“We were thrilled to see a dome we came across in the cave after turning a few curves as we drifted along the current of the sea. What we saw in this pitch dark corner of the cave was a glorious sky adorned with thousands of stars and we felt as if on a remote planet yet unidentified. These mysterious stars would suddenly fade out as if they were frightened by each noise we made, the splash of the oars, or waves hitting the boat. They would glow back marvelously after a short while when their fear was over. It was an amazing luminousness coming out of thousands of lights.”

A scientist with infinite determination, Professor Illies says they now know who the players were who were involved in and the realities behind this enchanting show: Arachnocampa luminosa. This self-glowing fly, which is endowed with a peculiar light-radiating system, is known by different names in other parts of the world.

Mysterious light-radiating mechanisms

A microscopic organ found in the stomach of the glowworm is the source of light which creates the glow. Two chemicals are produced in two very close locations in this organ which is essential for the glowworm to continue its existence: Luciferin and Luciferase. These glowworms have no idea that they glow when these chemicals are mixed together with oxygen as the third component, which is taken in via respiration. They are neither blessed with the intellectual capacity to determine how much of these chemicals should be utilized or which stages this chemical reaction will go through; they are unaware of the nature of this glow, but they can radiate it for three consecutive hours thanks to this complex mechanism installed within.

A normal electric bulb can transform a maximum of 3-4% of the electrical energy supplied into light, whereas this output is 10% in the fluorescent bulb; the rest of the energy is released as heat, a waste in production. The ideal 100% efficiency would be to transform all energy into light with no release as heat. Today’s technology has not yet reached that level of illumination; even the most productive devices release heat to some degree. For thousands of years, however, the tiny bodies of glowworms are like power stations, yielding 100% light, a capacity which engineers have not yet achieved.

Can Darwinism explain a luminosa’s glowing mechanism?

The glowworms of the Waitomo caves are equipped with bioluminescence, a system of illumination that is the result of chemical reactions. Researchers are seeking answers to why Arachnocampa luminosa lives in the cave and radiates light. The first answer that comes to mind is that it uses this light to catch its prey. In a dark cave, the strong light attracts the prey which is caught by the sticky droplets secreted along silk threads that hang from a web. The glowworm digests its prey together with this thread. The explanations of evolutionists, based on natural causes regarding this complex bioengineering mechanism possessed by a worm, are far from satisfactory.

These explanations were confirmed (!) by behaviorist Niko Tinbergen, a Nobel-prize winner in medicine, in the introduction to his The Animal in its World (1972): “It is manifest that an animal can do stunning things and it can get accustomed to its habitat. The environment has shaped the evolution’s path, and it still does.” A hundred years after Darwin, Konrad Lorenz would state the following with additional emphasis: “The conviction that all the important details found in the structures and behavior of living things can be explained by the mechanisms discovered by Charles Darwin becomes stronger as I am getting older.” A superficial and distorted perspective on nature…

If we were to explain animal behavior according to the perception of evolutionists we would have to accept that during the evolution process of Arachnocampa the luciferin chemical came into being at a stage that was followed by the formation of lusiferase enzyme coincidentally, and thus the glowing started. Recently, it has been discovered that the larvae of glowworms also produce light. A larvae feeds on microorganisms (fungi spores) which are completely insensitive to light; this proves that the light produced is not a necessity for nutrition. Natural selection, a mechanism proposed by Darwin, cannot explain why the larvae wastes the energy obtained via nutrition under difficult circumstances by glowing. Each adult Arachnocampa goes through the larvae stage, which spoils Darwin’s “chain of development.” Coincidental mutations, natural selection, and re-combinations present nothing but contradictions.

According to an evolutionist scenario the latter stages of development witnessed one of the Arachnocampas started to produce light for no obvious reason (!). It became stronger with this new physiologic aspect; although it drew attention with this new light it did not become a prey to its enemies, but on the contrary it snared other insects more easily. It left this new hunting skill as a legacy for future generations (!). In the meantime, the remaining old-type Arachnocampas, which did not have this skill, became extinct with no trace left on earth. The glowworm thus perfected its physiology and anatomy, and there was no need for change for millions of years to come!

Evolutionists can do nothing but explain with unintelligent mechanisms the glowing that is created by a reflecting tissue at the back of the body and the fact that the light is condensed to be directed towards one course. Otherwise the light would only illuminate the roof of the cave. They further explain, with an analysis that is not based on logic, that the glowworm can detect air waves (like bats hunting by ultrasound waves), and thus can turn on and off the light, control the glow and hide from danger. It is so difficult for an evolutionist to accept creation that they adhere blindly to these theories. If one would argue how baseless these explanations were, they are likely to receive the response “a scientist should not be narrow-minded” and that “we are not at that stage to appreciate the importance of coincidence in the formation of such behaviors.” “This will change in the future when we attain the necessary information.”

Professor Ernst Mayr assures (!) us about the role of coincidence: “The variety in nature produced by mutation and re-combination takes place only by coincidence. The destiny of every being is determined by surrounding factors through selection. There are no long term decisions in nature. The existence of a thing is determined by these mechanisms for that moment.” Mayr would probably find it a silly question to ask whether the windshield wipers of his car came into being by coincidence.

