Gravitational waves can be defined as the vibration of space-time. Sky is an ocean in which the waves are stationary.

When you throw a rock into the water, when a taut rope is plucked, when a spring is compressed and then released, or when our larynx vibrates, what forms is a wave. In each case, the medium where the wave forms is different: water, air, etc. Interestingly, light waves do not need a medium to travel.  A common feature of all kinds of waves is that they have wavelengths, frequencies and amplitudes. Another important feature they have is that there needs to be a source that triggers the wave. A spring, for example, needs to be compressed to produce the wave.

Gravitational waves, on the other hand, can be defined as the vibration of space-time. These waves were predicted by Einstein in 1916 in relation to the general theory of relativity. Let us consider that all interstellar and intergalactic space is filled up with a substance similar to water. Then when, say, two black holes collide, space itself ripples like water. In fact, discussions have long continued over the existence of ether, a substance that forms the texture and essence of matter. If there are waves in space, then it is highly likely that there is ether that fills up space as well.

In a very interesting narration, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is reported to have suggested that heavens are not a vacuum: “The sky is a wave held back” (Tirmidhi, Tafsir surah, 57/1). Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, in his interpretation of this hadith, says, “[Sky] is an ocean in which the waves are stationary” (The Gleams, Twelfth Gleam); in other words, heavens are a sea whose waves have settled, calmed and become still. The Qur’anic verse 36:40 reads “It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. All (the celestial bodies and systems) float (swim) in an orbit (determined for each).” We can infer from this verse that space is likened to a sea because floating or swimming can occur in a substance but not in a vacuum.

The discovery of gravitational waves

Gravitational waves were discovered by a team of experimental physicists on February 11, 2016, that is, exactly one hundred years after they were predicted by Einstein in 1916, and the discovery earned three physicists, Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish, Kip S. Thorne, the Nobel Prize in 2017. The LIGO observatory (www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw) used an extremely sensitive interferometer to detect the gravitational waves produced by the collision of two black holes, one having 29 times the mass of the sun and the other 36, 1.3 billion years ago. The researchers used such a precise mechanism that it (the interferometer) could measure the distance to the nearest star to an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair.

The LIGO observatory used an extremely sensitive interferometer to detect the gravitational waves produced by the collision of two black holes, one having 29 times the mass of the sun and the other 36, 1.3 billion years ago.

The working principle of an interferometer is based on the idea of splitting a laser beam from a single source into two components and then recombining them. The split beams get to the target at the same time after diverging at a right angle and being reflected back from two mirrors. Scientifically speaking, there is not any phase difference between the two. However, if the beams are subject to an effect like gravitational waves, the waves cannot get to the target at the same time, or in scientific terms, an interference pattern is formed on the screen because of the phase difference. In the same way, the waves generated by the collision of two black holes had an impact on the movements of the perpendicular laser beams as they ran past the area that housed the interferometer built by the LIGO team and caused a time difference in their arrival at the detector. In this experiment, the effect of the gravitational waves was measured by directing laser lights through L-shaped vacuum tunnels four kilometers long. The length of the tunnels was so precisely adjusted as to measure a difference, if any, as small as a proton.

The reason why the laser interferometer was so finely tuned is that the waves generated by two colliding black holes are so infinitesimally weak that only such an experimental mechanism could capture them. In other words, the experiment had to be precise beyond the atomic scale because the gravitational waves that reached the solar system could change the distance between the sun and the earth by just the size of an atom. To reiterate, the mechanism was designed so precisely that it can detect differences between laser beams as short as ten-thousandths the size of a proton. It should be remembered that a proton is a very, very small particle in the nucleus of an atom with a diameter of 10^-15 (one-million millionth) of a millimeter.

Furthermore, the gravitational waves were discovered simultaneously by two separate interferometers, which were located at a distance of 3220 km from each other. The reason for the dual measurement tools was to ensure that the waves were indeed gravitational waves.

What has excited scientists most about the discovery of gravitational waves, besides their confirmation of Einstein’s theory, is the fact that we will be able to exploit gravitational waves in addition to light and radio waves in order to explore space. It can be foreseen that telescopes working with gravitational waves can be developed or advanced laser interferometers can be built in space and discover other gravitational waves.

Gravitational waves are generated in space all the time. Large-scale phenomena such as the collision of two black holes or the explosion of supernovae cause ripples in the sea of space. It is highly likely that systems that can detect these waves will provide us with new information about the fabric of space and thus lead to new discoveries.

The fact that gravitational waves were discovered using technological tools is an excellent example of how technology can nurture science. Moreover, this study proves that some discoveries can only be made by big teams like those in the CERN experiments.

It is postulated that the universe rippled violently during the first creation as a result of the tremendous expansion, the effects of which might still exist and should warrant new studies. It is only a matter of time that a super-sensitive mechanism could confirm the Big Bang theory. It is believed that the gravitational waves generated at the very beginning of this expansion are still present and experimental designs such as that in the LIGO are likely to discover them. The Qur’anic verse 51: 47 is considered to be referring to this expansion: “And the heaven, We have constructed it mightily; and it is surely We Who have vast power, and keep expanding it.”

It is almost certain that technological progress will lead to new discoveries that will provide us with deeper insights into the incredible composition of the universe. Bediuzzaman describes the universe as “a rosebud, wrapped in thousands a variety of veils of unity” (The Rays, Second Ray, Third Station). Every new discovery is going to show us the magnificent secrets of this rosebud.

The nature of human beings bears both material and divine aspects. Some other expressions, like angelic-satanic, material-moral, corporeal-spiritual, and sensual-conscientious, are also used to refer, with nuance, to the same dichotomy. To us, it is much more suitable to handle and assess the moral and material aspects of human beings, one by one, as distinct mechanisms apart from each other. I would rather call the moral one as “the mechanism of the conscience” and the other as “the mechanism of the soul.” Innermost faculties such as the heart, the spirit, the secret (sir), the private (khafiy), the most private (akhfa), willpower, the conscious, feelings and senses form the mechanism we call the conscience. All kinds of lust, caprice, spite, hatred, anger, and obstinacy – the features endowed to human beings for particular reasons and purpose – compose the mechanism of the soul (nafs). These two mechanisms almost always function against each other. However, if the mechanism of the conscience overcomes the other, the mechanism of the soul, too, is transformed to positive, and becomes a mechanism serving human beings to rise and be exalted.

As classified by sufis, the mechanism of the soul may become useful for human beings if “it” breaks away from the state of evil that commands it (ammara) and moves on to higher levels of self-condemnation (lawwama), inspiration (mulhama), serenity and peace; these represent the soul at rest (mutmainna), the soul well-pleased (with God) (radiyya), the soul pleasing to God (mardiyya), and the purified or innocent self or soul (safiyya). Due to this fact, it is deficient to only deal with the mechanism of conscience of the human beings.

