dr. Mihalyi pointed out that no sarcophagous flies are active in Hungary after 18:00 in the month of September. He also recalled some of his experiments indicating that, at a temperature of 26 degrees Celsius, the yellowish eggs of Lucilia caesar (L.) hatch after 13 hours, those of L. sericata (Meigen) hatch after 10-11 hours, and those of Phormia terranovae Robineau-Desvoidy 14-16 hours after oviposition. These data, when applied to the case of the ferry skipper, led to the conclusion that it was not possible for the eggs to have hatched if they had been laid during the day the autopsy was performed, and that they must have been laid during the previous day before 18:00, since the flies are not active after this time. Dr. Mihalyi’s data on oviposition was verified and, on the basis of this and other evidence, the ferry skipper was released from prison.

Entomology, along with other sciences whisper in our ear that in “the Book of the Universe” there are different signs that lead us to the truth; they are there for us to use if we search for them and fulfill the requirement of causes. This is when the world will open its mysteries to us.

Reference

• http://www.ucdmag.ucdavis.edu/su99/Feature_Bugs.html
• http://www.research.missouri.edu/entomology/chapter1.html#history
• http://folk.uio.no/mostarke/forens_ent/casehistories/ferry_skipper.html
• The illustration is taken from the poster of the annual Insect Fear Film Festival at the University of Illinois, Feb. 2005.

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.

Russia is very well aware of the existence of some groups that claim to attack for the sake of Islam. However, I see that most Islamic societies do not agree with such self-proclaimed Muslim’s claims that they are representing them. These groups manipulate Islam either slightly or extensively in order to insert themselves within its perfect world, sometimes with various ethnic motivations. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, is undoubtedly seeking support from Muslims and portraying himself to the world as a Muslim leader. But has any group ever acknowledged him as such a leader? In addition, I have not yet seen any clear evidence that men linked with Islam are behind the tragic events in New York and Washington.

This might be either a very well-planned campaign or an immediate reaction of the American media, which is very used to accusing all Muslims in the world. I do not perceive Islam as a religion of violence. Although we in Russia suffer in Chechnya and Moscow from bomb attacks, I do not think Islam is the underlying reason behind most of these terrorist activities. We have concrete evidence that bombings and other acts of violence have been committed by Chechens; however, I do not believe that Islam can be blamed for them.

The September 11th tragedy was an act of violence, a type with which we have been familiarized by American movies. It also can be argued that these movies involve scenes that inspire such attacks to be organized. Moreover, time and again America has produced protesting generations, especially at times of crisis like the wars in Korea and Vietnam. We might hear anti-war voices arising from among those Americans who will call attention to America’s responsibility and that this attack was a provocation.

If we can unite our power to this cause, we can move successfully against terrorism. It is also important to locate the only superpower at a more appropriate status, both for the good of itself and for humanity in general.

America is certainly a great nation, and it will overcome this crisis. However, I am concerned with the possibility that its leaders might make things even worse in the rest of the world.

Personally, I think that Americans do not understand and know too much about history. This might be because they are a young nation or because they consist of many different peoples. They do not have outstanding historians. However, the problems of Europe and Asia are always deeply rooted in the past. Unfortunately, I have not yet met any American who is well informed about the reasons of these events and from where they are arising. Americans react immediately, sometimes deprived of the consciousness that history is not only the past but also the future. We must teach history and learn from it.

Cosmology is the study of the universe’s beginning, formation, and evolution. Humanity has devised many cosmological theories. For example, ancient Greeks thought the universe was composed of four elements: earth, wind, fire, and water. Now, despite several millennia of effort, modern cosmologists are even worse off.

About 60 years ago, Fritz Zwicky realized that clusters of galaxies consist mainly of matter in some non-luminous form, defined as matter that we cannot see with our telescopes. Now, after decades of accumulated observations, most astronomers believe that as much as 90 percent of this material may consist of objects or particles that cannot be seen. That is, most of the matter in the universe does not radiate light. Previously, people called this phenomenon missing matter. Contemporary researchers prefer dark matter, for it is the light, not the matter, that is missing.

In this article, I discuss evidence that proves the existence of dark matter, possible candidates for dark matter, and the importance of dark matter in understanding the universe’s beginning and end according to the Big Bang theory.

Obsering the invisible

As dark matter emits no electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light, radio waves, and X-rays), it cannot be seen by a telescope. However, we can infer its existence through its gravitational effects on luminous matter. The most obvious example of this is observed when looking at the rotation rates of galaxies. Using the resulting information, scientists can calculate the speeds of stars as they rotate around a galaxy’s center (orbital speeds) in two different ways. The first way is to look at the light coming from stars in different parts of a galaxy. Through a close study of that light’s properties, they can deduce how fast and in what direction (whether toward or away from us) that star is rotating. The second way is based upon gravitational physics. Given that we know how much matter the galaxy contains, we can calculate how fast stars must be orbiting around its center. By accounting for all of the galaxy’s luminous matter (e.g., stars, gas, and dust), astronomers can calculate the star’s orbital speeds.

But there is a problem here: The two results do not agree. The only way to account for this difference is to posit the existence of a large quantity of dark matter in the galaxies. To explain the astronomical observations, this dark matter must surround the galaxy in a large spherical distribution (known as a galactic halo).

Is the gravity of the galaxies seen in this image strong enough to contain the glowing hot gas? Superposed on an optical picture of a group of galaxies is an image taken in X-ray light. The X-ray picture shows confined hot gas highlighted in false red color and provides clear evidence that the gravity exerted in groups and clusters of galaxies exceeds all of the individual component galaxies combined. The extra gravity is attributed to dark matter, the nature and abundance of which is one of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics today. Credit: Richard Mushotzky (*)

Another effect, known as gravitational lensing, gives evidence for dark matter’s existence. This effect occurs when a massive object’s gravity bends the light that is passing by. For instance, when a cluster of galaxies blocks our view of another galaxy behind it, the cluster’s gravity warps the more distant galaxy’s light into rings or arcs, depending on the geometry involved. By observing these rings, one can calculate how much mass should be present inside the galaxy to produce this pattern. Such calculations confirm that clusters contain far more mass than the luminous matter suggests.

Image of the rich galaxy cluster Abell 2218, taken with the Hubble Space Telescope. This cluster shows evidence of multiple lensing images, as well as numerous strong and weak arcs. Using information about the arcs and multiple images allows astronomers to reconstruct the mass distribution, which then gives us knowledge about the distribution of dark matter. (*)

Dark matter defined

Understanding dark matter is a key to other important issues in cosmology, such as how much mass the universe contains, how galaxies formed, and whether or not the universe will expand forever.

The posited explanations for dark matter can be grouped into three main categories:

– Dark matter could be some kind of ordinary matter that emits or reflects too little radiation for our instruments to detect. Such objects are known as massive astrophysical compact halo objects (MACHOs) and may be ultrafaint stars, large or small black holes, cold gas, or dust scattered around the universe.

– Dark matter could consist of exotic, unfamiliar particles (i.e., different from such known particles as electrons, protons, and neutrons) that we have not figured out how to observe. These are known as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPS). Despite the many theories about them, their existence remains unconfirmed. These exotic particles are thought to have very small masses (smaller than atoms), meaning that there would have to be a huge number of them to make up the missing matter. Thus, millions of WIMPs are passing through Earth and us. They interact with ordinary matter only by means of gravity. Since the interaction is very weak, it is difficult to detect them.

Our understanding of gravity needs a major revision–but most physicists do not consider this option seriously.

Dark matter and the universe

The search for dark matter is more than trying to explain discrepancies in galactic mass calculations, for it is closely related to how the universe was formed and will end.

The Big Bang theory, which tries to explain how the universe was formed, maintains that in the beginning, everything was compressed into a single point. Then, a great explosion resulted in the universe being formed. It is still expanding. This theory is based on the fact that all galaxies, when observed with telescopes, are moving away from each other. After this explosion, matter started clumping together to form the stars and galaxies we see today.

The picture shows mankind’s deepest, most detailed visible view of the universe provided by Hubble telescope. Representing a narrow keyhole view stretching to the visible horizon of the universe, the Hubble Deep Field image covers a speck of the sky only about the width of a dime 75 feet away. Though the field is a very small sample of the, it is considered representative of the typical distribution of galaxies in space, because the universe, statistically, looks largely the same in all directions. In this picture, Hubble uncovered a bewildering assortment of at least 1,500 galaxies at various stages of evolution. (*)

One problem with this theory is explaining how the stars and galaxies were formed. If matter initially was distributed evenly in all directions, what caused it to clump together in some regions and form stars and galaxies? Gravity alone cannot cause this in a smooth universe, and so something had to supply the initial gravity that allowed galaxies to form. Physicists suggest that dark matter WIMPs accomplished this task. Since WIMPs only affect ordinary matter gravitationally, physicists say this dark matter could be the seed of galactic formation.

According to the Big Bang theory, there are three possibilities for the universe’s future. In a closed universe, gravity is strong enough to stop the expansion eventually and pull everything back to a single point. In an open universe, gravity cannot stop the expansion and so it will continue forever. In a flat universe, there is just the right amount of mass so that gravity can stop the expansion but not pull it back into one point.