“Surrounding factors determining perfection” brings along several questions. The limestone which forms the essential material of a cave is biologically dead, and it does not sound very logical to depict it as the primary factor in the occurrence of such a complex organism. There are a number of insects that live in these caves but which do not possess the characteristics of Aluminosa. Moreover, from a neo-Darwinist approach, insects living in these dark caves should have lost their vision in accordance with the theory. The natural selection mechanism argues that eyes which are of no use in these dark caves should be an unnecessary organ. These organisms could have channeled the energy they allocated for their eyes for a more functional sense, and this could avail them many advantages. On the contrary, these glowworms have perfect eyesight which they use in communication.

Science develops theories for observable objects. Under the twilight of the lack of information and blurred perspective on nature, these theories are perceived as realities. And science becomes the slave of the genie that science has released from the lamp. Joachim Illies underlines this as follows: “It is better not to disturb the sacred cows for no reason. Darwinism has become one of those sacred cows. These cows stand in the middle of the road and the traffic flows into byways so as not to disturb them.”

In the world of living things, examples of Arachnocampa luminosa are not few and they cause metaphysical headaches for the Darwinists. In the face of such pain they load the burden of keeping silent on the “Darwinist coincidence.” They silence their conscience and distort reality; their explanations do not make any sense. We wish they could turn to God Almighty for once, rather than chasing after coincidence and natural selection up so many blind alleys.

References

• Portmann, Adolf: An den Grenzen des Wissens – Vom Beitrag der Biologie zu einem neuen Weltbild; Buchclub Ex Libris Zurich 1975, S. 145 – 159.
• Darwin, Charles: Über die Entstehung der Arten durch naturliche Zuchtwahl; Parkland Verlag Koln 2002, S. 97 – 153.
• Illies, Joachim: Der Jahrhundert Irrtum; Umschau Verlag 1983 / Frankfurt am Main; 122 – 131, S. 92 – 117.
• Zimmermann, Walter: Evolution-Die Geschichte Ihrer Probleme und Erkenntnisse; Karl Alber Verlag Munchen 1953; 480 – 496.
• Thurkauf, Max: Die moderne Naturwissenschaft und Ihre soziale Heilslehre–der Marxismus; Novalis Verlag Munchen 1980, S. 190 – 217.

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.

Quantum mechanics developed as an attempt to explain discrepancies observed in experiments that could not be explained by classical theory. Scientists hoped that it would help them understand human consciousness, since, in a parallel manner, behaviorism could not explain adequately the complex structure of human behavior.

The intersection of physics, psychology, and biology led to a new pseudo scientific field: quantum consciousness. Although some say it is nothing more than a fantasy,(1) others have found the concepts offered by quantum mechanics to be useful.

Classical physics cannot explain the human consciousness and mind.(2) Newton’s well-established laws of mechanics posited a deterministic universe. In short, he stated that if every detail of a system were known at a particular time, its future state could be predicted precisely. As classical physics perceives the universe as consisting of objects and fields, and requires nothing further to explain the systems, there is no place for such concepts as consciousness and mind. Materialistic theories generally based on the classical approach do not deny the mind’s existence; they just say is has no effective action on the brain.(3)

Quantum Mechanics

What basic principles of new physics allow the mind to control matter? Quantum mechanics was an unnoticed revolution. Set in a probabilistic world, it changed the whole idea of a deterministic universe. Unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics cannot talk of future events with complete certainty; it can only evaluate the probability that a certain event will occur. The Uncertainty Principle, which prevents a precise and simultaneous determination of a particle’s velocity and position, means that all trajectories assigned by Newtonian mechanics to describe the resulting motion are invalid.

In a quantum world, waves are associated with particles. These probability waves carry all information about a given quantum object. At this point, the probability function says nothing about the particle’s actual movement and state. Such an observation requires a measurement.

However, this means collapsing the wave function into one of the probable results. When such a measurement is made, the particle will be found in one of the probable states. Thus one cannot know the system’s actual state either between observations or in the future. This is why determinism collapsed and the universe became a collection of probable events. Even Einstein denied the concept of such a bizarre and perplexing result: “God does not play dice!”

How do scientists use quantum mechanic tools to study consciousness? Do they really explain how the brain works and the subtle relation between consciousness and matter?

Are Mind and Matter Somehow Related?

The mind-matter connection remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries. It requires a comprehensive approach featuring a deep understanding of how the brain functions, physical laws, and human psychology. Although there are different approaches, the main problems are how to explain this connection scientifically and how to close the gap between the brain’s material structure and the tremendous results of its functioning.

Since the time of Descartes (d. 1650), one general approach has been to treat the mind and brain separately by placing them in different categories. One model based on this duality involves finding a parallelism between a computer’s hardware and software and the human mind and brain, respectively.

This is not the only approach, however. The materialist idea, based on the deterministic universe model, focuses on the brain’s functioning and either disregards mind and consciousness or supposes them to be illusory. For decades, this view had a great impact on theories related to the brain and mind. Minsky’s approach of “minds are simply what brains do” reflects quite literally this approach.(4)

On the other hand, the natural occurrence of necessity for a mind or a soul, as a result of a quantum mechanic view of the brain, to have control over matter seems to cause a change in both evolutionary and materialistic models of conscious thought. This was a direct consequence of applying quantum mechanics to chemical reactions occurring in the atomic world of neurons.