Let’s take lust as an example. If this feeling is merely employed for its own sake, it shall become a complete source of evil. However, it can become a means of sainthood when used within permissible conditions, say between married couples whose love and marital relations will be rewarded. When the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were surprised to learn this, he explained that “if a person does not fulfill that desire within permissible conditions, he or she would do it through forbidden means. By keeping himself within lawful terms, he avoided the forbidden.” Avoiding a sin is as rewarding as if one has fulfilled a required duty. This is a very logical explanation, as much as it is very much in compliance with human nature. So, even through this feeling belonging to the mechanism of soul, one may gain Paradise.

As a matter of fact, we may use all senses under the mechanism of the soul as inducements for the beauties of Paradise. I mean, just as one may live some dimensions belonging to Paradise through the feelings and senses belonging to the conscience, he or she may, in the same way, feel and comprehend the incidents belonging to Paradise through some senses belonging to the soul, assuming those senses have been followed with a particular discipline. Indeed, this may be one of the mysteries and causes of the fact that Paradise shall address both the soul and the corporeal body. (As a side note, it would be rather reasonable to interpret Adam’s creation from soil such as loam, dried clay, etc., as to inform us of the nature of human beings. Otherwise, interpreting them as the clay and loam of the world known by us shall be a deficient interpretation.)

Another example could be feelings of rage or anger. The feeling of rage has the potential to make people turn rotten; they can so far as to become murderers, like Pharaohs who have blood in their hearts and minds, hands and eyes. However, if one can activate the feeling of rage when he or she needs to fight for honor and homeland, they will be ennobled with praise and reward. You see, such anger is welcomed by God, just as favorably as mildness is. Now, take into consideration that merely using our earthly aspects correctly can make people rise so high, and then imagine what may happen if we use our conscience well!

Yes, one can reach the levels of angels, even through his or her earthly side. And if the conscience, in addition, becomes part of this ascension, he or she shall be superior to the angels. Indeed, there is no compulsion for angels; their will power is manifested in the form of choosing from alternatives, all of which are good anyway. Human beings are charged with using their will power to make a choice between good and bad. As the award shall be proportional to the difficulty, a human choosing goodness, despite the temptations of their carnal soul, shall be superior to the angels.

Conscience originates from a root that means “to find” in Arabic. One uses his conscience to find both himself and his Lord. Hundreds of thinkers – from great figures of Islamic thought like Imam Rabbani, Imam Gazali, Rumi, and Bediuzzaman, to many others in the West – have handled the question of human conscience with their particular inner discoveries and perceptions.. Here, I want to draw special attention to the terms of “inner discovery and perception.” In fact, saints experience the pleasures of the conscience through inner discoveries, as truths are unveiled in their hearts. Thinkers and philosophers, on the other hand, experience this “finding” through perception. Interestingly, both groups agree with the fact that the conscience never lies. Among the main and essential evidences demonstrating the existence of God, Bediuzzaman counts the conscience, too, in his early works. But later, as he did not consider the conscience as an objective everyone could understand, he discounted it.

Yes, indeed, not every one is able to comprehend the cryptic language of the conscience. Thus it cannot be considered as objective evidence. But, for those who can understand that language, the conscience is the greatest and keenest of all the evidences. No other information or wealth of knowledge can make one attain a higher level of awareness than what they can attain through their conscience.

There are two main points about the realm of the conscience: the point of support and the source of help. With these, we comprehend very clearly that we are impotent and destitute. And, with this comprehension, we rely fully on God Almighty and wish from God whatever we wish. In as much as we bear that need to seek help, it becomes clear that there should exist Someone to give that help to us. Otherwise, giving this need to human beings would be absurd. Indeed, there exists no absurdity in the universe. There is definitely a counterpart to any feeling we human beings bear. In the same vein, there shall undoubtedly be counterparts of those points in the conscience. Nevertheless, it is not possible to sense this for someone who has not listened to his or her conscience in his or her life. Though consciousness is a part belonging to the conscience, it does not bear any value, for it is a single entity. At the time, when willpower is controlled by feelings and the heart, it, too, becomes almost another center of conscience. Like all the loquacious, eloquent witnesses of the existence of God, the conscience, too, is a holy and heavenly resonance that calls out the truth. But, this merely happens if a particular conscience is one of the consciences we have described above. Otherwise, to expect those results from a conscience yoked by its carnal soul would be impossible.

Yes, imagine someone who has completely become a slave to lust, animosity, anger, or worldly status. Whatever he or she does, this person is under the impact of these negative feelings that are wrapped around his or her soul. Such a conscience is bound hand and foot, and it lacks any influence. We call such a person “conscienceless,” in the fullest meaning of the term. These kinds of people do not have any kind of knowledge about the mechanism of the conscience; it is not possible for them to feel the meaning it denotes and its objective beyond objectives. Another significant remark on the matter is from Immanuel Kant, in the Critic of Pure Reason. He notes that God shall be known through practical reason, but not a theoretical one. That is, the nice behavior and actions of someone become, through time, the very nature of him or her, and help them reach the point that may not be attained through abstract knowledge. Yes, abstract knowledge and information can never ascend people to those high positions. No matter how many books they read or memorize, those lacking resolution and deprived of theological practice cannot attain the peace felt by believers. The necessary practices are clear to us: the practices that are approved by faith as good, and defined as “righteous actions.” In this way, we properly utilize the conscience, and can implement its lessons to carry out righteous acts in real life.

Cellular joints are called “intercellular junctions.” There are thousands of molecules (proteins) in charge of these regions. As members of such molecules, the Cadherin and Catenin linkage system holds two cells together just like a secured nut and bolt. Thus unity of tissues and organs is ensured.

Masayuki Ozawa, a Japanese scientist, was the first to call these proteins “catenin” in 1989, derived form the word “catena” in Latin which means “chain.” Catenin links cells to each other like a chain. As you construct your buildings, you place cement or similar adhesive materials in between bricks and stones. In a similar fashion, when your body is developing, cellular cement is put in between cells, linking them via bolts of cadherin and nuts of catenin.

The catenin family has three members: alpha catenin, beta catenin and gamma catenin, classified according to our weight and length. Cadherin is a Calcium (Ca) dependent adhesion molecule (to bond and stick) that was discovered in 1961. Cadherin refers to a calcium dependent adhesion molecule. As Cadherin enables linkage between the two cells, catenin in the meantime sticks to the ends just like a nut on a bolt. This way a connection is properly secured. Structural cadherin deformities have been found in some stomach cancers. Cells without a properly secured anchor leave the flock like lost sheep. It relocates to other places and new proteins are synthesized there. Researchers have stumbled upon catenin while investigating the Cadherin molecule.

Catenin carries a special motif called “Armadillo” named as such because of its resemblance to this insectivorous mammalian which means “armor” in Spanish. Together with Cadherin, Catenin fulfills very important tasks in many places from the embryologic development in the mothers’ womb to the salivary glands through the skin. A body without Catenin would look like a building without nails, cement, hinges, and screws. Catenin operates like the anchor of a ship, thus it is also named as “anchoring junction molecule.”