The amount of dark matter that exists is crucial to determining the universe’s fate, because the Big Bang theory posits that the amount of mass in the universe determines gravity’s strength and, by extension, whether the universe will be closed, open, or flat. To quantify this, scientists define a constant, called Omega, as the ratio of the universe’s density to some critical density. A flat universe is said to have an Omega of 1, meaning that its density is equal to that of the critical density. If the density is greater than 1, the universe is closed; if it is less than 1, is be open. Without dark matter, the universe’s observed density is between 0.01 and 0.1. Therefore we live in an open universe. If a lot of dark matter were present, the universe would be closed. If there were just the right amount present, it would be flat.

Conclusion

The discovery of dark matter could affect our view of our place in the universe. If its existence were proven, our world and its inhabitants would be made of something comprising an insignificant portion of the physical universe. This probably would not affect our daily life, but would create a new scientific paradigm. In this sense, the discovery of dark matter would be as revolutionary as finding of extraterrestrial life.

Footnotes

1. Herman, R. and S. L. Larson. Is Dark Matter Theory or Fact? Scientific American (15 June 1998).
2. Rubin, V. Dark Matter in the Universe. Scientific American (March 1998).

* http://www.nasa.gov

According to Islam, the eschatological descent of Jesus is one such manifestation. Jesus, along with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, John, and Muhammad, is considered one of the elite Prophets. Muslims believe that Jesus received a Divinely revealed book (the Injil [Gospel]), was born of a virgin, had no human father, and was sinless. He is given titles of honor, and pictured as a wandering preacher who performed miracles and spoke beautiful words. Many Sufis use his words in their prayers. The Qur’an states that Jesus’ people did not crucify him, for someone took His place on the cross. He then ascended to the heavens, after promising to send a comforter (Muhammad).

Muslims have surrounded Jesus with many pious legends. Some believe he will return and marry in the distant future. A grave site has been reserved for him. Others say he will judge the world at the end of time, help Muhammad rule, be Muhammad’s last Companion, or that he will appear at the eastern white minaret of the Damascus mosque or in Jerusalem. He will pursue the Antichrist (Dajjal) and, overtaking him at the gate of Lydda (a town near Jerusalem), will slay him.

Islamic scholars interpret some Qur’anic verses and hadith pointing to the second coming as a significant pre-Day of Judgment event.(2) The earliest Muslim scholars believed this so strongly that they attached it to the eminence of the Day of Judgment. At times, .expectations ran so high that commoners prepared a white horse and brought it to the white minaret in Damascus where they believed Jesus would reappear. Reputable texts give no credence to such details, although they have been dramatized by interpreters of lesser reputation. Jesus appears in the horizon at dawn and leads the people against the Antichrist who, helpless before such power, dissolves into nothingness.

Will this eschatological event occur? Is there any truth to this belief? How has the subject been treated in kalam (Islamic theology) literature? The starting point in seeking answers is the Qur’an.

Much of what the Qur’an teaches about Jesus is acceptable to Christians: the virgin birth, his sinlessness and ascension, and his miracles. The Qur’anic evidence for Jesus’ descent is somewhat obscure and ambigious, but later Muslim traditions took up the idea eagerly. According to them, Jesus is still alive in the heavens and will return to signal the Last Days.(3) The Qur’an, which considers Jesus a great Prophet, mentions him as ‘Isa (25 places),(4) al-Masih (Annointed One, Messiah), al-Nabi (Prophet), al-Rasul (Messenger), Min al-Muqarrabin (of those close to God), Mubarak (Sacred One), Qawl al-Haq (True Word), ‘Abd Allah (Servant of God), and in 33 places as Ibn Maryam (Son of Mary).

Before delving into this subject further, we will examine the events leading up to it. For example, his second coming necessarily implies his ascension to the heavens alive. This begs the question: Did Jesus die on the cross?

THE QUESTION OF JESUS’ DEATH

This very contentious question has engendered several schools of thought. Some claim that Roman soldiers charged into a cottage where Jesus was believed to be with twelve of his disciples. During the attack, one person disappeared. Soldiers took one of the twelve remaining men and crucified him. Others believe that when the soldiers entered the cottage, they could not identify him, as everyone had taken on his physical attributes, and so picked and crucified someone at random.(5)

While the Qur’an offers no details on this point, it clearly states that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified. Moreover, his ‘killers’ were never sure if they had killed him or not (4:157-58). We know that someone-but not who-was crucified. Jewish and Christian sources say it was Jesus, an assertion rejected outright by the Qur’an.

THE QUR’ANIC ACCOUNT

And remember when Allah said: “0 Jesus. I will take you and raise you to Myself and clear you of those who disbelieve” (3:55). In other words, Jesus was not executed. A perusal of the classical and more modern literature on this verse will clarify matters.

According to Ragheb al-Isphahani (d. 1696), mutawaffika (I will take you) here does not mean death in the sense we understand it, even though he mentions that the noted Companion Ibn ‘Abbas understood this literal meaning.(6) Al-Tabari (d. 922), a well-known Qur’anic scholar, states that mutawaffika means “to take and raise him to the heavens.” After offering several interpretations, he expresses his own preference: “In my opinion, a healthier view on the meaning of mutawaffika is ‘to take from earth and raise to the heavens.'”(7) Moreover, the verse as a whole points to Jesus’ eschatological descent and a war against the nonbelievers that ends in a great victory for the believers.

The noted Islamic theologian al-Maturidi (d. 944) mentions several views, one of which is that even though the verse first mentions Jesus’ death and then his ascension, his death is postponed until after the second coming. God says: “I will take you and raise you to myself … to the day of resurrection: Then shall you all return unto me…” However, the probable meaning of literal death cannot be dismissed.(8) Al-Maturidi does not state his own view. If, however, mentioning one view before another amounts to a personal preference, one can argue that he believes Jesus was not killed before his ascension. This uncertainty, however, does not apply to his second coming, as al-Maturidi cites several relevant hadiths and the subsequent slaying of the Antichrist.(9)

Al-Zamakhshari (d. 1143), a Mu’tazilite scholar and Arabic linguist, argues that Jesus “will die a natural death after his victory over the Antichrist, not at the hands of the nonbelievers.”(10) The famous Qur’anic interpreter Ibn ‘Atiyya (d. 1152) writes that Jesus “will die a second time after descending to the Earth and slaying the Antichrist.”(11) Based on this, he seems to accept that Jesus ascended after his death, whereas he claims that Jesus is still alive.

Abu al-Faraj al-Jawzi (d. 1200), who defines mutawaffika as “to take something completely,” writes that Jesus was raised to the heavens by God. And he does not rule out a normal death: “Jesus’ real death shall occur after his second coming.”(12) The noted Muslim theologian al-Razi (d. 1209) gives what he calls a “sensible” interpretation: “I will complete your life and then take your soul. I shall not leave you in their hands to kill you. I will raise you to My heavens and place you next to my angels. They will not have the chance to kill you, for I will protect you.(13)

Ibn Kathir (d. 1372), a prominent Qur’anic interpreter offering the same explanation, interprets mutawaffika as “sleep” and provides several supporting verses.(14) A similar explanation, that Jesus ascended and will return before the Day of Judgment, is held by many people, among them Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, who uses the pertinent hadith literature to verify the meaning mutawaffa as “sleep.”(15)

Other respected Qur’anic scholars interpret tawaffa as “death as applied to Jesus.” However, as this death will occur after the second coming and the Antichrist’s subsequent defeat, Jesus is currently alive. Upon his second coming, Jesus will effect various social reforms and refute some established Christian beliefs.(16)

The Ottoman mystic scholar Bursevi accepts the traditional explanation and gives additional details: “When Jesus witnessed the virtuosity of the Prophet Muhammad’s community in the Preserved Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfuz), he asked God to count him as one of Ummah of Muhammad. God accepted this sincere supplication….”(17) The Qur’anic scholar al-Alusi (d. 1854) offers a different hypothesis: Jesus ascended alive and awake, stripped of all human needs and attributes.(18) In fact, he now lives in a world unknown to us.

Some contemporary Turkish and Egyptian scholars hold different views. Omer Riza Dogrul asserts that as Jesus could not have been killed, he must have died naturally.(19) According to the Egyptian Islamic scholar al-Qasimi, both literal and metaphorical interpretations are possible, although he appears to favor an idiomatic meaning for tawaffa.(20) The Pakistani scholar Abul Ala Maududi writes: “Mutawaffika in the Arabic text is from tawaffa, which literally means ‘to take and to receive,’ and ‘to seize the soul’ is not its lexical but rather its metaphorical meaning. Here it means ‘to recall from mission.'”(21) He castigates those who adopt the literal meaning (death) for tawaffa, accusing them of saying God cannot express Himself clearly.

Kawthari, who lived during the last phase of the Ottoman Empire, also emphasizes a metaphorical meaning based on historical analysis of the word’s meaning and more Qur’anic examples. During the Qur’an’s revelation, its audience would not necessarily have understood this word to mean “death,” for then the Qur’anic usage of mawt elsewhere would lose its significance as “death.” The Qur’an contains several words whose true meanings would be distorted if their contemporary meanings were ascribed to them. For example, today risalah means “letter,” while its original Qur’anic meaning is “Prophethood.”(22)

The Egyptian reformers Muhammad ‘Abduh and Rashid Rida accept the lexical meaning of “death.” Rida says Jesus literally died and his soul ascended. In conversation, it is not unusual to signify “soul” when a person’s name is mentioned, for the soul is the individual’s essence. Therefore when the Qur’an talks about Jesus in this verse, it means his soul.(23)

Mahmood Shaltut, a more contemporary Egyptian scholar, is certain of Jesus’ literal death. He cites two verses that mention Jesus’ forthcoming death and report his death (4:157 and 3:5, respectively). Several contemporary interpreters posit an energy-matter relationship, but provide no supporting evidence. According to them, Jesus had such a strong spiritual stature that his physical body became energy (spirit) and ascended to the heavens, similar to Muhammad’s Ascension. Mutawaffika naturally would refer to his death as tawaffa, “to call in a loan at the end of its term,” and is commonly used in that sense. But the verb also is used for nightly slumber. Therefore we cannot be certain that actual death is implied here.