Indeed, some claimed that various processes in living bodies required a quantum mechanic treatment. For example, light-sensitive cells in a human eye (in a retina, which is considered part of the brain) are sensitive to even one photon that is truly a quantum particle.(5) Eccles, a neurophysiologist famous for his contributions to neuroscience, discusses quantum effects in synaptic action and claims that some functional parts of neurons need to be treated as quantum sites.(6)

The materialistic view taught that when brain cell interactions were understood completely, nonmaterial concepts would become unnecessary. Interactions between neurons are now said to cause conscious thought. Therefore, neuroscience focuses on explaining brain cell (neuron) interactions.

The Role of Neurons

Neurons are connected to each other by their strands (axons and dendrites) across synapses (Figure 1). Electrical signals are carried by neurotransmitters located in synaptic gaps (Figure 2). The release of neurotransmitters is initiated by calcium ions entering the synapses from the fluid surrounding the cell. Calcium cations cross into the cell through calcium channels.

Stapp treats calcium channels as the area in which quantum consciousness can be applied, and where the effect of the mind comes into play. Diffusing a small calcium cation (a positively charged ion) through the calcium channel cannot be treated as a classical phenomenon, for in a classical diffusion each particle follows a certain trajectory through the channel. But when considered from a quantum view, the particle (or cation), starting from one end of the channel to the other end, takes all possible paths at the same time. Only a measurement can locate the particle in one of the channel’s possible paths [collapse of state into one of the probable events]. Therefore, one path becomes real. In a real transmission, since there is no measurement, the mind chooses the path, which supports the theory that matter can be controlled by the mind. Since the chosen trajectory will either enhance or decrease the probability of neurotransmitter release, the whole communication process will be affected. Due to this probabilistic nature of events, the mind should control the brain.(7) Sir John C. Eccles, a British neurophysiologist and Nobel Prize winner for his work on how neurons communicate with each other, is an important contributor to the mind-brain interaction issue. He focuses on microsites where synaptic vesicles (little bags of neurotransmitters) are released. (The figurative structure of a synapse is shown in Figure 2.) He claims that the process taking place in those microsites is a quantal emission (a release of multimolecular packets). In the synapse of two neurons, vesicles are stored in certain places and released according to electrical impulses. Eccles emphasizes that the mind (or mental events) does not initiate any activity in those synapses; rather, he hypothesizes that mental events control only the probability of each vesicle’s release from the microsites. In this model, he agrees with Margenau, who also says there are such things as nonmaterial events(8): “The mind may be regarded as a field in the accepted physical sense of the term. But it is a nonmaterial field; its closest analogue is perhaps a probability field. It cannot be compared with the simpler nonmaterial fields that require the presence of matter (hydrodynamic flow or acoustic)…Nor does it necessarily have a definite position in space. And so far as present evidence goes it is not an energy field in any physical sense, nor is it required to contain energy in order to account for all known phenomenon which mind interacts with brain.” According to Eccles, microsites are targets for such nonmaterial mental events as an intention to carry out some movement. Pointing out that vesicles are released without any energy input, the mind’s effect on them is seen in the form of an increased probability of neurotransmitter release. Eccles, who believes in the soul, supports the dualist approach starting from self-consciousness and the unity of self. In his How the Self Controls Its Brain, he summarizes his approach with a quotation from Hodgson(9): “What we are looking for, I think, is a purpose that we should try to recognize and pursue, which our lives if correctly lived will fulfill in fact, and which is right and good. It may also be God’s purpose for us. I think that the notion of a purpose of life makes more sense in relation to a God, or some wider consciousness, than it otherwise would.” Victor J. Stenger, a proponent of the materialistic view, summarizes the materialists’ general idea of quantum consciousness theories: “The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world.” A comparison of points made by Eccles and Stenger shows that science cannot be independent of the thoughts of those who establish it. This is why quantum consciousness theories remain controversial.

Conclusion

Despite the ongoing controversy over quantum mechanics, quantum consciousness is an important first step toward explaining how the mind might control matter. Solving the mind-brain issue could revolutionize neuroscience and artificial intelligence. A better understanding of quantum mechanics and its applications to neuroscience might help scientists solve the mind-matter puzzle. However, we should keep in mind that: “I think that is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will go ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.” (Richard Feynman)

Footnotes

1 Victor J. Stenger, “The Myth of Quantum Consciousness,” The Humanist 53, no. 3 (May-June 1992): 13-15. 2 Henry P. Stapp, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, part 1 (Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1993), 37. 3 C. John Eccles, How the Self Controls Its Brain (Germany: Springer-Verlag: 1994), 4. 4 Nick Herbert, Elemental Mind, Human Consciousness and the New Physics (New York: Dutton, 1993), 116. 5 Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind: A Research for the Missing Science of Consciousness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 349. 6 Eccles, How the Self Controls Its Brain. 7 Herbert, Elemental Mind, 258. 8 Eccles, How the Self Controls Its Brain, 73. 9 ibid, 39.