While Cadherin molecule links two cells to each other, Catenin secures the Cadherin ends, and then connects Cadherin to the Actin as the main molecule of cellular framework. Catenin does other jobs in addition to the role of fastening. This multitasking is observed in many structures and molecules in the body. With the principle of maximum saving, these molecules are created to take care of many jobs in a limited space. For instance, Catenin works in a communication system called “WNT.” The WNT system relays signals that arrive at the cell to Catenin so that it can transfer the signal to the cell nucleus. In recent years errors in this system have been reported in breast and intestinal cancers. Furthermore, Catenin helps Cadherin as it functions like an orchestral conductor in the organization of intestinal cells. Catenin undertakes active tasks for the maintenance of intestinal cellular homeostasis, and it becomes hyperactive in Hirschsprung disease. This disease is a state of neural network absence that is in charge of intestinal (bowel) movements and supposed to be present through the intestines. In such parts of the intestines, bowel movements cannot be monitored and excretion cannot take place properly.

The diseases associated with cadherin have been reported in many cancer cases. Both cadherin and catenin are made to function flawlessly as best as possible. But just in every other blessing, we tend to appreciate their presence in times of sickness and disease – we seem to realize in such times the fact that nothing is insignificant in nature. When cadherin and catenin fail to work properly, embryonic lethality happens, and the baby may die even before he or she is born.

Cells cannot completely come together to arrange tissues and systems without these molecules. If these molecules in the salivary glands suffer from a problem, abnormal cellular structures may form, and cellular specialization is put at risk, and again death may happen in the womb. Unwanted situations arise from brain and face cartilage if these molecules do not function well during prenatal development. Miscarriages might happen because of flaws regarding establishment of fertilized egg in the womb. Zygote may have trouble transforming into an eight-celled blastocyst.

Mechanisms and systems that are built in our body are mind-blowing and put to service for many purposes only some of which we have been able to uncover. These molecules fulfill quite a number of those purposes assigned to them by the Creator, the One who acts with absolute subtlety, wisdom, and generosity.

Kadir Can is a science teacher in Ankara, Turkey.

These findings might help researchers to design more effective drugs for various human infections by focusing on the minimization of the inflammation. Moreover, bats are capable of sustained long flights, as some bat species can fly more than 1,000 km in a single night. With such intense physical activity, cells often produce high levels of toxic (free radicals) that would usually damage DNA sequence.

This study also found that bats are equipped with a highly functional set of genes that mediates DNA repair in response to DNA damage, thus bats are protected from toxic cellular waste with this advanced mechanism. Aging, cancer and infectious diseases are the three major issues medicine is facing today and biological abilities granted to bats seem to provide important clues for us to discover new ways to combat these big health problems

He has granted you from all that you ask Him. Were you to attempt to count God’s blessings, you could not compute them. But for sure, humankind is much prone to wrongdoing (sins and errors of judgment) and to ingratitude. (Ibrahim 14:34)

Today a large part of modern science focuses on understanding the human body. Researchers working on life sciences hope that one day the secrets of every single detail that make us human will be revealed. Every year billions of dollars are spent by scientific institutions on learning more about us. Actually this fact by itself is enough to suggest how little control we have over things happening in our bodies, and we know even less about the mechanisms of moving, touching, speaking, seeing, or hearing, and so on.

As a scientist, I really cannot guess whether life scientists will ever be able to learn enough to solve the puzzles of the human body, but I feel a lack of satisfaction when the knowledge we have gained from scientific discoveries is compared with what is unknown. In my opinion this is why one of the most intelligent physicists in history, the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, once said, “I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there” [1]. My understanding is that such a conclusion must be inevitable if the primitive knowledge given to us by modern sciences is not interpreted in the light of a far superior logic that is meant to explain the whole creation. In that sense, I believe that we have to consider every single detail in creation as a vital part of the whole in order not to feel lost before the grand picture of this masterpiece.

Last year, in a seminar at Osaka University Graduate School for Frontier BioSciences, I was thrilled to hear Professor Keichi Namba say, “Japan’s fastest supercomputer dissipates more than billion times the power dissipated by a fly’s brain, yet it is not able to simulate the brain of such a tiny animal.” This worked as a wakening call or a reminder for me to think again about the magnificent arts of the Creator. In particular, I wanted to revise my research on a hearing-related protein from a new perspective, rather than using the mechanical attitude that is followed most of the time.

This article is an attempt to explain an amazing mechanism in our ears that enables us to hear the faintest whispers. A mechanism that is switched off at loud cries to protect us from disturbing noises, yet amplified to make the softest sounds audible. Before starting to explain the basic anatomy of the human ear, I should mention that today the ear’s active amplification mechanism is still being investigated in research centers by biologists and physicists together.

How do we hear? What is happening in the inner ear?

Findings from the last century have shown that our ears are not just simple receivers as we had imagined. In 1979, David Kemp of University College, London discovered that mammalian ears can also emit sound vibrations. By placing a very sensitive microphone close to the eardrum he could detect whistles, implying that there is a source of vibration within the ear [2]. However, before trying to explain the cause of vibrations in the ears, we have to go over the mechanism of hearing briefly: The delicate design of the outer ear, the tympanic membrane (eardrum), and the tiny bones (malleus, incus and stapes) enables to collect sound waves traveling in the medium and transfer them to the inner ear (Figure 1a). In the inner ear the sound waves are sorted according to their frequency and amplitudes and then converted into electrical signals which can be transported to the brain via nerves. At the onset of this process the sound waves are transformed into standing waves on the basilar membrane which is laid along the organ resembling a snail, the cochlea (Figure 1b). The frequency of the incoming sound wave determines the positions of the distortions along the cochlea: High pitches create vibrations at the basal end of the cochlea (i.e. adjacent to the middle ear) whereas low frequencies vibrate closer to the apical end (Figure 1c) where the cochlea gets narrower. This geometry helps our ears to act as a frequency analyzer.

The efferent and afferent nerves that connect the ear to the central nervous system are attached to the organ of Corti, which is situated right next to the basilar membrane, extending over the cochlea. In other words, Corti is the sense organ of hearing, converting the motion of the basilar membrane into electrical signals that are conducted to the brain via neuronal cells [3]. The organ of Corti is also lined with multiple rows of sensory hair cells.

The hair cells of the organ of Corti

Corti is decorated with two different sets of sensory cells: single row of inner hair cells (IHCs) accompanied with 3–4 rows of outer hair cells (OHCs), both spanning the whole cochlear tube (Figure 2a). They are called “hair cells” because both IHCs and OHCs have typical bundles of stereocilia that contain mechanosensitive ion channels (Figure 2b).

The major function of IHCs is to detect the sound waves and then convert them into equivalent electrical signals that are to be interpreted by the brain. When the basilar membrane is perturbed by the incoming sound waves, the IHCs found in that region sense this activity by the movement of their hair bundles (bundles of stereocilia). The hair bundles of IHCs deflect and re-align as the basilar membrane moves up and down (Figure 3). We should note that this is an amazingly sensitive process such that deflections of the stereocilia on the order of a few nanometers (one millionth of a millimeter) can be detected and converted into nerve signals by the IHCs [4].