QUR’ANIC VERSES and CRUCIFIXION

And because of their saying: We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah,’ but they hilled him not nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not. But Allah raised him up unto himself And Allah is ever AU-Powerful, All-Wise (4:157-58).

These verses have been interpreted in two ways: Jesus did not die but ascended, or he really died. Early Qur’anic scholars offered various interpretations. The scholar Mujahid ibn Jabr (d.0722) claimed “they crucified someone other than Jesus, whom they mistook for Jesus,” and “Jesus ascended to the heavens alive.”24 According to Ibn Hazm (d. 1064), a famous Muslim theologian, Jesus did not die and is alive in the heavens, as the above verses clearly indicate.25 Once again, these verses remind us that Jesus has not died, will return before the Day of Judgment, and eventually will die a natural death. In fact, Jesus is known to have said: So peace is upon me the day I was born, the day that I die… (19 which shows that he is still alive. It mus remembered, however, that since he said this while still in his cradle, this verse does not prove that he is still alive.

The Qur’an tells us that faith always triumphs over evil. If Jesus’ enemies crucified him, evil would be triumphant, It also states clearly that God defends the faithful (22:38). Therefore, Jesus could not have been crucified.26

Arguments against Jesus’ crucifixion are considerably more convincing than those favoring it. But both groups have asked: If he is not dead, why is his second coming delayed until soon before Day of Judgment? Those v ‘ say he has died already dt^-y the second coming.

Elmalili Hamdi Yazir, the best-known Turkish interpreter of the Qur’an, concurs with the majority view, basing himself on the hadith: “Jesus has not died and will reappear shortly before the Day of Judgment.”‘7 Most Muslims believe that as Jesus has not yet completed his appointed task, he this verse, it means his soul.23

Mahmood Shaltut, a more contemporary Egyptian scholar, is certain of Jesus’ literal death. He cites two verses that mention Jesus’ forthcoming death and report his death (4:157 and 3:5, respectively). Several contemporary interpreters posit an energy-matter relationship, but provide no supporting evidence. According to them, Jesus had such a strong spiritual stature that his physical body became energy [spirit) and ascended to the heavens, similar to Muhammad’s Ascension. Mutawaffika naturally would refer to his death as tawaffa, “to call in a loan at the end of its term,” and is commonly used in that sense. But the verb also is used for nightly slumber. Therefore we cannot be certain that actual death is implied here.

QUR’ANIC VERSES AND CRUCIFIXION

And because of their saying: ‘We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah,’ but they killed him not nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not. But Allah raised him up unto himself. And Allah is ever All-Powerful, All-Wise (4:157-58).

These verses have been interpreted in two ways; Jesus did not die but ascended, or he really died. Early Qur’anic scholars offered various interpretations. The scholar Mujahid ibn Jabr (d.722) claimed “they crucified someone other than Jesus, whom they mistook for Jesus,” and “Jesus ascended to the heavens alive.”(24) According to Ibn Hazm (d. 1064), a famous Muslim theologian, Jesus did not die and is alive in the heavens, as the above verses clearly indicate.(25) Once again, these verses remind us that Jesus has not died, will return before the Day of Judgment, and eventually will die a natural death. In fact, Jesus is known to have said: So peace is upon me the day I was born, the day that I die… (19:33), which shows that he is still alive. It must be remembered, however, that since he said this while still in his cradle, this verse does not prove that he is still alive.

The Qur’an tells us that faith always triumphs over evil. If Jesus’ enemies crucified him, evil would be triumphant. It also states clearly that God defends the faithful (22:38). Therefore, Jesus could not have been crucified.(26)

Arguments against Jesus’ crucifixion are considerably more convincing than those favoring it. But both groups have asked: If he is not dead, why is his second coming delayed until soon before the Day of Judgment? Those who say he has died already deny the second coming.

Elmalili Hamdi Yazir, the best-known Turkish interpreter of the Qur’an, concurs with the majority view, basing himself on the hadith: “Jesus has not died and will reappear shortly before the Day of Judgment.”(27) Most Muslims believe that as Jesus has not yet completed his appointed task, he will return to complete it and then die.(28) Relying on: Every soul shall taste death (3:185) and We granted not to any man before the permanent life (21:34), Ismail Fenni Ertugrul, a contemporary Turkish scholar, accuses Elmalili of hiding his real opinion. According to him, the above verses clearly presuppose Jesus’ death.(29) But such criticism is groundless; Elmalili does not contradict these verses, as all Islamic scholars agree that Jesus eventually will die and be resurrected.

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (d. 1960), the most influential twentieth-century Muslim scholar, has defined five distinct levels of life, and places Jesus in the third level (along with the angels). The first level, that of humanity, is very restricted. The second level, that of Khidi and Ilyas (Elias), is free to some extent and allows its inhabitants to be present in numerous places at once. The third level is that of Idris (Enoch) and Jesus who, removed from human requirements, enter an angelic life and acquire a luminous fineness. Quite simply, they are in the heavens with their earthly bodies. In this life, Jesus is more like an angel than a man. The fourth level is for martyrs, and the fifth level is for the spirits of the dead in their graves.(30)

QURANIC VERSES INFERRING THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DESCENT OF JESUS

Whether the Qur’an addresses Jesus’ second coming has been a matter of contention.

Three Qur’anic verses have been advanced as evidence. The first refers to what Jesus said. Some classical interpreters, with the exception of the Mu’tazilite al-Zamakhshari, based themselves on hadith literature and inferred the second coming from: He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity… (3:45). According to them, the verb’s future tense implies the unfinished nature of Jesus’ mission. So, he will have to speak to people after his second coming.(31) Some contemporary scholars agree, notably al-Ghumari, who says that this verse refers to an extraordinary event, as he spoke while still in his crib. Before his ascension, Jesus preached among his kinsmen. However, the verse contains the word al-nas, indicating that he will speak to humanity. This necessitates his second coming. (32)

What is actually emphasized here, and in 19:29-31, is the miracle of Jesus speaking when still an infant. The verse also suggests that Jesus will speak to people. Of course he spoke to people as an adult before his ascension. So we cannot infer from the verse’s context that such an event will occur after his second coming. Those who assert this offer no concrete supporting evidence. The verse’s implied meaning of the second coming, I believe, appears at best to be forced, probably to provide additional support for hadith dealing with the subject.

The second relevant verse is: And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in Him before his death (4:159). Again, their argument is weak. Al-Zamakhshari assigns the pronoun bihi (in him) to Jesus, and infers the second coming in the verse’s context. Al-Suyuti and al-Qari (d. 1605) infer a similar meaning.(33) According to al-Baydawi, if both bihi and mawtihi refer to Jesus, his death can be considered real only after his second coming.(34) ‘Abd al-Hamid, an al-Azhar scholar, puts forward this verse to those who claim that the Qur’an does not mention clearly or even hint about the second coming.(35) The best interpreters of the verse are the Prophet’s Companions. Al-Ghumari points out that Ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Hurayra, two Companions with an outstanding command of Arabic grammar and knowledge of the Qur’anic mission, interpreted it in a way that infers the descent of Jesus.(36) The Prophet’s grandson Hasan agrees with this interpretation.(37) Therefore the majority of Muslim scholars believe that Jesus will return.

The verse: And he (Jesus) shall be a sign of the Judgment Day… (43:61), according to various classical and contemporary Qur’anic scholars, refers to his eschatological descent.(38) In this verse, la ‘ilmun can be recited in three variations: la ‘ilmun, refers to knowledge of the Day of Judgment; la ‘alamun, points to a sign of the Day of Judgment; and la dhikr, as a warning of the Day of Judgment.(39) Al-Azhar’s official fatwa on the second coming offers this verse as evidence.(40) There will be a second coming, because it has been foretold to be a sign of the Hour of Resurrection. Moreover, such Western scholars as Parrinder, also point to this verse as evidence when speaking of the second coming.(41)

Shaltut does not accept the second and third verses as indisputable evidence, but rather prefers al-Tabari’s interpretation that Jesus’ virgin birth is itself a sign of the Hour of Judgment.(42) This verse addresses those who deny the Hereafter. This miraculous birth is offered to provide evidence of the Hereafter to unbelievers. According to al-Kawthari, who diametrically opposes Shaltut, pertinent Qur’anic verses and traditions necessitate a belief in the second coming. He does not respond directly to Shaltut’s views; rather, he accepts the majority view by faith without insisting on concrete evidence. The contemporary scholar Ibn ‘Ashur, who also opposes the majority view, fails to offer any convincing supporting evidence.(43)

In the context, the pronoun hu naturally refers to Jesus, meaning that Jesus is a sign of the coming of the Hour. Then the return of Jesus is, of course, one of the signs of the only Qur’anic passage supporting this view. But others say this pronoun refers to the Qur’an, or to Muhammad. In my opinion, these two latter interpretations are not credible, for these verses are generally about Jesus. Therefore the meaning would be “Jesus is the sign of the Day of Judgment.” As the exact aspect of Jesus that supposedly is a sign of the Day of Judgment is not mentioned, many interpretations are possible.