References (not cited in article)

1. Davies, Paul, Other Worlds, (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1980), p.17-35.
2. Eccles, C. John, How the Self Controls its Brain, (Springer-Verlag, Germany, 1994).
3. Herbert, Nick, Elemental Mind, Human Consciousness and the New Physics, (Dutton, New York, 1993), Chap. 4,10.
4. Hodgson, David, The Mind Matter: Consciousness and Choice in a Quantum World, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991), p.47, Part IV.
5. Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind, A Research for the Missing Science of Consciousness, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1994), chap. 7.
6. Stapp, Henry P., Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, (Springer-Verlag, Germany, 1993), Part I, p.79-116.
7. Stenger, Victor J., “The Myth of Quantum Consciousness,” The Humanist, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, Number 3, p.13-15.

These words attempt to pierce the veil of habit that develops in our minds from not looking into the reason for things. The perfection of the order operative in the universe is of such a degree that it prevents us from being aware of it. In the same way, we only become aware of the faultless operation of the watches we have worn on our wrists for years when they stop working.

In the world-view developed upon the foundation of Newton’s laws of motion, the universe was likened to a flawlessly operating watch. Events were tied to one another in a cause-effect relationship and our knowing the laws of this relationship allowed us to predict events with great accuracy. It was possible to determine with mathematical exactness a wide range of phenomena, from the times of eclipses of sun and moon to the amount of fuel and the speed needed to put an object into orbit around the earth. The success of these ‘natural laws’ led many people to believe that they completely expressed and ‘ruled’ the whole order of the universe.

Because God creates and sustains all things and events from behind the veil of universal general laws, because certain events (causes) are followed reliably by similar events (effects) each time they (the causes) occur, it begins to be supposed that the causes are responsible for or ‘create’ the effects. This is, of course, a gross error, as no number of causes suffices to create even a little effect; for every event even the tiniest, the whole universe must be presupposed first, including the laws operative within it. Moment by moment, all things and all events are created and sustained by God, Who wills from an infinite range of alternative possibilities a particular actuality.

The clockwork model of the universe derived from Newtonian or classical physics is not a complete account of the phenomena which we observe in the universe. Already in the late 19th century, scientists had been bewildered by the lines that turned up in the light spectra emitted by heated gases: the steady, stable clockwork model predicted did not happen. Also, there were problems explaining the behaviour of light: sometimes it made more sense as a beam of particles, sometimes as a wave.

Today our understanding of the universe is very far from the ‘clockwork’ model. The shift in understanding occurred in the first quarter of the 20th century, beginning in 1900 with the publication of Max Planck’s work on radiation. The problem Planck worked on for six years was that the actually measured radiation from hot bodies did not conform to the values predicted by the classical theory. He put forward the suggestion that bodies radiating energy did so, not evenly and continuously, but unevenly and discontinuously in tiny packets or ‘quanta’. So startling was this suggestion that, despite confirmation by experiment, Planck himself thought of his theory as solving the problem of radiation by a sort of trick.

But then, in 1905, Albert Einstein published an article using the notion of packets of energy of definite sizes to explain how electrons are ejected from metal when light (radiation) falls on it. Whereas classical theory had predicted that the voltage (measure of the energy of the electrons ejected) would be proportional to the intensity of the light (radiation), Einstein showed that it was proportional instead to the frequency of the radiation. The conformity of this explanation with experimentally observed results gained Einstein the Nobel Prize. (Einstein didn’t receive the prize for his famous theory of relativity.) The significance of these findings and theories was not fully appreciated at the time.

A few years later in 1910, Ernest Rutherford did a ground-breaking experiment. He bombarded a thin layer made up of gold atoms with high energy particles and showed that the atom contained an extremely small positively-charged nucleus with negatively-charged electrons moving around it. Following the classical physics model, these electrons should have been small particles orbiting the nucleus in the same way as the planets orbit the sun, steadily losing energy until they fell on to the nucleus-in other words, the atom should have been unstable. Again it was a rejection of the classical model, three years later, by Niels Bohr, that helped solve the problem. Bohr argued that the electrons must move in fixed orbits until deflected by the absorption or emission of a unit of energy.

Atoms emit radiation after various external signals and only at specific wave lengths. As Einstein said, every different color of light is composed of energy packets inversely proportional to its wave-length (frequency). Because the Planck constant (h) is very small, the energy of these packets is also very, very small. For example, a normal light bulb emits 1020 light packets (photons) a second. Each of these photons is created when an activated atom or molecule passes to its normal or ‘basic state.’ Thus light, which allows us to see and which is a basic building block of life, develops as a result of the motions (in wave form) of electrons. The concepts of classical physics could successfully explain many of the events of daily life, but it couldn’t explain events on the subatomic level.