However, this by itself is not sufficient for hearing; no matter how effective IHCs work, the fluid that fills the cochlear tube is a threat to the sound waves traveling in the inner ear. In 1948, a young astrophysicist named Thomas Gold was the first person who has pointed out that the fluidic nature of the cochlea would dampen the sound vibrations and make them too weak to be detected by IHCs. He has concluded that an inherent vibration amplification mechanism is necessary in order to overcome such a problem [5]. Unfortunately, Gold’s statements were overlooked by the physiologists of his time who had performed their hearing related experiments on dead cochleas.

Gold’s predictions were justified around ten years later by William Rhode, a physiologist from University of Wisconsin, who has shown that the vibrations of the basilar membrane in live tissue samples are stronger than anticipated [6]. In the present day the existence of an amplification mechanism within a live cochlea is a well accepted fact. The only disagreement among scientists is about how the mechanism of the amplification works. Several scientific laboratories have reported different experiments performed on the organ of Corti and they have proposed different models. At the center of one of these models is prestin, a membrane protein which is not found in any cell but OHCs in the human body.

Electro-motile outer hair cells and prestin

In 1985, the distinctive properties of OHCs were first discovered by William Brownell, a University of Geneva neuroscientist, who has shown that these cells can convert electrical signals into motion: A phenomenon called electromotility. Electromotile OHCs can elongate or shrink in response to electrical charge density changes in their membranes. About a decade ago Peter Dallos and co-workers from Northwestern University in Chicago discovered a membrane protein, unique to OHCs, that can respond to electrical signals [3]. The Dallos group coined the name “prestin” for this protein in an analogy with the musical term “presto” (quickly) due to its rapid response to electrical signals. Various kinds of mammalian cells genetically engineered to produce prestin at their membranes displayed the electromotile responses that are very similar to OHCs.

According to Peter Dallos prestin protein works as a tiny machine which is a crucial element for cochlear amplification [7]. His theory is verified by recent studies which show that cochlear sensitivity in mice decreases hundredfold when prestin activity is disrupted by genetic means [8]. As the sound waves reach the inner ear, prestin-driven electromotility enables the OHCs to move like pistons. The piston movement in phase with the basilar membrane motion amplifies the vibrations and makes them stronger for IHC detection (Figure 4a,b). The prestin-driven vibrations were what Thomas Gold proposed and David Kemp had detected so many years ago. However, scientists are still searching and learning new things about this nanometer scale machine. One of the discoveries showed that prestin can adjust itself according to the amplitude of the incoming sound waves: Basically, the amplification is stronger when the sound waves are hard to hear but gets weaker as the volume increases.

Up to this point, we have briefly explained how the amplification mechanism of hearing in mammals works. Unfortunately, even though it took decades of research for scientists to discover and define the active nature of the mammalian ear, this explanation highlights only a minuscule part of the whole picture. That is why we are still incapable of curing most hearing problems. For example, hearing loss due to slightly disturbed hair cells with damaged stereocilia turns out to be chronic (Figure 5). The medical treatments we have to hand are too primitive to mend such delicate structures. Moreover, hearing aids made by today’s technology are not nearly as effective and functional as needed.

On the other hand, the delicacy of the hair cells and the limited control scientists have over them are not the only lessons we have learned from research on the inner ear. We cannot overlook the other messages attached to the research on the grounds that the time given to us is just too short to comprehend. It is an undeniable fact that the sense of hearing is designed in the best way to serve human beings. The different characteristics of hearing amplification at different sound levels make life much easier for us: Prestin-driven hearing is most effective when the sound waves are weak and harder to hear. This way the incoming sound waves are amplified enabling us to hear the faintest whispers. However, as the sound strength increases, the prestin-driven amplification gradually gets weaker and finally diminishes after a point to make sure that loud noises are less disturbing and hazardous for us. In my opinion, this amazing quality of a tiny protein found in our ears is one of the pieces of evidence that remind us of the necessity of pondering the favors of our Creator. Qur’anic verses such as Ibrahim 34 at the beginning of this article give us clues about how to interpret scientific findings that reveal the amazing qualities of our bodily organs. May the Creator of our ears allow us to reflect more on His favors and live accordingly.

Hamdi Sener is a biophysicist living in Boston. He can be contacted at hamdisener@gmail.com.

References

1. Gleick, J., Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman. Reprint ed. 1993: Vintage. 560.
2. Kemp, D.T., The evoked cochlear mechanical response and the auditory microstructure- evidence for a new element in cochlear mechanics. Scand Audiol Suppl., 1979. 9: p. 35–47.
3. Zheng, J., et al., Prestin is the motor protein of cochlear outer hair cells. Nature, 2000. 405(6783): p. 149–55.
4. Robles, L. and M.A. Ruggero, Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev., 2001. 81(3): p. 1305–52.
5. Gold, T., Hearing II. The physical basis of the action of the cochlea. Proc. Roy. Soc. B., 1948. 135: p. 492–498.
6. Rhode, W.S., Observations of the vibration of the basilar membrane in squirrel monkeys using the Mossbauer technique. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. , 1971. 49: p. 1218–1231.
7. Cho, A., What’s Shakin’ in the ear? Science, 2000. 288: p. 1954-1955.
8. Liberman, M.C., et al., Prestin is required for electromotility of the outer hair cell and for the cochlear amplifier. Nature, 2003. 419: p. 300-304.
9. Fettiplace, R. and C.M. Hackney, The sensory and motor roles of auditory hair cells. Nat Rev Neurosci., 2006. 7(1): p. 19-29.
10. Dallos, P. and B. Fakler, Prestin, a new type of motor protein. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2002. 3(2): p. 104-11.

The sun radiates an enormous amount of energy-at a rate of 3.9×1026 Joule per second. This is roughly equivalent to the energy of a 10 billion megaton TNT bomb every second. This huge amount of energy has been maintained for several billion years and will continue for several more. The fusion reaction of the Sun is a process in which hydrogen burns, transforming into helium, which is then followed by thermonuclear explosions. Isotopes of hydrogen, such as deuterium and tritium, are fused to form heavier helium. During this process the released energy can be as high as 17.6 MeV. The energy released from a 17 lbs deuterium fusion is equal to 1,000 kilotons of TNT. Every second the Sun fuses 675,000,000 tons of hydrogen into 653,000,000 tons of helium.

Scientists have attempted to make fusion work on the earth to make larger amounts of energy, thus solving our energy problems for the future. The first nuclear fusion trials were carried out for nuclear weapons. The released energy from the fusion trials was 500 times higher than that from the fission reactions of nuclear weapons¹. The energy released was equal to that of approximately 12 million tons of TNT. The civilian applications for energy production began in the early 1950s, and we are still trying to solve how to control this amount of energy in reactors.

In nuclear fusion, the negative and positive ions of hydrogen, called plasma, reach temperatures of 100 million degrees. To achieve the plasma parameters of the Sun, for example, the same temperature and density, the plasma must be heated to 100 million degrees Celsius and be kept dense and confined for at least 1 second.