For example, some scholars imply that Jesus’ virgin birth is a sign: God is showing us His power. Therefore, the All-Powerful God Who created Jesus without a father can create the Hereafter and the Day of Judgment. The verse compares Jesus’ creation with, that of Adam, presenting both as evidence of God’s infinite power. When God mentions Jesus as a sign of the Hour, the first meaning that logically comes to mind is his miraculous birth. According to others, the verse indicates the second coming because there is a close relation between Jesus and the Hour. Therefore, as Jesus is mentioned as a sign of the Hour, his descent must be meant.

The fourth verse cited as evidence is: And ice be upon me the day I was born and the day 1die and the day I shall be raised alive (19:33). The resurrection mentioned here signifies his second coming, according to those who claim it proves this event. They base this on the fact that the same verse also mentions his future death. In other words, Jesus did not die on the cross.(44)

Another indirect proof is: He (Muhammad) does not speak of his own desire. It is only an inspiration that is inspired (53:3-4). This verse literally explains that whatever Prophet Muhammad says is an inspiration from God. It is narrated, with a strong chain of transmitters, that the Prophet was talking to his Companions about the second coming. Therefore this verse is a proof that Prophet Muhammad was inspired about the second coming.(45)

Unlike most interpreters, Shaltut opines that all such proofs violate the verses’ literal meaning, and that interpreters devised such meanings to avoid conflict with some second-coming traditions narrated by such famous Companions as Abu Hurayra. Therefore, he believes that the Qur’an and the Sunnah provide no trustworthy evidence for this event. The Syrian scholar al-Buty claims that Shaltut changed his view, adopted the majority view during his last illness, and then buried all documents connected with his old views.(46)

But why did Shaltut deny the second coming despite all the proofs mentioned above? It seems to me that he viewed the majority interpretation as unreasonable and against general Islamic principles. He thinks that a person cannot come from heaven, and therefore denies such statements. They based their evidence on God’s power, saying: He is able to do all things (67:1) and therefore He can bring Jesus. They think of bodily descent. Is the descent of Jesus from heaven to be considered materially? 

In semantic terms, nuzul (descending) does not necessitate a material descent, for other verses treat this descent as a manifestation of God’s bounty. For example: He sent down for you eight pairs of cattle (39:6}.(47) We cannot say that the animals descended from the heavens, but we can say that they descended to us from God’s Mercy. Moreover, in some hadiths nuzul is used in relation to God: “God descends every night to the first heaven, the heaven of the world…”(48) Of course it is not a physical descend. Therefore, in this sense, the descend of Jesus in his second coming can be spiritual, meaning that God will send him from His Mercy to be a mercy to humanity.

There is another, more spiritual approach: His descent means that Christian spiritual leaders will purify Christianity and return it to the original religion of Jesus. Meanwhile, they do not deny the possibility of Jesus’ physical descent. Because of his strong spirituality, Jesus can come and go and appear in different human forms. But the focal point, according to this opinion, is his spiritual domination of the Earth in alliance with Islam. The true religion, seen in the togetherness of Islam and Christianity, will defeat materialism, communism, and atheism. This view is shared by the prominent Turkish scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, the Indian scholar Siddik Hasan Khan, and partly by ‘Abduh. Therefore, the second coming can be a strong means for Muslim-Christians dialogue.

To clarify this matter, we cite Qur’an 30:1-5, which discusses the Muslims’ hope that the Roman Christians would defeat the pagan Persians. The Qur’an clearly mentions that Muslims shall rejoice over that victory. If we apply this historical event to today’s life, what can we say? In general, when one asks a Muslim about a possible war, for example, between the United States and China, Muslims must support the former, for it believes in God and religious values, and China does not. In fact, as far as I know, many Muslims are very upset over China’s persecution of its Muslims and Christians. Since Prophet Muhammad stated in many traditions that some Qur’anic verses hint of Jesus’ second coming, the concept of Muslim-Christian dialogue is readily understandable. To sum up, the huge restoration of the Last Days will witness true Christianity (the spirit of Jesus) working hand in hand with true Islam (the spirit of Muhammad) for the benefit of humanity. 

* Zeki Saritoprak is an Associate Faculty Member of the Department of Semitics at The Catholic University of America, and a Research Associate at Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The author wishes to thank Seyyid Hussein Nasr, Sidney Griffith, Theresa Ann-Druart, and Monica Blanchard.

FOOTNOTES

1. See ‘Abd al-Baqi, Muhammad Fuad, Al-Mu’jam al-Mufahras li Alfazi’l-Qur’an al-Karim, (Istanbul: 1982), 370-1, 581-2, 775-80.
2. Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Husayn b. Hasan al-Halimi, Al-Minhaj fi Shu’ab al-Iman, (Cairo: 1979), 1:142; Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Abi Sahi al-Sarakhsi, Sifatu Ashrat al-Sa’ah (Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale, n.d.), nr. 1800; ed. by Zeki Saritoprak, (Cairo: 1993), 35; Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. Hajar al-Haythami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, ed. by Muhammad Zaynuhum-Muhammad ‘Azab (Cairo: 1986), 84; Abu al-Tayyib Muhammad Ashraf b. Amir b. ‘Ali al-Azemabadi, ‘Anmu’l-Ma’bud Sharhu Sunani Abi Dawud (Madina: 1989), 11:424-5; ‘Ali al-Maliki al-Manshalili, Risale fi ‘Ashrati’s-Sa’ah wa Ahvali Yawmi’l-Qiyama, nis. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, nr. B-19690) fol. la-3b; Ahmad ibn al-Faqih al-Shafi’i, ‘Ashratu’s-Sa’ah, ms. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Tasawwuf, nr. 2191), fol. 3a-6b; ‘Ali b. Sultan al-Harawi al-Qari, Sharh al-Fiqhi’l-Akbar (Cairo: 1323 CE), 112; Al-Mashrab al-Wardifi Haqiqati’l-Mahdi, ms. (Istanbul: Koprulu, nr. 1509), fol. 200a-200b; Kamal al-Din Ahmad al-Bayadi, Isharat al-Maram min ‘Ibarati al-Imam, ed. by. Yusuf Abd al-Razzak (Cairo: 1949), 67; Kamal al-Din al-Tai, Risale fi al-Tawhid wa al-Firaq al-Mu’asira (Beirut: n.d), 106; Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Hindi al-Kash-miri, Al-Tasrih bima Tawatara fi Nuzul al-Masih, ed. by Abd al-Fattah ‘Abu Ghudda (Aleppo: 1965), 9-11.
3. See F. E. Peters, Allah’s Commomwealth: A Histoiy of Islam in the Near East (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973), 51.
4. ‘Abd al-Baqi, Al-Mu’jam, 494-5.
5. See Muhammad b. Umar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb (Beirut: n.d), 11:100.
6. Ragheb al-Isfahani, Al-Mufradat fi Alfaz al-Qur’an (Istanbul: 1986), 830.
7. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan an Ta’wili al-Qur’an (Beirut, 1984); ed. by Muhammad Mahmud Shakir (Cairo: n.d) 3:290-1.
8. Abu Mansur Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Mahmud al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat al-Qur’an, ms. Haci Selim Aga (Istanbul: n.d.) nr. 40 fol. 80 a-80b.
9. Ibid., fol. 239 a.
10. Abu al-Qasim Jarullah Mahmud ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhshari, Al-Kashshaf ‘an Haqaiqi al-Tanzil wa Uyuni’l-Aqawil fi Wujuh al-Ta’wil, (Beirut: n.d.), 1:432-3.
11. Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Khaliq b. Ghalib b. ‘Atiyya al-Andalusi Ibn ‘Atiyya, Al-Muharrar al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-‘Aziz, (Fez: 1977), 3:105,13:255.
12. ‘Abd al-Rahman b ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Mathir fi ‘Ilm al-Tafsir (Beirut: 1964), 1:396-7.
13. Al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb, 2:100, 8:67.
14. ‘Imad al-Din Abu al-Fida ‘Ismail b. Umar Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim(Beirut: 1969),1:575.
15. Jalal al-Din ‘Abdarrahman al-Suyuti, Al-Durr al-Manthur fi al-Tafsir bi al-Ma’thur (Beirut: n.d.), 2:225-7.
16. Abu Hayyan Muhammad b.Yusuf al-Andalusi, Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit (Beirut: 1983), 2:473.
17. ‘Isma’il Haqqi Bursawi, Ruh al-Bayan (Istanbul: 1389), 2:41.
18. Abu al-Fadl Shihab al-Din Sayyid Mahmud al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al- ‘Azim wa Sab’i al-Mathani, (Beirut: n.d.), 3:179.
19. Omar Riza Dogrul, Tanri Buyrugu (Istanbul: 1980), 97.
20. Muhammad Jalal al-Din al-Qasimi, Mahasin al-Ta’wil, ed. by M. Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi (Beirut: 1978), 4:107.
21. S. Abul A’la Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1985), 2:34.
22. Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, Nazra ‘Abire fi Maza’imi man Yunkir Nuzula ‘Isa qabla al-Akhira (Cairo: 1987), 99-100.
23. Rashid Rida, Tafsir al-Manar (Cairo: 1954), 3:169.
24. Ibn Jabr Abu al-Hajjaj Mujahid, Tafsiru Mujahid, ed. by ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Tahir (Qatar: 1976), 180-1.
25. Abu Muhammad ‘Ali b. Ahmad al-Zahiri Ibn Hazm, ‘Ilm al-Kalam ‘ala Mazhabi Ahli al-Sunna wa al-Jama’ah, ed. by Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa (Cairo: 1989), 56-7.
26. See George Anawati, “Isa”, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2d ed. (Leiden: 1978), 4:84.
27. See Al-Bukhari, “Mazalim,” 31; “Buyu’,” 102; Muslim, “Iman,” 242; Ibn Maja, “Fitan,” 33.
28. Elmalili Hamdi Yazir, Hak Dini Kur’an Dili (Istanbul: 1992), 2:372-3.
29. Ismail Fenni Ertugrul, Hakikat Nurlari (Istanbul: 1949), 221-4.
30. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Letters, trans. by Þukran Vahide (Istanbul: Sozler, 1994), 22.
31. Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, 6:420; Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, (Beirut: 1967), 6:11; Abu Sa’id ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (Cairo: n.d.), 2:19; Al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani, 6:13.
32. ‘Abd Allah b. Siddik al-Ghumari, Iqama al-Burhan ‘ala Nuzuli ‘Isa fi Akhir al-Zaman (Cairo:1974), 97.
33. Al-Suyuti, Al-Durr al-Manthur, 2:241-2; ‘Ali b. Sultan al-Harawi al-Qari, Mirqat al-Mafatih (Cairo: 1309), 5:221.
34. Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil, 1:240.
35. Muhyi al-Din ‘Abd al-Hamid, “Bab al-Fatwa,” Majalla al-Azhar, vol. 48 (1972), 4:552.
36. Al-Ghumari, Iqama al-Burhan, 100-1.
37. Ibn ‘Atiyya, al-Muharrar, 4:305-6.
38. ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud, Tafsiru Ibn Mas’ud, ed. by Muhammad Ahmad Isawi (Riyadh: 1985), 560; Abu ‘Abd Allah Sufyan b. Masruq al-Thawri, Tafsir (Beirut: 1983), 273; Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, 25:90-1; Al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb, 27:222; Al-Sayyid Muhammad Siddiq al-Qanuji Khan, Fath al-Bayan fi Maqasid al-Qur’an (Cairo: 1965) 8:428.
39. See Anawati, “Isa”, EI2, 4:84.
40. Mustafa al-Tair, “Nuzul al-Masih min ‘Alamat al-Sa’ah, ” Majalla al-Azhar, vol. 47 (1971), 6:515.
41. Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an (London: 1967), 124.
42. Shaltut, al-Fatawa, 74-5.
43. Muhammad Tahir Ibn Ashur, Tafsir al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir (Tunisia: 1984), 25:243.
44. See Parrender, 122; Anawati, “Isa” EI2, 4:84.
45. Ibrahim al-Tuwijary, “Iqama al-Burhan,” Majalla al-Buhuth al-Islamiyya, vol. 13 (1985), 104-5.
46. Sa’id Ramadan al-Buty, Kubra al-Yaqiniyyat, (Beirut: 1994), 352.
47. Cf. sending down iron (57:25) and clothing ( 7:26).
48. Al-Bukhari, “Da’awat,” 14; “Tawhid,” 35.