During those years (1910-1925) physics fell into a state of

confusion because of the many measurements that conflicted with general theory and could not be explained by it. This situation was to lead W. Pauli (later to discover the principle fundamental to the understanding of the structure and characteristics of elements) to say he would rather have been a singer or gambler than a physicist. Actually in order to explain the observations being made, the whole way in which physical events had been understood required fundamental revision by wholly new methods. This was achieved by Werner Heisenberg, a 24 year-old physicist described by his teachers as a person who dealt with the essence of a subject rather than getting bogged down in detail, a person with powerful concentration and ambition. Perhaps the success of this young mind can be explained by the critical perspective he developed through reading the works of great men such as Kant and Plato, which was later supported with sound knowledge he got from great physicists. Heisenberg, who relaxed from work by climbing rocks and reading poetry, said: ‘It was around three in the morning when the calculations were completed and the solution to the problem appeared in front of me. First I experienced a great shock. I was so excited that I didn’t even think about sleeping. I left the house and, sitting on a rock, I waited for the sunrise.’

Like the other scientists who established quantum physics, Heisenberg was a philosopher-physicist. The philosophy he accepted and advocated that allowed him to interpret atomic events is as follows: ‘Even though it is successful with classical physics, the language we use to explain physical events in the atom or its surroundings is insufficient. For this reason, after making a specific measurement in a quantum system (for example, an atom), using that knowledge we can get a theory that will tell us what kind of results we can find in the next measurement. But it’s not possible to say anything about what takes place between the two measurements.’

What pushed Heisenberg to make such a statement was that the mathematical tools he used to develop a theory that could explain the observed discontinuity of energy in light and atoms were abstract concepts that had not been used before. In classical physics the numbers we know were used to give value to matter’s position, speed, size, etc. In Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics, these sizes were expressed with infinite dimensional n x n matrices which enabled physicists to calculate the properties attributed to electrons (energy, position, momentum, angular momentum) in an approximate way. Because these abstract mathematical expressions didn’t have an equivalent in everyday spoken language, it wasn’t possible to approach them with a classical understanding. It was observed that in order to measure the position of an electron, the experimenter necessarily altered its velocity. This problem was formally expressed in 1927 in Heisenberg’s famous Uncertainty Principle.

Independently of Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger made another significant breakthrough in mathematical description of electrons. Inspired by the hypothesis put forward two years earlier by De Broglie about the wave properties of matter particles, Schrodinger developed a ‘wave mechanics’ by which the movement of particles could be calculated. (figure: 1) But the fundamental question remained as to what these strange and original ‘waves of matter particles’ or ‘waves accompanying matter particles’ were.

The mathematical formulations devised by Heisenberg and Schrodinger are complementary in the sense that physicists use whichever best resolves the particular calculations they are trying to make. There is no formally distinct space between the scientists and the phenomena they are seeking to understand and manipulate: their means of observation and manipulation (the mathematics) in some sense ‘posit’, put in place, the very phenomena whose place (among other properties) they are trying to determine. Alongside the notion of an infinite array of rows and points, as invented by Heisenberg, to plot the position or motion of a sub-atomic particle, physicists and philosophers of physics have begun to speak of arrays of events or ‘stories’ to try to explain, in something resembling ordinary language, the ideas they are handling. This cannot be described as a world-view in the way that the Newtonian physics confirmed and sustained a world-view, but it is nevertheless a clear and distinct disposition which, instead of excluding God as the Force Who wound up the clockwork and then retired from His creation, admits the in-completeness and uncertainty of human knowledge as a structural element of reality-in other words, the uncertainty is not a function of our present ignorance (to be relieved by future knowledge), but an actual constituent of the way reality is.

Quantum physics, at least figuratively and metaphorically, has became a vehicle for the interpretation of such concepts as matter, beyond-matter, energy, existence and non-existence in a way nearer to Divine sources; and led to many physicists settling accounts with their conscience and turning towards God Who is understood to be simultaneously transcendent and immanent, there and here.

The governor explained the reason why he came to his office late in the morning:

It is not proper to explain it, but since you want me to, I consent to do it: I do not have any servants and my wife is ill. I knead the dough myself and make the bread, and only after doing other work at home am I able to leave for my office.

In answer to the second complaint of the people, the governor said:

Although it is not proper to explain this either, I will explain it since you want me to. I spend all my day among them to attend to their work and needs. When it is night, shall I not worship my Lord and accuse myself before Him for what I did during the long day?

The third complaint of the people was that Sa’id ibn ‘Amir stayed at home one day a week and did not come out among the people. The governor answered that complaint:

As I said before, I do not have any servants and my wife is ill. I have only one suit of clothes and wash it on that day. That is why I cannot go out among them one day in the week.

The last complaint was that the governor sometimes lost his senses and almost went mad. The explanation was as follows:

When Hubayb was martyred by the Makkan polytheists I had not yet become a Muslim and was present on the scene. [Hubayb was among the deputation the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, sent to the tribes of Adal and al-Qarah to teach them the Qur’an upon their request. However, when the deputation halted to have a rest in the area where the Hudayl tribe lived, and while sleeping, they were all at once attacked by the Hudayli unbelievers. Three of the deputation were martyred, the rest, among whom were Hubayb and Zayd ibn Dasina were submitted to the Makkans. The Makkans kept Hubayb and Zayd as prisoners for some time and then took them out of the city to kill them.] When Hubayb was about to be killed, Abu Sufyan stepped forward and said to him:

I adjure you by God, Hubayb, don’t you wish that Muhammad was with us now in your place so that we might cut off his head, and that you were with your family?’

‘By God,’ said Hubayb, ‘let alone wishing that Muhammad were here in my place so that I were with my family, I do not wish that even a thorn should hurt his foot in Madina.’