Plasmas are mostly heated by Ohmic (resistive) heating, beam injection, or radio frequency heating. Ohmic heating is the result of an induced current being passed through the plasmas. This mechanism is also used to make electric bulbs and heaters work. Ohmic heating cannot attain plasma temperatures; such heating does not rise above 20-30 million degrees Celsius. When the temperature increases, the resistivity of the plasma decreases. Natural beam injection is one of the mechanisms used to obtain higher energy temperatures. Injecting a high-energy beam of neutral atoms into the plasma causes more collisions and increases the plasma temperature by transferring the atoms’ energy to the plasma. Radio frequency heating is another collision mechanism that increases the plasma temperature. Radio waves generated by oscillators transfer their energy at appropriate frequencies to ions or electrons, thus increasing the plasma temperature. Scientists have managed to get to high enough temperatures; however, these plasmas cannot be contained by the reactor walls easily and the reactions cannot be sustained. To prevent a loss of reaction control and to make the plasmas denser, magnetic confinement mechanisms have been developed such as TOKAMAK, Z-PINCH and ICF.

The TOKAMAK (Toroidal Chamber) device was invented in the late 1950s by the Russian physicists Igor Tam and Andrei Sakharov. In this system, mixtures of deuterium and tritium plasmas, confined by doughnut-shaped magnetic fields, are produced by the toroidal coils, which are then heated to very high temperatures. The temperature achieved by the Princeton Labs is 510 million degrees-almost 30 times greater than the temperature of the Sun. One of the major problems in TOKAMAK is that superconducting magnetic coils are needed for the electricity demand, but the superconducting magnets only operate at cold temperatures. So, a space between the plasma and coils must be maintained to avoid the plasma reaching the coils and damaging them. This mechanism is still assumed to be the best for the confinement of plasmas².

Another confinement system is the Z-pinch (Zeta-Pinch) pulse power device. The current flow of experimental devices is in the Z-axis, so the device was called the Z-pinch by the British scientists in the late 1950s. In this mechanism, very tiny wires, thinner than a human hair, are positioned in different configurations, such as cylindrical or nested geometries, and are then placed in an anode cathode gap.

Applying high voltage on the system causes the energetic plasmas to compress and heat the deuterium or tritium fuel in small pellets. The current flows through these wires axially, generating magnetic fields that confine the plasma. The temperature achieved is about 1.6 billion degrees; this result, reported by the Sandia National Labs, is almost 250 times higher than the interior of the Sun. Z-pinches produce the most powerful plasmas, but the generated plasmas are very unstable³.

Lasers were invented in 1962, and have been applied in many areas. Lasers were used in infusion research to confine the plasma in the late 1960s by scientists at Lawrence Livermore. This laser-based process is called ICF (Inertial Confinement Fusion). In this mechanism, laser light is used to compress and heat the pellet. The temperature achieved is about 100 million degrees Celsius and the plasma is compressed almost 1,000 times its liquid density. However, this confinement occurs in less than in a microsecond, which is not enough time to allow the ions to build on the energy of their own inertia.

Today, many countries have invested millions of dollars in confinement and ignition systems to create fusion power. ITER is an International TOKAMAK fusion project that will be built in France (for more information: http://www.iter.org/). Its participants have agreed to provide funding of $13.1 billion. When it is completed, the ITER will be one of the most expensive scientific projects in the world. However, despite the high cost, there are good reasons why scientists insist on the use of fusion. One of these is that no CO2 is produced during the process. Everyone is aware that CO2 has negative effects; for example, it leads to increased pollution and global warming. Another reason is the abundance of hydrogen available for fusion in seawater and on the earth’s crust. Another important reason is that fusion is safer than fission or other energy sources: There are no nuclear accidents, and in case of malfunction, the plasma is absorbed and cooled by the reactor walls. Also, the generated amount of radioactive particles is fewer than those generated by fission.

If everything goes well, scientists expect that fusion will be used as a source of energy in a couple of decades. If fusion is successful, it can provide clean, safe, reliable, sustainable, and widely applicable energy.

M. Fatih Yilmaz is a graduate researcher at Physics Department, University of Nevada.

Notes

1. Frisch O. R.: “The Discovery of Fission – How It All Began.” Physics Today 20 (1967), 11, pp. 43-48; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak; http://www.ppdl.gov.

3. James Glanz, Science 18 July 1997:Vol. 277. no. 5324, p. 306 DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5324.306.

The muscle cells are responsible for the strength and tone of the vessels. Today, we know that the role of the endothelial layer goes beyond a simple physical barrier. In addition, there are twenty-five different substances secreted by the endothelial cells that play a role in blood clotting, cell proliferation, the regulation of vessel permeability, and the functioning of the immune system. The endothelial cells are 10-15 &μm wide and 20-25 μm long. They are located in the inner vessel wall in a single-cell layer. The total endothelial area in the body of an adult is around 5000-6000 m², and it weighs around 2.5 kg. Endothelial cells during inflammation Capillaries consist of an endothelial structure; they can only be seen under a microscope, but their total length is nearly 96,000 km. The blood brought by the arteries is conveyed to the vein through capillaries. At this stage, the gas, liquids, and nutrients are brought out through the vessels and the cells and tissues around are supplied with oxygen and nutrients. In return, the liquids that they discharge and other waste matter are conveyed to the vein through capillaries. This matter-exchange, which occurs both inside and outside of the capillaries, is regulated thanks to the permeability of the endothelial cell layer and the pressure balance of the capillary system. During cardiac failure and inflammation, liquid release is increased due to a pressure imbalance and the liquid retrieval is not sufficient to make up for the amount lost. This results in swelling in the area in question. Here, we need to underline that inflammation, which appears with symptoms such as edema, redness, fever, and pain, is not a harmful process. On the contrary, it is a miraculous defensive mechanism granted to our body; inflammation protects the body against serious damage. For instance, the inflammation that forms around a bee sting prevents the venom from spreading throughout the body. The endothelial cells are given an important role in the inflammation as well. The chemical molecules secreted by the endothelial cells in the inflamed spot cause the vessels to react by enlarging and thus perfusion is increased. Later, the endothelial layer becomes ready for leukocytes to settle; these are used in neutralizing the substance that caused the inflammation in the first place.

Balancing blood pressure

The layer of smooth muscle cells is stimulated with chemicals secreted by the endothelial cells and the tone of the vessels are controlled through the constriction and relaxation of the vessels. Therefore, an important duty in the regulation of blood pressure is given to these cells. During aninfection, bacteria circulate in the blood stream and the blood pressure falls extremely low. Tissue nutrition is upset (septic shock) and an excess of muscle-relaxing substance is released by the endothelial structure. Veins and arteries become too relaxed and there is a considerable drop in blood pressure (hypotension). On the other hand, with problems like atherosclerosis, the endothelial cells cannot fulfill their duty and due to a deficiency in nitrogen oxide, they become immune to the stimulus to relax the muscles. The resulting problem in this situation is hypertension.

Endothelial cells prevent hemorrhage

In order for a hemorrhage to stop the vessels that are bleeding need to narrow down. This is very important in the first stages of blood loss, particularly when there is a problem with blood clotting. When a hemorrhage begins, the endothelial cells are ordered to excrete a substance called endothelin. This starts the narrowing down of the bleeding vessels. Endothelin is not excreted in normal vessels. When the umbilical cord of a newborn is cut, it prevents the baby from losing blood.