Denton, an Australian doctor and scientist, distinguishes a special (or micro) theory of evolution from the general theory. The former would claim only that closely related species can (and did in the past) evolve from others. But the general theory (the one that is widely accepted) claims to explain the origin and current diversity of all species as purely random mutations accompanied by natural selection over a very long period of time. While Denton accepts the special (micro) theory, he demonstrates so many flaws in the general theory that it must be rejected outright: its claims cannot be softened or modified in any way that could rescue the theory.

Chapter I traces the dramatic transformation of Darwin’s stance from a ‘fundamentalist’ acceptance of the Bible’s account of creation to outright rejection. Known facts about the geological age of the earth (the Bible implies 6000 years), fossil evidence of extinct species (Genesis states that all species were rescued from the flood), might justify a rejection of a literal reading of the Bible. But they do not justify a rejection of the concept of conscious design in the creation (implying a Creator). Yet, as Chapter 2 shows, this is just the position Darwin (and his followers) take: it is of the essential core of Darwin’s theory that natural selection is a blind process: ‘Darwin himself clearly stated that the mechanism responsible for … genetic variations [must] be entirely blind to the adaptive needs and requirements of the organism. Evolution by natural selection is therefore, in essence, strictly analogous to problem solving by trial and error, and it leads to the immense claim that all the design in the biosphere is ultimately the fortuitous outcome of entirely blind random processes – a giant lottery.’ This idea is frequently reflected in populist remarks like Carl Sagan’s: ‘given enough time, chance will work miracles’. But as anyone familiar with the relevant mathematics knows, ‘time in itself tells us nothing of the probability of achieving any sort of goal unless the complexity of the search can be qualified’. (Denton shows some of this complexity in Chapter 13, ‘Beyond the reach of chance’.) The universe simply isn’t old enough for even life, let alone life in all its diversity, to have arisen by chance.

Chapter 3 describes how Darwin’s theory turned into a general dogma largely because of the unacceptability as scientific theory of the alternative (conscious design implying a Creator). Yet, if stripped of the philosophical and metaphysical pretensions it so quickly assumed, the theory of evolution could be respectable as a ‘partial truth’. Denton explains in Chapter 4 that there is strong evidence (supporting the restricted claims of the special theory) for closely related animals or plants evolving from each other and forming distinct ‘species’, the term ‘species’ being understood as ‘a reproductively isolated population of organisms’.

According to Denton: ‘There are only two sorts of evidence for evolution which do not depend on actual observation of the process: finding a sequence of inter-grading forms leading unambiguously from one to another; or reconstructing them hypothetically by providing an entirely plausible genealogy including all the intermediate forms and thoroughly convincing explanation of how each stage of transformation came about.’ Example cases for the first sort of evidence are: the peppered moth, two species of European gull, and the droshopila species of Hawaii. Examples for the second sort of evidence include Mengels work on wood warblers of North America on Hawaiian honey-creepers by Amadon, and on small lizards of the Caribbean islands by Gorman and Atkins. How-ever, as Denton emphasizes, such evidence for special (micro) evolution in no way justifies the general theory. ‘However attractive the extrapolation, it does not necessarily follow that, because a certain degree of evolution has been shown to occur, therefore any degree is possible. There is obviously an enormous difference between the evolution of a colour change in a moth’s wing and the evolution of an organ like the human brain, and the differences among the fruit flies of Hawaii, for example, are utterly trivial compared with the differences between a mouse and an elephant, or an octopus and a bee.’

Denton gives good analogies and illustrative examples to argue the general principle that: ‘while sentences, machines and other sorts of complex systems can undergo a certain degree of gradual functional change, there is invariably a limit beyond which the system cannot undergo further gradual change. To cross as it were from one ‘type’ of system to another necessitates a relatively massive reorganization involving the redesign or respecification of all or almost all of the interacting component subsystems. Systems can undergo gradual micro-evolution through a succession of minor changes in their component structures but macro-evolution invariably involves a sudden ‘saltational’ change [i.e. non-gradual change by ‘leaps’]. Clearly, in all such cases, the extrapolation from micro- to macro-evolutionary change does not hold.’ Gradual random processes are incapable of producing ‘simultaneous highly specific correlated changes throughout [an] entire system’ which is precisely what they must be capable of if macro evolution is to work. (This argument is further elaborated in Chapter 13.)

Chapters 5 and 6 describe the ‘typological perception of nature which sees (and classifies) organisms as distinct groups separated by non-trivial, large gaps. There is abundant evidence for this approach and historically classification schemes were based on it. However, following widespread acceptance of the general theory of evolution, some felt the need to construct literally tree-like diagrams – many branches from a single trunk and root. Inevitably, such diagrams had many blanks, many wholly conjectural ‘branches’ needed to link known species through unknown transitionary species to alleged ancestors.

Chapter 7 discusses homology which, once thought to provide supportive evidence for evolution, turns out to be evidence destructive of the theory. 1-lomologous organs cannot be traced back to embryological development and there exist homologous limbs which, according to the theory, must have evolved from very different parts of the embryo. In short, homology does not imply common ancestry.

The subject of Chapter 8 is the key issue of fossil evidence. Darwin was expecting paleontological explorations to uncover the crucial missing ‘links’ predicted (and required) by his theory. However, as the evidence from fossil records has grown, so too has the untenability of Darwin’s theory.

To begin with, we need to know that fossils are a record only of skeletal remains: 99% of any organ ism is soft tissue which is not preserved in fossils. The coelacanth (a favourite with evolutionists) had been presented as a ‘link’ between fish and amphibians. Yet, its skeleton is identical to that preserved in aneien fossils which are as far from having been amphibians as are any other fish, The lesson is that conclusions based on skeleton forms alone do not count for much. Insects preserved in amber from hundreds of millions years ago, identical to modern insects, provide further examples of ‘living fossils’ which somehow evaded evolution.

Mother fossil record favourite with evolutionists is the horse series. Denton writes: ‘The difference between Fohippus and the modem horse is relatively trivial, yet the two forms are separated by sixty million years and at least ten genera and a great number of species. The horse series therefore tends to emphasize just how vast must have been the number of genera and species if all the diverse forms of life on earth had really evolved in the gradual way that Darwinian evolution implies. If the horse series is anything to go by, their numbers must have been indeed the infinitude’ that Darwin imagined. If ten genera separate Bohippus from the modern horse then think of the uncountable myriads there must have been linking such diverse forms as land mammals and whales or molluscs and arthropods. Yet all these myriads of life forms have vanished mysteriously, without leaving so much as a trace of their existence in the fossil record.’