Abu Sufyan was astonished by this answer. He turned to those present, and said:

‘By God, I swear I have never seen a man who was so loved as Muhammad’s Companions love him.’

I could have helped Hubayb then, but since I was then among those who associated partners with God, I did not. So, whenever I remember this event, thinking that God will never forgive me, I lose my senses and go almost mad.

‘Umar, may God be pleased with him, was content with his governor’s conduct and gave him one thousand gold pieces to meet his needs. However, the pious, righteous governor turned to his wife and said: ‘Let us spend this for a day when we will need it more than at any other time. Let us distribute it among those poorer than us.’

The governor handed the gold pieces to one among his family to distribute them among the poor, which he did.

Almost all the governors of Caliph ‘Umar were of a like quality in belief, conduct and understanding of administration. God-fearing, piety and righteousness were the lights by which they made their decisions and conducted their lives. It was the golden age in human history, or ‘the Happy Time’ as it is called in Islamic tradition.

By answering this argument we shall show that we do indeed accept the same biological facts, but do not agree about the ‘laws’ which try to explain them, nor about the limits and qualifications for the operation of those ‘laws’.

Unlike other Scriptures which claim Divine authority, there is no proposition in the Qur’an which can be contradicted by established scientific knowledge as untrue. The Qur’an does not underestimate the importance of reflection and argument, but it does indicate that our suppositions about the origin of creation cannot explain the reality of it: we simply were not present there.

I called them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation: Nor is it for Me to take as helpers such as lead (men) astray (al-Kahf 18.51).

This verse should not be interpreted to mean ‘Do not ask questions or do not research’, for the Qur’an encourages scientific research explicitly. It is, rather, a warning about those who vainly claim to explain the phenomena which happen outside the normal course of events and cannot be described in terms of material causes and effects. Since the creation is the great, inclusive miracle, human beings can neither imitate it (that is, they cannot create out of nothing) nor explain it. To attribute the creation to God makes everything plausible and saves scientific inquiry from fruitless uncertainties and insecure speculations. To understand the basic principles of the reality of creation is most important. If they are properly understood, useful and worthwhile aspects of the theory of evolution can be sifted out from pretentious and false interpretations of it. For, in every idea, even if it is against common sense in general, there are some elements of truth. The biological facts, rightly so called, such as variation, adaptation, natural selection and mutation, in evolution theory, should be differentiated from the ideological and metaphysical baggage they have accumulated.

In our approach, evolution may be described as the changes and variations in the form of creatures, especially in living beings, and the genetic and environmental factors associated with those changes. We do not assert that living beings are fixed and unchangeable in their forms. To claim that would imply a limitation upon the knowledge and power of God which is contradictory to His Names, the All-Knowing and the All-Powerful. The creation reflects His Names through its novelty within renewal, its prolific variety amid abundance. Individual diversity is programmed into the genetic mechanisms which, as they unfold and evolve under the prompting of environmental factors, display (for our admiration and understanding) the action in the world of Divine grace and power. The many hundreds of apples on a single tree are not identical, nor are they identical over different seasons-they are only similar. Thus, the first emphasis in our definition of the concept of evolution is change which is vital for the maintenance of ecological diversity and balance.

To paraphrase the Qur’an: God imposes the law of change and evolution as a basic principle in the universe. In the enforcement of this law, He creates pairs and opposites which, interacting according to subtle purposes, are placed in the core of every being. Thus, the change-dependent evolution and the dynamic balance in the universe, have been realized through the intersection of the opposites continually since the outset of creation. There are many verses in the Qur’an (for example in Chapter 55, al-Rahman) which indicate change and balance.

The ideologues of evolution theory, however, ignore the Divine wisdom, measure and purpose in the universe, claiming that the change they observe is an effect of coincidences-random variations, aimless mutations.

In the light of recent findings, we know the apparent causes of change to be mutations, which are the hereditary alternations in the genetic information; the differentiation of an isolated population from its ancestor through multiplying inside the population; adaptation and so-called ‘natural selection’, that is the decrease or extinction of generations which are weak and unable to reproduce in their immediate environment.

Believers in the One God affirm that everything, from subatomic particles to galaxies, is created by Him, that He is Omniscient and Omnipotent, and everything acts under His will and command. Causes are created by God in the appropriate time and space and the appropriate order and combination as a sort of veil for His dignity and might. He only says ‘Be!’, and all the material causes, such as heat, moisture, air, chemical elements, radiation, etc., are. If such causes are seen in this way, if their being brought together into an order is understood to be a response to their need (their prayer) to participate in a collaborative universe-and if their being causes is confirmed by observations and experiments-then, we may regard causes as a useful way to explain biological phenomena.

We know that diversity in a species is realized through mutations in the genetic program, arranged by Divine wisdom, not by coincidence. The evolutionist idea that the mutations are arbitrary, that useful changes can occur by sheer chance and lead to the development of a living being, or that a lot of random mutations can accumulate to enable a sudden leap from one species to another, has not been confirmed by experiments and observations. To accept that the mutations are arbitrary interferences in the genetic order is like accepting that a rocket can be generated out of a sound aircraft by raking it randomly with machine-gun fire. Certainly, computer-aided probability calculations show that it is impossible for thousands of random mutations to accumulate on a living being and change it into another species. Any such change is manifestly against that organism’s survival and would have to overwhelm it suddenly, not gradually.