Endothelial cells in blood clotting

The duty of endothelial cells can prevent or facilitate blood clotting, depending on the situation. First of all, they prevent the blood cells from adhering to the vessel walls and prevent clotting inside the vessels. Imagine water flowing through a pipe. The speed of the flow is greater in the center and lower at the periphery. Therefore, in the long run, some residue forms inside the pipe. In the veins and arteries, the flow of blood near the walls is also slower. To prevent the formation of any residue, both the endothelial cells and the blood cells are created with negative loaded surfaces and the blood cells are pushed towards the center. In addition, a substance called prostocyclin (PGI2) is excreted and the thrombocytes change their structure. As a result, residue formation and clotting is prevented along the vessel walls. In a case of any long term damage to the endothelium (e.g. due to smoking, diabetes, or hypertension), the relevant protection mechanism fails, and clotting inside the vessels results in thrombosis. Some serious cases can even necessitate the amputation of a limb. The endothelial cells can also facilitate clotting when necessary. In case of bleeding due to a wound, they function contrarily and help the blood to clot to prevent blood loss.

Endothelial cells in the bone marrow, the liver, and spleen

As a divine blessing, the endothelial cells form a looser layer in these organs and vessel permeability is increased. Thanks to this increase, matter Exchange with blood is easily realized; blood reaches these organs, which are responsible for the constant control of the contents of the blood, easily.

Endothelial cells in the brain and eyes

The endothelial cells in organs like the brain and eyes are very closely integrated forming a barrier between the blood and the organs. This is to such an extent that the major nutrients of the brain, like glucose and oxygen, pass without any obstacles, but several chemicals, including medication, are blocked by the selective-permeability of this protective mechanism. Research has proven that various substances injected into the bloodstream reach almost all the tissues except for the brain. Thanks to the efficient protective mechanism that has been given to these minute cells, the brain is saved from a great deal of negative effects. Even a single cell is not left to chance and nothing happens randomly. As can be seen throughoutthe universe, opposites are made to work hand in hand in the human body as well in a splendid harmony for the continuation of life.

References

• Vinay Kumar, Abul K. Abbas, Nelson Fausto, Richard Mitchell, Robbins Basic Pathology, W.B. Saunders; 8th edition, 2007. Hall, John E., Arthur C. Guyton, Textbook of Medical Physiology,

“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.

The air that we breathe consists of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% other gases, such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide. First of all, the level of oxygen in the air is of extreme importance; that is, if the air were to contain 40% oxygen instead of the normal 21%, then there would be no life on Earth. Most living organisms, if not all, would die due to oxygen poisoning. Their proteins and DNA would be oxidized and become non-functional. Metals would be corroded and trees would burn at slightly higher temperatures than normal.

Vertebrates have been equipped with two principal mechanisms to supply their cells with an adequate and continuous flow of oxygen. The first one is the circulatory system and the second one is oxygen-carrying molecules; hemoglobin in the red blood cells and myoglobin in the muscles. The air we breathe is filtered even before it reaches our lungs. Then, it dissolves in the mucus, a highly viscous material, which coats the inside of our lungs. Next, the dissolved oxygen diffuses into the blood through alveolar cells and the walls of the capillary vessels. Finally, the oxygen is picked up by the red blood cells; these are what make our blood red. The red color is due to a molecule called heme that is present in hemoglobin and myoglobin. Every heme molecule in hemoglobin can bind four oxygen molecules together. Every oxygen molecule bound to hemoglobin increases the affinity of hemoglobin to bind to another oxygen molecule. The hemoglobin becomes saturated if the dissolved oxygen is above a certain level; this can be seen in the lungs. If the level of dissolved oxygen drops below a certain level, as can be seen in tissues like the muscles, brain, and liver, then the oxygen molecules start to dissociate from the hemoglobin. Likewise, every dissociating oxygen molecule facilitates the dissociation of another oxygen molecule from the hemoglobin. This is one miraculous design that is known to us: a molecule devoid of any wisdom and intelligence grasps a very crucial cargo where it is abundant, carries it to a place where the cargo is most needed and less abundant, and releases it. The myoglobin in the muscle tissue then binds the oxygen and serves as an oxygen backup resource for times when there is inadequate oxygen supply during exertion.

Fetuses have their own specific hemoglobin, called hemoglobin-F, which is different from that of adult hemoglobin, hemoglobin-A. Before birth, the fetus gets its oxygen from the mother’s blood through the placenta. The higher affinity of hemoglobin-F than hemoglobin-A to oxygen makes the oxygen exchange between the maternal and fetal blood possible. It is interesting to note that right around the time of birth the fetus switches the production of hemoglobin-F to hemoglobin-A, as this is more efficient under normal breathing conditions. Our current knowledge is insufficient to completely understand how this switch-over occurs and how it is regulated. Future studies will shed light on this complex but magnificent mechanism of regulation and this superb design.

Why are we so dependent on oxygen? In fact, our energy metabolism is completely dependent on oxygen. The chemical breakdown of nutrients by a dozen enzymes releases energy, which as is cannot be stored or transferred to the places where it is required. We are equipped with a second mechanism, which involves another set of different proteins that converts the released chemical energy to a more useful and transferable molecular form, called ATP. ATP, which we can think of as small packages of energy, is the main form of energy within our cells that can be readily used by all reactions that require energy. The first set of enzymes abstracts electrons from the nutrients during their chemical breakdown. These so called high-energy electrons are transferred from one protein to the next by the second set of proteins that form the electron transport chain. The final acceptor of these electrons is molecular oxygen. If oxygen were not there to pick up the electrons at the end of this chain, the last protein (cytochrome oxidase) would lead to a dead end, as it would be rendered inactive with the electrons that it is carrying. This would make this superb design of complex mechanism useless and wasteful; the synthesis of every new and active cytochrome oxidase would require more energy than is produced in one cycle of an electron transfer in the absence of oxygen.

It has been known for some time that cells can sense the level of oxygen in their environment. They are equipped not only with a sensing mechanism, but also with a response mechanism, by which they can survive for a short period of time. In 1995, a protein called HIF (Hypoxia Inducible Factor) was identified and was shown to regulate cellular response to hypoxia, i.e., a reduced oxygen level. HIF is a transcription factor, which induces the expression of a set of genes that are required for survival under hypoxia. Several genes encoding glycolytic enzymes are regulated under hypoxia; this allows cells to produce ATP even without oxygen. Nevertheless, oxygen-independent energy generation is very inefficient and the yield is insufficient. Another set of genes induce angiogenesis (vascularization), or the making of new capillary vessels. VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) is one of the best known HIF target genes that induces the formation of new vessels where expressed.