The appeal by evolutionists to the incompleteness of the fossil record as an excuse for clinging to their theory might he worth attending to if the gaps, the incompleteness, were unsystematic or random. But the facts are otherwise: ‘The fundamental problem in explaining the gaps in … is their systematic character – the fact that there are fewer transitional species between the major divisions than between the minor. Between Eohippus and the modern horse(a minor division) we have dozens of transitional species, while between a primitive land mammal and a whale (a major division) we have none. And this rule applies universally throughout the living kingdom to all types of organisms, both those that are poor candidates for fossilization such as insects and those which are ideal, like molluscs. If the gaps really were lhe result of an insufficient search, or the result of the imperfection of the record, then we should expect to find more transitional forms between mouse and whale than between dog and cat.’

The hard evidence should make any objective inquirer ask, not whether we may one day fill the gaps in our record, hut whether gradual evolution ever occurred at all: ‘If the gaps cannot he adequately explained by appealing either to an insufficient search or the imperfection of the record, then this leaves a more or less saltational model of evolution as the only explanation of the gaps.’

In Chapter 9, Denton begins to draw the argument towards the conclusion that: Ultimately there is… absolutely no reason why functional organic systems should form the continuum that evolution by natural selection demands. In the world of physics and chemistry many phenomena are discontinuous. One cannot gradually convert one molecular species into another, neither can one convert gradually one type of atom into another. Between such entities there are jumps. Might not functional organic systems be similarly separated by discontinuities?’ He goes on: ‘It is possible to allude to a number of species and groups such as Archaeopteryx, or the rhipidistian fish, which appear to be to some extent intermediate. But even if such were intermediate to some degree, there is no evidence that they are any more intermediate than groups such as the living lung-fish or monotremes which… are not only tremendously isolated from their nearest cousins, hut which have individual organ systems that are not strictly transitional at all.’

The frustration at the failure to find intermediate forms and the difficulty of conceiving of gradual functional transitions led some scientists to an alternative to gradualism, namely ‘the concept of evolution by saltation, the idea that new organs and types emerge suddenly following some sort of massive macro-mutation.’ Advocates of the idea include the popular contemporary writer Stephen Jay Gould and his predecessor Goldschmidt who introduced the notion of the ‘hopethl monster’ in his the Material Basis of Evolution (1940) as a ‘means of getting from one type to another suddenly in one jump’.

The possibility of such a ‘hopeful monster’ had been likened to a ‘miracle’ by Darwin. The great majority of biologists have followed him in that judgement ever since. So-called freaks of nature do, of course, occur but they have little chance of reproductive survival given that they are horn into an environment where the non-freaks (the normal) survive to reproduce. Denton sums up by saying that: While it might he theoretically possible to avoid the impasse of gradualism by opting for saltation it seems unlikely that purely random processes would ever throw together suddenly adaptations like a feather or the avian lung or the amniotic egg.’

In Chapter 10, the process of DNA replication and protein synthesis is explained for readers unfamiliar with the subject. Equivalents of concepts like ‘universal Turing machine’ and ‘fault tolerant computing’ can be observed in perfectly economical design in the world of molecular genetics.

‘The Enigma of Life’s Origin’, the title of Chapter Il indicates the enormous conceptual and empirical difficulties evolution theory has faced in yet another once-promising area. It was hoped that as the nature of living organisms was more fully understood, the gap between them and inanimate forms would he narrowed. Exactly the opposite happened. The gap that separates the simplest living systems from inanimate systems seems unbridgeable: there is not a hint in inanimate systems of the DNA, messenger RNA, and the protein synthesis mechanism (implying self-replication), found in living forms.

Attempts to explain the origin of life through evolutionary means come up against two other major hurdles. The first is the so-called ‘oxygen-ultraviolet conundrum’. One has to assume that there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere because otherwise any organic compounds would rapidly oxidize. However, this assumption implies that there was no ozone to shield these compounds from deadly doses of solar radiation. In other words, this is a ‘catch 22: If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, hut if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.’ The second hurdle is the shortage of time for the first life forms to evolve: ‘An Australian group reported the remains of a simple type of algae in rocks at least 3.5 billion years old… So life had to form between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago. Just a few hundred million years from nothing to organic compounds to the whole DNA, M-RNA, protein system.’

These and other apparently insoluble difficulties led the Nobel-prize winning scientist Crick to comment:

‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to he almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.’ The problem of the origin of life is an example of what Denton calls ‘the universal principle that complex systems cannot be approached gradually through functional intermediates because of the necessity of perfect co-adaptation of their components as pre-condition of function.’ Crick is also famous for running away from the problem by suggesting that life must have originated somewhere outside the galaxies known to us and been cast down amid cosmic dust as a ‘seed’ – his so-called panspermia’ theory.

The subject of Chapter 12 is the modern molecular biological techniques which have provided biologists with an entirely new way of comparing organisms at a biochemical level (as opposed to the classical anatomical comparisons). Again, the comparisons established that: ‘the pattern of diversity at a molecular level conforms to a highly ordered hierarchic system. Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.’

The gaps in the ‘chain of being’ are seen at both empirical and theoretical level: wherever we find significant empirical discontinuities in nature we invariably face great, if not insurmountable, conceptual problems in envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in terms of gradual random processes. We saw this in the fossil record, we saw it in the ease of the feather, in the case of the avian lung, and in the case of the wing of the hat. We saw it again in the ease of the origin of life and we see it here in this new area of comparative biochemistry.’

In Chapter 13 (‘Beyond the Reach of Chance’) Denton illustrates the impossibility of reaching functional complex systems via blind random processes.

In Chapter 14, we imagine ourselves in a cell magnified a thousand million times and try to grasp the wonderful reality of life. What we see is a system much more complex and perfect than any human artefact built so far. The elaborate Soviet lunar exploratory machine, the Lunakod, which moved on articulated legs, highlights by comparison the sheer ease of solutions provided in nature for such problems as self-location, stability and locomotion. The amazing storage capacity and efficiency (size and energy economy) of biological information storage and retrieval is another striking example of the ease of nature and the hardship’ humans face to match it even crudely by artifice.

Denton comments: ‘According to Paley, we would never infer in the case of a machine, such as a watch, that its design was due to natural processes such as the wind and rain; rather, we would be obliged to postulate a watch-maker. Living things are similar to machines, exhibiting the same sort of adaptive complexity and we must, therefore, infer by analogy that their adaptive complexity is also the result of intelligent activity.’ And he adds: ‘The conclusion may have religious implication but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.’

Chapter 15 (‘Priority of Paradigm’) gives Denton’s explanation of why the theory of evolution has been so pervasive in our age despite overwhelming contrary evidence.

It is a modern example of a scientific community defending a theory just as tong as ii holds sufficient intrinsic appeal.’ He likens it to the defence by medieval astronomers of the Ptolemaic theory of the heavens, and by the eighteenth-century chemists of the phlogiston theory of combustion.

There is not space here to argue at sufficient length against the widely held stance of modern scientists that the concept of a Creator-God is of no relevance to a properly scientific understanding of how the natural world is or how it operates, that, in brief, it cannot he a part of any scientific explanation or theory. We must insist, however, that scientific knowledge cannot exist (any more than its dominant theories can com -about) in some sort of vacuum, isolated from the complex of human knowledge, attitudes and relationships. The social implications of the ‘central claim of Darwinian theory that humanity was not born by the intentions of a Deity hut by a completely mindless trial and error selection of random molecular patterns…’ have been, in general, very had. A theory so certainly false should never have imprisoned scientific imagination for as tong as it has. Ii could not have done so if the aspiration to scientific knowledge had been tutored in the humility that comes with a serious, religious consideration of our status as creatures and servants of God. Only a religious perspective teaches that all human curiosity – its perceptive faculties, its intelligence and the instruments it devises to extend its powers – exists as the gift of the One All-Merciful God who created us and the intelligibility of the world so that we might draw nearer to Him. At least in the field of biology, the alternative to believing in a Creator did not, as is claimed, offer freedom from dogmatism: the lasting value of Denton’s hook is to have demonstrated that reality with clear argument and a large body of hard evidence.

We express and communicate our feelings, ideas and wishes through language. Cultural transmission and education from generation to generation is through language.

Linguists do not know how many languages there are. There is not even agreement about the number of languages in India. They do not agree on how to define a language and how to differentiate it from other linguistic codes such as dialects or sociolects. We know that languages change according to social context and that each individual has his or her own ideolect, or repertoire of linguistic codes. We also know that the dominance of some linguistic codes over others is related to political and economic power. It has been said that the difference between a language and a dialect is that a language is spoken by a people with an army and a navy. Philosophers and linguists have for centuries debated (and differed) about the origin and development of language.

Secular linguists have proposed four theories, all related in some way to an evolutionist account of human development for the origin of language. Linguists who draw on religious sources have a fifth alternative, namely the idea that language is a Divine gift to human beings -an idea shared by the three major monotheistic religions.

The secular theories of language

Secular linguists at least agree that the question of the origin of human language is still unsolved. After much discussion, they have concluded that the data available on the subject yield little or no evidence about the origin of human language. By means of comparative and reconstructive techniques, they have presented some information about early stages of the development of particular languages.

However, these techniques are applicable only for a period of up to about four to six thousand years. This is far less than the million years that they themselves believe human language to have existed.

Unlike other so-called sciences, linguistics and philosophy of language cannot pretend to have access to data related to the origin of their subject of study. There are no tape recordings which can be served up as ‘the missing link’ between men and monkeys. Therefore, their theories are based on what is observable around them-animal cries, the languages of what they consider ‘primitive’ groups and the speech of infants.