Some bacteria can be given the ability to synthesize insulin by means of genetic engineering. This is a kind of planned mutation. Such a transfer of ability is, though remarkable, a relatively small change: it is, in any case, only possible because of the relevant ability being present in the genetic material being transferred. It is sheer arrogance to claim that living beings having millions of such able genes have evolved from each other by arbitrary, random mutations.

Adaptation is a biological manifestation of the flexibility coded into the genetic programs of living organisms; it carries the potential, within the limits of the species, for the organism to survive in changing conditions and to sustain that survival through reproduction.

When environmental conditions change, responsive adaptations occur- e.g. change of colour or density of hair, size of ears-in proportion to the flexibility of the organism’s genetic potential. If the organism cannot adapt adequately, the species does not mutate into some new species, it goes extinct. That is what happened, we presume, to dinosaurs and dodos.

The diversity of various human races can also be explained by the flexibility of their genetic potentials in response to different geographical, climatic and environmental conditions, provided, as before, that the changes are contained within species boundaries. Intermarriages between the various races add to the diversity within the species boundaries, they do not yield another species. The working of genetic potential can also be seen in the way that insects adapt to pesticides, and certain bacteria acquire a nearly invincible resistance to particular antibiotics. Insects or bacteria become more resistant, but they do not become different species. Their potential for adaptation is understood, by believers, as a power to survive given to them by Divine Wisdom.

We do not wholly reject the concept of natural selection. However, it is necessary to criticize the extreme interpretation evolutionists make of it. First of all, there is not an absolute ‘cruel competition’ in nature which the strong dominate absolutely, nor a pitiless ‘selection’ process of exterminating rivals in the struggle for food (survival). Rather, there is a dynamic balance among the great variety of creatures which is characterized, overall, by mutual collaboration and solidarity. The killing of weak creatures by the stronger ones is not random, nor characterized by a drive to exterminate and monopolize resources for survival. On the contrary, it is, overall, purposive and beneficial. Predators prey, generally, on weak and sick animals, and this ‘selects’ the fit and healthy for survival and, quite probably, prevents epidemics within and between species. Also, it is manifestly obvious that the apparent ‘competition’ in nature is the outward face of a subtle and complex feeding chain which is vital for the overall balance of the ecosystem, providing niches for great numbers of species, not least those which feed on the left-overs of others thus cleansing and purifying the food-chain.

Another factor affecting natural selection is the difference in rates of breeding. One bacterium multiplies by millions in one day, a fly by thousands in two days. Vertebrates, except fish and amphibians on the other hand, breed far more slowly. From the base of the food pyramid to the top, the production of food increases in quality but decreases in mass, and consequently a lot of tiny living organisms are the food of larger ones. The difference in breeding rates among members of the same species causes rapid multiplying of a certain group, but not the change of its species. An organism with many young has more opportunity to survive in changing environmental conditions, because when the number of its young increases, so too do the combinations of genetic characters. Even after drastic environmental changes, a few may survive.

The concepts used by evolutionists used to explain biological realities have a merely nominal reality, they are far from being ultimate causes. Attributing reality or, worse, Divine power to concepts which can be useful only for building mental models, and ignoring the knowledge, might and eternal wisdom of the Creator, means binding our hearts and minds to nature, like nature-worshippers and polytheists generally.

Western sociologists and criminologists have tried to explain away the gloomy statistics by claiming that the level of crime is much as it was–only the level of reporting of crime has gone up because, among other things, people have telephones! Or they have suggested that because people own more things (more goods in the house, more cars, etc), there is more opportunity to commit crime. And some have tried, without any objective proof, to accuse particular ethnic groups, especially blacks, of criminal tendencies. In the public imagination blacks are associated with mugging, violent theft, burglary, and all other sorts of crime. The implication of this view is that, somehow, non-black Westerners are, by nature, disinclined to commit crime!

Whatever the explanation for it, the crime figures are evidence of a problem that has to be tackled. The two main options address the problem preventatively or correctively. Preventive measures consist of increased security–better doors and windows, more locks and bolts, alarms, video surveillance, and the like. Such measures failed to address the crime figures because the crime was displaced to easier targets–to, for example, the houses of the poor who could neither afford the increased security nor move to ‘safe’ areas of town. On the corrective side, the policy (usually associated with ‘conservatives’)– tougher policing tactics, harsher sentencing, short, sharp shock treatment for young offenders–didn’t work either. Tough, military-style policing in certain urban areas provoked riots, looting, racial conflict and massively expensive disorder, and brought the police into disrepute. Neither longer sentences nor short, sharp shook treatments affected rates of recidivism: 60% of criminals still went back to a life of crime. New prison buildings had to be built at great cost, adding to the already considerable cost of keeping criminals locked up–an average of 2000 per individual per month.