One of the most remarkable aspects of HIF-based oxygen sensing is that under normal oxygen levels the HIF protein is simultaneously synthesized and degraded. Only under low levels of oxygen does HIF accumulate and induce its target genes. At first sight, this continuous production and degradation of HIF may look wasteful, whereas in reality it is a very well designed precautionary mechanism. The HIF protein is marked and sent for degradation by a class of enzymes called HPH/PHD. These enzymes also use the oxygen molecule to tag the HIF protein. If there were not enough oxygen around, HPH/PHD enzymes would not be able to tag HIF. As a result HIF accumulates and induces its target genes to ensure the adequate supply of oxygen. With this mechanism cells can quickly adapt and survive. Therefore, continuous production and degradation of HIF turns out to be a necessary precautionary measure which is taken against the risk of death arising from a low oxygen level.

This article is by no means a complete picture of the miraculous world of oxygen, perhaps it is no more than a brush stroke on the entire picture. Yet, even this incomplete glimpse is enough to help us realize how perfectly we have been created, and how well we are taken care of. We do not have even the slightest control over any of these aforementioned mechanisms. We breathe day and night, and every breath should be taken in gratitude to God, who created us as this masterpiece.

These and similar questions have occupied philosophers, scientists, and people of faith since the Renaissance. If religion were the ‘opiate of the masses,’ we could not expect an inquisitive mind to adopt any religion. But countless critical thinkers and scientists believe in a God that hears and responds to their prayers.(1)

What we mean by religion and science affects how we answer such questions. Therefore we must agree on common definitions. A study of the scientific method, where and how it is applied, is likely to shed light on the perceived conflicts between science and religion.

Science and Scientism

In broad terms, science is a systematic way of exploring the universe. The scientific method helps us discover facts that can not be directly observed. As described in SGNA: ‘Though we may be unable to observe an aspect of the universe directly, we may deduce its existence and its properties by observing the effect that it has on those phenomena that we can observe. In other words: by explaining the observed aspect of the universe, we go one step beyond that of mere observation, and we gain knowledge about something that we have not observed directly. This is the whole point: we gain information from sources other than direct observation. Use of the scientific method ensures that this information is accurate, and not influenced by the subjective points of view of a single researcher or the use of inaccurate instruments.'(2)

But there is a difference between accepting the scientific method’s discoveries and accepting as truth only what science discovers. The latter, which Huston Smith called scientism, is ‘the belief that no realities save ones that conform to the matrices science works with ‘space, time, matter/energy, and in the end number’exist.'(3)

The successes of science and technology, and their applications, have created a kind of utopia where science, especially positive science, has become the source of all knowledge and wisdom. In the views of positivist philosophers like Hume, Locke and Berkeley, anything that cannot be measured does not exist. But closer examination reveals the oversimplistic nature of this view.

Many contemporary scientific theories talk about subjects that cannot be directly measured. Take the atom. Physics textbooks are full of diagrams depicting it as consisting of a nucleus with and orbiting electrons. The diagrams may be quite sophisticated, and the explanation of how the system works can be quite detailed. Yet nobody has ever seen an atom. The closest we have come is seeing their positions via a Scanning Tunneling Microscope. But this has not prevented us from discovering the details of an atom’s inner workings.

The Scientific Method

When we want to discover new information about a subject, we first use direct observation, which has the highest degree of certainty. The scientific method establishes guidelines and procedures for objective, accurate, and systematic observation. The most dependable direct observation is the one that can be repeated and has known parameters. By repeating the observation under the same parameters, other scientists can verify a statement’s truthfulness.

When direct observation is not possible or insufficient, the thought process steps in. We infer and deduce based on observation. We hypothesize and look for exceptions. Such verification is where the scientific method really shines: It brings an objective mechanism for testing hypotheses to the discovery process. It helps us decrease the degree of uncertainty regarding that which cannot be observed directly.

Controlled and repeatable experiments are the next best techniques, for they enable us to obtain objective and sound knowledge. While we cannot control, we still can observe and infer. However, our degree of certainty and accurate knowledge decrease as we move further away from direct observation.

The scientific method’s main purpose is to decrease such uncertainty and to ensure that it is not affected by individual bias or equipment error. Our level of control while observing a phenomenon determines the level of our knowledge’s certainty. While the media or popular culture label certain statements scientific, their scientificness depends on the nature of the verification process. Some so-called scientific facts are direct observations; others are theories that require a thorough testing.

Not all scientists agree on what constitutes the scientific method. Some describe it as the collection of all means and methods scientists use to investigate a phenomenon. Since this definition is too broad, we will focus on a narrower one accepted by most scientists: The scientific method consists of the following:

1. Defining the problem and making repeated observations to collect information

2. Forming a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomenon

3. Testing the hypothesis by matching it against other observations

4. Developing a theory consistent with your observations

5. Using it to make predictions

6. Testing predictions by repeated, preferably controlled experiments and/or further observations

7. Modifying the theory as indicated by your results

8. Repeating steps 5 through 7 as necessary

9. Reporting the research notes and results for professional review.

These steps can be summarized into three stages: observing, theorizing about underlying causes, and verifying through more observations. Theorizing is the key step. The other steps require hard work and can be done by any competent, knowledgeable worker. Developing a theory, however, requires an flash of insight, sometimes called intuition.

Coming up with new ideas is part of what makes a great scientist. Despite its being the basis from which all scientific work proceeds, we cannot study or explain this scientifically. We may call it a gut feeling, hunch, inspiration, or insight, but we still do not know its source and cannot schedule it. We can encourage and stimulate it, but we cannot control it. The scientific method helps us ensure that what comes out of intuition is sound and objective, but does not how we come up with the idea. So the scientific method really is about verification.

Limitations

The main mechanism of verification is experiment and observation. While a powerful tool, verification is limited by its definition: If we cannot control a phenomenon or make proper observations, we cannot develop an idea into a scientific theory.

How do we establish a proper experimentation environment? First, we must set up a controlled experiment to control all the factors involved, except for the two factors whose relationship we are investigating. This involves a control and an experimental group. The control group is normal (basis for comparison), while the experimental group differs from the control in only one area.

We then allow for the experimental variable, defined as the one area of difference between the two groups. If we set up two groups of subjects with only one difference and our observation confirms a correlation between this factor and a result, we can safely say that that factor is a cause of that result. If we cannot establish two identical groups, the next best option is to try to average out the differences by selecting the group’s members so that no factor is represented disproportionately. This is usually possible only when working with inanimate objects.

It is extremely difficult to control all involved factors, as well as to conduct repeatable experiments, when the subjects are people. Since all people and societies are unique, it is very hard to repeat any psychological or sociological experiment. Also, observing people often causes behavior modification. Thus, some scientists have debated whether psychology and sociology, and others, are really sciences.