Animal cries

The gap between the meaningful behaviour of animals and human speech is so wide that available evidence does not furnish a bridge. Animal cries are characterized by invariability and monotony. Human language, by contrast, displays infinite variability. If we take animal cries as our starting point and suppose that language developed out of something similar, we face a number of problems. How could an ordered phonemic system grow out of the disorderly monotony of animal cries? How did the meanings of most speech forms come to be arbitrary? How did linguistic structure develop out of the undifferentiated cry? In short, animal cries are so vastly different from human language, it is inconceivable that speech could have evolved from them. Animals, according to Professor James (1938), have all the necessary speech organs but do not have language. Human, speech is obviously and only human.

‘Primitive’ groups

It was once thought that the speech of ‘primitive’ societies was something halfway between animal cries and human language, and that by studying them we could learn how language evolved. But the very notion of ‘primitive’ peoples has long been thought questionable. In any case, their languages are, as a rule, only ‘primitive’ with reference to the vocabulary of modern civilizations; their structures (grammar and syntax) show at least as much (often more) complexity and sophistication than ‘non-primitive’ languages.

The speech of infants

Study of the speech of infants has not yielded any clear results either. From birth, children are under the influence of adult speech, which they proceed to imitate. If all that is needed for language is a process of imitation, why are apes, who imitate humans so well in other respects, linguistically ‘inferior’ to birds, who can imitate us in respect to linguistic sounds? Why do cats and dogs, who have been living with us and observing us for many centuries, fail to imitate the sounds we make when we imitate theirs so well?

Despite these manifest errors in the assumptions on which the theories were based, some linguists still promote four onomatopoeic theories.

The bow-wow theory

This theory suggests speech was invented by attempting to imitate the characteristic sound of the thing referred to. The characteristic that differentiates a dog from other creatures is its bark. That is why, it is said some children call dogs ‘bow-wow’. Another example: the ‘first man’ heard the whistling of the wind and the hissing of the snake and named them ‘wind’ and ‘snake.’

The ding-dong theory

This theory, associated with the German philologist, Max Muller, holds that the origin of language is connected to rhythm. Like bow-wow, it relies on the idea that humans imitate what is around them. It suggests we imitate the rhythms around us developing first a simple hum and later words. The only evidence proposed is the ‘war dances’ and ‘ballads’ which, it is claimed, are common to all ‘primitive’ people.

The pooh-pooh theory

This theory traces language back to the emotional interjections evoked by pain, pleasure, disgust, etc.

Even secular theorists who believe in evolution like Wilbur Urban (1939) dismiss the above theories for being their assumptions and insufficient evidence.

The gesture theory

The idea that the earliest method of communication was through gesture which later developed into language was first proposed by Wilheim Wundt and elaborated by Paget (1935). They suggest that as most of our hand gestures are accompanied by movements of the jaw and many of our verbal expressions are supported by bodily actions, sign and spoken language are intrinsically connected. Among the bits of evidence offered for this hypothesis is the fact that, in English, I and me both involve drawing air inwards whereas you and thou involve the opposite.

This theory has the same weaknesses as the others. The few samples of so-called data are not enough to justify the assumptions that are built on them. All these theories are attempts to contrive ‘evidence’ for what is essentially a belief-a belief that humans evolved from monkeys. Those who do not believe in evolution, but believe that humans were created by an Almighty God do not subscribe to the above theories. They look to revelation.

Language as a divine gift

Language is one of the greatest gifts of the Creator. The Merciful Creator gave his Prophets miracles as evidence for their holy mission. The greatest miracle of prophet Adam was use of language. The event is alluded in the verses of the Qur’an, itself a linguistic miracle:

He taught Adam the names of all things and then set them before the angels, saying: ‘Tell Me the names of these, if what you say be true.’ Then said He: ‘Adam, tell their names.’ And when Adam had named them, He said: ‘Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of the heavens and the earth, and all that you reveal and all that you conceal? (al-Baqara, 2.31-33)

It maybe understood from these verses that man did not invent language, as some scientists claim, but that he received it as a direct gift from God. There was no time that people were without language. We had the potential for speech from the beginning of our existence. On this point, Quintilian said: ‘God, that All-Powerful Creator of nature and architect of the world, has impressed man with no greater characteristic to distinguish him from other creatures, than the faculty of speech.’

This view of language is common to all the monotheistic peoples. The Bible says about language and its origin too:

Whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof (Genesis, 2.19).

Because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth (Genesis, 11.19).

Human speech makes humans human. God created them and honoured them with the ability to speak, thereby distinguishing them from animals. He distinguished them from the angels by teaching the first man, Adam, the names of all things. In doing so, He gave him the key to understanding the world over which he and his offspring were to be made vice-gerents.

REFERENCES

• JAMES L. (1938) Our Spoken Language
• PAGET R. (1935) Human Speech
• URBAN W. (1939) Language and Reality

At primary school, when our teacher first brought a microscope into the class and gave us the chance to see the delicate legs and wings of a fly I become for days enthused with the extraordinary grandeur of art in so tiny a creature.

At secondary and upper secondary schools we received more comprehensive courses in biology. Now though, everything began to be explained as the handiwork of mother nature. I couldn’t help wondering how this ‘mother nature’ was managing and doing so many things in their proper places; and whether the teachers really meant the Creator. But following the rest of what they said, and their train of thought generally, it became clear to me that they did not wish to say God.

In my family by contrast, it was always understood and always said that everything was created by God. Although my parents were not well-versed in religion, nor able to convey thoroughly what they did know, although none of us could have given clear answers to questions about God, His Power, His Essence, and Attributes, we nevertheless were aware of His existence and of the importance of belief in Him as our Creator.

Once, at the mosque on our street, I heard the preacher say that the Prophet Adam was the first man on earth. However, my biology tutor at the high school said that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter; then as it reproduced it changed of itself into different kinds of living organisms, ultimately producing plants, and animals. She talked also about certain prehistoric men who came into being through a long chain, by gradual, progressive evolution, of freaks and monstrosities. She narrated to us how fossil remains of these ‘men’ had been found. She seemed quite sure that fossil records provided a very important part of the argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life on earth. She argued that the Prophet Adam and his life story was but a tale and that belief in such tales had no place and was of no use to us in the age of space exploration and space travel.

When I told my father what the tutor had said and asked if it was true, he said:

Take no notice of it. Don’t bother about such views. Could it ever he possible that monkeys would turn into man? He meant to comfort my doubts. But in fact what he said did not satisfy the need in me for sound knowledge. He was sure of what he said; so was my tutor. I, in the middle, was left in conflict and struggle.

My father was not able to discuss such issues because he had not read anything about them. On the other hand, the biology tutor was knowledgeable, and a capable person who had learnt how to deploy arguments convincingly. So what must happen to my belief in God? The only way seemed to be to blend belief in God with some sort of acceptance of evolution. Believing in God, at the same time accepting brute beasts or half-apes as my ancestors, and not thinking too much, nor bothering too much about how to reconcile the two. Aware that I was not the one person in the world who had such problems to resolve, I escaped to the football field and played so hard that I became too tired to think about the problems.

I had ambitions to be a doctor but, by a few points, failed to get the average for the Faculty of Medicine. My second choice was to enter the Faculty of Biology, which I did. I realized much later how great a blessing this would prove to be–it is something for which I have been thanking God for years.

I felt quite happy before 1 started the courses, expecting to find the answers to my many questions. However, two years passed, and I did not find the answers, only improved my style and techniques in football. What we were taught in the courses was the theory of evolution from the simple and crude to the complex and excellent. The words which always highlighted the arguments were ‘by chance’, ‘mutation’, ‘atrophy’, ‘evolution’. No one even uttered the word creation. I sometimes tried to discuss the subject with my friends. While some of them did not have enough knowledge to pursue the argument, others did not hesitate to reject creation. They said, that all had been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator; that what I believed in was tales, conjecture, self-delusion; the questions troubling me would he re-formulated in a way such that, in time, the progress of science and technology would resolve them; in short, there was no longer any need to worry over such issues.

If I followed this approach what would happen to all that I valued so much; belief in God, His Prophets, the practice of prayer, fasting, and so on? I decided to be resolved one way or the other, to either believe or disbelieve, because it was really distressful to be in between. How? I planned to see the most fervent atheist in my class, Kaya. If Kaya convinced me I would become like him; if I could make him say, ‘yes, there is really the One, the Supreme Being, who creates all’, I would be at ease with what I knew and believed.

I discussed matter, biology, physics and metaphysics, with Kaya for two hours. He was well versed in disbelief and explained everything in materialist terms. Once or twice I tried to cite examples from the micro and macro cosmos; from the balance harmony, order, and splendour in atoms, in living cells, and in space, but he was so expert in tackling those issues that he always had something to fire back with. I was not able to convince him. Rather he managed to raise many more doubts in me. Seemingly uncontrollable waves of disbelief began to swell within me. Everything I had somehow held to, now seemed about to fall to pieces. Were all the religious duties, my prayers and fasts, all for nothing now? Was even the pleasure I had taken in them merely self-deception? The business of living had no ultimate purpose–I was only one among billions of moving bits and pieces, now here, now there, then forgotten eternally? To be rid of those thoughts and agonies, I was drawn to contemplate suicide.

That was the turning point in my life. Ahmed, who observed us talking, had watched and listened from a distance. After Kaya had left, he approached me. He saw the gloom in me and asked the reason for it. I mentioned how Kaya had drowned me in doubts.