Unable to resolve the problem, governments hastily adopted the ‘nothing works’ principle and handed over some of its responsibilities to local councils. Long sentencing and tough policing had to be abolished due to unpopularity and costs. New sentencing measures, probation and community policing were implemented. However, crime figures have continued to rise. The dilemma remains: long sentences mean unsustainable costs of running overcrowded prison services with a 60% recidivism rate; short or no custodial sentences mean letting the criminals onto the streets albeit with reduced opportunities–the poor being vulnerable whereas the rich buy security and/or insurance. 

The approaches so far tried are bound to fail because they do not attempt to identify the causes of criminality in a way commensurate with the complexity of the problem. They do not identify all the individual factors which, acting together, generate crime. The responses to crime have been simplistic: if the criminals were unemployed, try to get them work; if they were persistent offenders, lock them up; if some people were particularly vulnerable to crime, counsel them to get better security. But neither crime nor criminals act for motives as simple as that. If a criminal mind really wants to commit crime, giving the person a job or money may not be dissuasive. Consider the case of Robert Maxwell who was immensely wealthy but nevertheless stole his own employees’ pensions, or of the political dictators who have robbed their own people of millions each year. If poverty were the sufficient reason for crime, there would not be crimes like tax evasion, bribery, fraud, racketeering, price fixing, etc., which are usually done by the well-off. In fact none of the economic classes (nor any of the ethnic groups) in a society can be singled out as more liable to commit crime.

Existing theories do not adequately address the key questions: why some people commit crime whereas others, in very similar situations, do not; why patterns of crime differ in similar areas; why in the same family one member becomes a criminal but the others do not, or the other way round; and, finally, why some individuals, households, or businesses are more likely to be victims than others.

Conventional approaches look for answers to these questions dissuasire separately but none has ever tried to address them all together. The discipline of criminology is in a severe crisis as regards any competence to explain the causes of the phenomena it offers to deal with. Sadly, since Western society finds it very difficult to question its fundamental structures, it is most unlikely that Western criminologists will be persuaded to ask the right questions in the right way. Success and happiness, in modern Western societies, are defined in terms of individual buying power. Material expectations are constantly being increased with the majority of people having very little opportunity to catch up with them. At the same time, the system lacks the authority of moral norms–normlesness is the norm, individuals being encouraged to define their own norms as they go along. Offenders often say, for example, that property is insured anyway so there is no harm in stealing it. Meanwhile, the sense of insecurity and isolation deepens: in some urban areas, people do not even feel safe in their own homes.

The motivations to crime are diverse and complex. Some individuals, ambitious for success, are nevertheless industrious and law-abiding, others seek illegal short-cuts. Some may find no legal route to change their economic condition and accept it, others do not. And still others may not be ambitious at all and simply conform to the circumstances in which they find themselves. The question, here, is what factors lead particular individuals into several different behavior patterns. The answer is bound to be no less complex than in the case of disease where the susceptibility of a particular individual has many possible causes, not one.

Many conventional crime theories focus on a single cause and generalize the explanation to crime as such. Biologists may identify genetic defects in some criminals then deduce that all criminals are genetically defective (e.g. Lombrosso). But if human actions were all determined by our genes we would be like robots–and we are not. Besides, the latest researches show that brain activities are not controlled by genes. Or psychologists may identify a psychological disturbance among some members of the criminal population and, instead of localizing the results, claim that all criminals must be psychologically disturbed (e.g. Freud). Or sociologists may observe that the children of broken or ‘problem’ families are over-represented amongst criminals and infer a causal connection between poor family background and crime.

As against these approaches, it is essential to acknowledge the multiplicity of causes of crime and to differentiate offender types. A more credible analysis of causes must try to explain differentials in crime rates in different areas and the process by which specific individuals acquire criminal attitudes and/or behavior. The explanation must combine more than one factor on the sociological or psychological side of the question. It must, first, put the person in the centre of the investigation and then ask: How do people become the kind of individuals who commit crimes? What is it about the structure of a social system that determines the kinds of criminal acts that occur in the system and their distribution? What deters people from crime?

The individual must be placed at the centre of the investigation because only individualist theories can explain different patterns of crime in similar conditions. Class or social group theories cannot explain the only criminals in a family, given that all family members are exposed to the same economic, social or environmental conditions. Burglars are statistically expected to be young, school drop-outs and unemployed, but it is evident that not all the unemployed nor all school drop-outs commit crimes. That does not mean that social conditions are irrelevant, only that they are not deterministic. Social conditions of course do affect people and may even predispose some individuals towards crime. However, it remains true that most individual offenders choose to do what they do.

Having accepted that crime is not a product of single causes like poverty or social deprivation but of a complex of causes, any solution we seek must not rely on either preventative locks and bolts or corrective sentences in prison, but take a long term view. The long term solution is to bring up individuals with clear values of what is good and evil, as concerned for others as for themselves; who do not measure happiness in terms of buying power. At the same time we need a social environment in which the have-nots are not alienated from the haves, but all feel as if they belong together and are all cared for and protected by all. Cooperativeness and solidarity must replace individualism and competitiveness at the expense of others. If not, we encourage the cynicism of ‘might is right’, of crime as the clever individuals way of punishing the fool for being foolish.

The intensity and extent of crime in Western societies is an indicator that something is seriously wrong with them. There ought, in conscience, to be no evasion of the responsibility to question the principles and directions on which they are run.