I had known Ahmed for two years. He was studying mathematics. We only chanced to see each other in the language laboratory once a week, and occasionally talking. He was a good, kind fellow, someone I had always felt at ease with. He started talking now as we had never talked before.

For everything, including man, that has a beginning and an end in time, there can be only four ways of trying to explain how it came to be.

1) It was made, or created, or caused by nothing at all. In other words, it came out of nothing. 2) It created itself. 3) Nature, according to generative principles like those given in nature, created it after a random series of chance coincidences. Or, 4) it has a creator, cause, or maker outside itself. The first three explanations are obviously impossible. It is inconceivable for something that has a beginning in time to come out of, or be made of, nothing at all. It is also inconceivable that it should bring itself into being. The universe and all that is in it could not have created itself nor did it come about by mere chance. He took a booklet from his inside pocket and referred to some examples to illustrate his argument. Some of them were as follows. If a number of bottles in a pharmacist’s, containing a variety of different elements fell off a shelf and mixed on the ground what is the chance that some wonder drug would result? If earth and stones fell from a mountain could the pieces organise themselves, even over infinite stretches of time, into a splendid palace?

Nature is effect but not the cause; it is a work but not the artist; if a clock is an evidence of intelligent design how much more so is the far more vast and complicated universe? Camel droppings imply the presence of a camel. Human footprints on the sand tell of a traveller having passed that way. The heaven with its stars, the earth with its mountains and valleys, and the sea with its waves, do they not point to the Maker, All-Powerful, Knowing, Wise and Caring? The conclusion is clear. The universe and all that is in it owe their existence to a Maker or Creator outside itself. You as a human being are a part of the universe, a tiny speck even in the context of this planet, and you owe your existence to such a Creator. To suppose that man evolved by random chance from other creatures, does not really answer the question about the origin of the universe and all that is in it, including human beings. Such suppositions are grounded in a wholly false world-view.

As Ahmed settled all my doubts, the seeds of disbelief and the temptation of suicide withered away. I felt considerably relieved. I gave thanks to God who sent me Ahmed and such a book in time to cure me of my doubt and suffering, and yet the gratitude I felt could hardly be expressed in words.

Later on, Ahmed introduced me to some of his friends, with them he shared a flat. Some of them were, like myself, first-year biology students. We went home, talked about and read from Ahmed’s booklet, the chapters on the existence of and belief in God, each of which effected a different cure.

At the faculty, the courses on genetics and evolution were presented in the context of, and in favour of, atheism. I no longer had any real doubts as to creation, nevertheless the Darwinian theory continued to worry me. The lectures were certainly one-sided. Whoever tried to say something in favour of creation was ridiculed as backward or reactionary by pro-Darwinian and atheist students. Those who tried to question the theory were even snubbed and silenced by the lecturers for seeking to introduce what they dismissed as irrational ways of thinking. Some students tried hard to compromise belief in God with evolution, saying that God created through evolution, that He brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that the higher forms, including man, evolved from them.

One day Ahmed and his friends came to the class and invited us to a lecture on Darwinism and Creation which would be given by an imam. Some students straightaway expressed their willingness to attend. Predictably the atheists in the class tried to discourage others from attending: “The speaker is a man of religion! How could an imam know such a subject better than professors of science!” That this opinion was prejudiced, not objective, certainly determined us even more to go.

It was a pleasant evening. The lecture was being held in a large hall usually used for public entertainment. As well as students, I was pleased to observe many scientists and scholars there also. At last the imam, whom by now every one was curious to see, came onto the stage and delivered his lecture. As he began, and as he proceeded, I felt the last, fluttering palpitations of Darwin’s theory in my mind. Among the things I remember from that evening are the first clear statement I ever heard of the simple truth that evolution is only a theory, an hypothesis, not an established scientific fact. To claim otherwise, as many who teach it do, is itself most unscientific. An increasing number of scientists, including a growing number of evolutionists, now argue that the Darwinian theory is not a properly scientific theory at all, that is, not capable of experimental testing. Many of its critics have the highest scientific or intellectual credentials, and of them many hold that creation is a for more plausible and acceptable explanation. Those who advocate evolution maintain their position but because the evidence is inconclusive disagree about the meaning and usefulness of it. Even among their number, one school of thought urges major modifications in the theory. It is not only so-called fundamentalist Christians but also reputable scientists who question the theory. There is growing dissent, especially, among palaeontologists whose speciality it is to study fossil records. Darwin himself acknowledged that if numerous species can be shown to have emerged simultaneously, that demonstration would be fatal to his theory very large quantities of fossils have been unearthed since Darwin’s time: they do not constitute a significant support for Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. The evidence is precisely that a large number of species did emerge simultaneously; the evidence does not demonstrate gradual development, as the theory of evolution requires. All the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates appeared in the Cambrian period and spread for about ten million years; scientists have not found the progenitors of the Cambrian forms in the vast depths of sediments below the Cambrian period, and admit that there is little prospect of their ever being found. Contrary to most people’s belief the fossil evidence could perfectly well be said to be consistent with the idea of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established. The evolutionary process cannot be accounted for by mutations, because most mutations are damaging to the organism; they seem to be destructive rather than constructive processes. Those artists sketches of ape-men, depicted in text-books, encyclopedias and museums, are based more on mythologizing imagination than scientific reality. The first of mankind, said the imam, were neither brutes nor beasts, not ‘half’ man and ‘half’ ape. Those who persist in their belief in evolution, against the evidence are not the friends of scientific knowledge nor encourage a scientific attitude to such questions.

Many times, the speaker made reference to Islamic sources and quoted from them. I was filled with both wonder and joy. I felt a great blessing was granted to us that night which extended even to the hall itself, so that all the misuse of time and resources in idle entertainment with which the place was associated seemed to be undone. As I left, I could not help but say to myself: “Well, Mr Darwin, you have been a nuisance to mankind for a hundred years or so, but your account has surely been settled here-in a short lecture, in a couple of hours. Your followers, and even those who carry the word ‘professor’ in front of their names, could not save you. In the end, we have come to believe an imam, one whose learning and clarity of thought they would never have given credit to before…’

I liked and fastened to Ahmed, his friends, their books and to this preacher, and have stayed with them ever since. Of course, the argument has been carried further in my mind since then. Precisely because the theory of evolution has been a part of the mythology of modern Western civilization for so long, and because this civilization continues to enjoy enormous prestige and power, the theory persists and is believed by great numbers of people almost without question. It is still necessary therefore to keep up a mental struggle against the tyranny of the idea that human beings are descended from apes. We are not. Consider what it is that distinguishes us so decisively from all other living organisms on this planet. We give particular names to some species to acknowledge that they share with us certain characteristics: for example, we speak of weaver birds, farmer ants, and so on. Living and working together inlarge organized groups clearly is not what distinguishes us from the rest of creation. Nor is it our ability to build elaborate, even beautiful homes for ourselves: allowing for scale, termites build larger cities with even larger skyscrapers than we do. Our cunning and intelligence likewise are matched, perhaps exceeded, by many animals: spiders, for example, construct traps to catch their prey as subtle and delicate as any we might devise. Perhaps then, our special characteristic is that we use tools? Again, not true: several animals, notably primates, not only use tools (admittedly very simple ones), they teach the use of them to their young. Perhaps it is our emotional or psychological life that distinguishes us? Again, where we have had the means and the patience to study animal behaviour over a sufficiently long period, it is demonstrable that the animals experience and express happiness, sadness, tenderness, curiosity, impatience, bitterness, that some individuals can suffer inwardly to such a degree as a result of some traumatic loss (for example the loss of a friend or a father-figure) that they lose the will to live, failing to join with the rest of their group in eating or playing until, eventually, they die. So, if it is not intelligence, not our social skills, not our affective or emotional life, what is it that makes us special?

The answer is that what makes us unique is our use of language. No other living organism uses true language, that is a coherent and flexible system of signs, governed by a body of logical rules which we call grammar. Animals communicate but they do not use, nor, despite years of assiduous effort to do so, can they be taught to use, even the simplest sentence. By contrast, all human beings without exception enjoy this faculty, young and old, male and female, of any and every race, whether so-called civilized or so-called primitive; even the deaf, given the opportunity, can communicate fully using a true language. There is no early or primitive form of language from which true language evolves; one language is not more primitive than another; every true language is as truly a language as any other: that is why children brought up in any environment acquire competence in whatever language they hear around them, regardless of their parents’ language.

How does the theory of evolution cope with this fact? The truth is that it does not cope at all. It simply ignores it. And yet this is the decisive characteristic of our being human. If the theory that we are descended from apes has any validity at all, surely it must account for, or at least attempt to account for, this very large and obviously important fact. Historically the theory only emerged at a time when Western Europe was obsessed with the twin myths of human progress and the superiority of its own civilization.

The theory has rather more to do with the social and political ideology of a culture anxious to justify and rationalize its exploitative attitudes to all other living forms, including human beings, than it has to do with any objectively, scientifically observed reality.

I am glad therefore to abandon any temptation to base my understanding of the dignity or meaning or purpose of human life on a theory that is, as a scientific explanation of relevant facts, so very incompetent. And yet, even now I cannot help but tremble at the memory of how near I came to being seduced by it. Nor can I help but tremble at the thought of what arrogant darkness I might still be wandering in if I hadn’t met Ahmed when I did if I hadn’t attended that lecture by that preacher when I did. I give thanks therefore where, ultimately, it is always due: al-hamdu li-llahi rabbil alamin.