Several essential questions of personal and social life fall into this category of phenomena: ‘Questions about the origin of thought, about the origin of intuition or about creativity often lead into the realms of philosophy, if not existentialism. What makes the human mind work? Where does sentience come from? What is the ‘I’ that seems to live three or four inches behind my forehead and thinks it is me? And how are we ever going to apply the scientific method to answer these questions?'(4)

This leaves us with a dilemma: What should we do when confronted with an idea that is hard or impossible to verify scientifically? As noted in SGNA: ‘In modern science, the ‘scientifically correct’ approach in that case is usually to reject the idea. As long as we can’t prove that the idea is correct, it must be assumed to be incorrect. But that approach ignores the fact that the scientific method cannot be used to answer all questions.'(5) Science can tell us almost everything about our body-except Why? Why am I here? Who am I? What is the universe and why was it created? According to SGNA: ‘Science has never really dared to tackle these subjects. The questions are labeled ‘existentialism’ or ‘philosophy’ and ‘appropriately filed.”(6)

The Nature of the Conflict

Now we begin to realize the nature of the perceived conflict between science and religion: The humanities contain issues that the scientific method is ill-suited to answer and yet is taken as the ultimate source of knowledge. Most religious commands and prescriptions deal with an individuals personal and social life that do not tolerate experimentation. The risk associated with failure in such experiments is too high. We can tolerate the loss of some inanimate objects during experimentation, but not the loss of even one person. This is where the scientific method is at its weakest, and where religious directives are numerous, comprehensive, and direct. Where the scientific method is at its strongest, as in matters related to physical laws and inanimate objects, religious assertions are fewer, indirect, and serve the main purposes of faith. The perceived conflict in these areas is minimal and usually due to misinterpretation of religious sources. Before discussing another aspect of the relationship of science and faith, lets review some additional factors that contribute to the friction. In its pure form and when applied properly, the scientific method is a very powerful tool to establish a theorys truth or falsity. However, objectivity can be compromised by a scientists own humanity, for no one is completely free of bias, prejudice, ideological or political concerns, or peer pressure when it comes to income, belonging, fame, and high social status. Even though scientists pride themselves on their objectivity, cases of scientific fraud and plagiarism abound.(7) Sometimes community prejudices and biases make scientists resist new theories and findings for unscientific reasons. The scientific community at first laughed at some of the greatest theories of the twentieth century. Peer review may hinder advancement, and theories and perspectives may go in and out of fashion. It is hard to oppose the whole society to defend new theories and findings. History is full of accounts where unscientific factors have affected scientific work.

The Limitations of Logic

Human logic is a limited truth-seeking device, a machine with a mechanism, inputs, and outputs. Assuming the mechanism works perfectly, the output depends on the input. Hence two persons with different sense-related inputs may reach different conclusions by using the same logical mechanism. The logical mechanism may not always work perfectly. There are many examples of logical fallacies, among them wrong inference, improper generalization, false assumptions, and false analogies.(8) So when a religious jurisdiction is perceived as illogical and hence unscientific, it could very well be because of a limitation in the logical inference mechanism or in the subject knowledge. Philosophical reasons often cause friction between science and religion. Asa Gray, a faithful colleague of Darwin, was puzzled by Darwins atheistic proposals in the Theory of Evolution, for certainly God could use evolution to create diverse life forms. Darwin indicated that he had problems reconciling suffering with a merciful God, among other difficulties, and so had adopted an atheistic perspective.(9) Thus, he proposed an atheistic theory due to his philosophical problem with religion. But this is not the only relationship between science and faith. There are others, such as: Do science and religion live in orthogonal spaces? Do they present mutually exclusive views of the universe, thereby making themselves incompatible? But first of all, what is the role of reason in establishing ones faith?

The Worlds of Faith and Reason

By definition, religious faith implies belief in the Unseen. For many, belief is the culmination of a mental and spiritual effort transcending reading the Scripture and blind faith. Many religions command us to use our intellect. The Quran, in particular, emphasizes the use of reason in hundreds of verses. The pillars of Islam are shown to be evident truths for those who have intellect. Believers are encouraged to observe nature, reflect, and draw conclusions. To show how a logical process may lead people to believe in God or confirm their belief by reason, lets look at three pillars of major monotheistic religions: the Creator, life in the Hereafter and Messengers. Just like a work of art displays the artists skills, the universe can be seen as a huge collection of art by the Eternal Artist. The universe, as well as each human being, contains countless signs of organization and order. The human brain is immeasurably more complex than the most sophisticated computer. Since we could not attribute even the simplest computer to pure chance, how can we attribute the design of the human brain to a random process? These signs point to an all-knowing and powerful Creator. The human soul yearns for eternity and is not satisfied with any earthly pleasure. While all of our desires potentially can be fulfilled on Earth, leaving this critical desire for eternity unfulfilled would be a contradiction. Hence there must be an eternal life. It only makes sense for the Creator and Sustainer of this universe to communicate with the creatures who possess the most advanced intellect and the ability to communicate with language. Hence Messengers and revealed Scriptures make perfect sense.(10) This method of basing ones beliefs on observation and logical inference is essentially the scientific method without direct observation. A person whose belief is thus established can claim to be as scientific as a person studying anthropology or fossil zoology, for both deal with the available (indirect) evidence and logical conclusions. Although their objectives and foci differ, faith and science help us discover what is not directly observable. Sciences primary area of interest is the physical laws of the universe; faith is concerned with the personal and social principles that lead persons and societies to happiness in this life and the hereafter. Both appeal to our intelligence and our ability to observe. Believe suggests something not directly observable; Theory (in science) implies something not directly observable. If everything religion tells us were directly observable everybody would be a believer or, more accurately, an observer. If everything we needed to know were directly observable, the scientific method and scientists would be unnecessary. Nevertheless, non-believers may object by pointing out that having established their faith scientifically, believers may have to submit to religious directives that they may not understand or question. Inquiry is the basis for scientific advancement, while submission is an essential tenet of any religion.

Inquiry and Submission

The only sources that have satisfying answers for such questions as asked above are the major monotheistic religions. Science does not attempt to answer purpose or why questions, mainly because these questions imply an intelligent, wise Being behind creation. Since most scientists are reluctant to accept such an implication, they do not necessarily think that there should be a reason for existence other than a lucky accident. When people question the source of knowledge and become sure of its authenticity, and if they still have difficulty understanding, they must choose between their limited, imperfect logic and a source in which they have confidence. They do not stop questioning; rather, they change the nature of their investigation. Instead of rejecting immediately, they accept and investigate the underlying wisdom. So, believing scientists first base their belief on observation and reason and then explore the wisdom behind the Divine sentiments.

Conclusion

We live in an age ruled by science and positivism. The scientific method is considered the most reliable source of knowledge in almost every aspect of human life. In its moderate form, this worldview reduces superstitions and prejudices that have chained human reason in many societies. However, it also has the unscientific generalization of completely rejecting all other sources of knowledge and hence limiting inquiry into a purely material and quantifiable form. While friction among scientists was the norm for past centuries, harmony among moderates is establishing itself as we enter a new millennium. Today, it is possible to find scientists from reputable institutions who are willing to use the scientific method to explore subjects considered taboo for centuries, such as the role of prayer in physical healing. They do so despite the risk of being labeled as charlatans by their colleagues.11 This encourages us to think that one day the scientific method of inquiry could be used to investigate such essential questions as the purpose behind creation and signs of an eternal life without necessarily rejecting all religious doctrines. Open-minded and believing scientists are poised to show us that religion can coexist and is compatible with reason and science, which know their limitations.

Footnotes

1. National Institute for Healthcare Research: http://www. nihr.org.
2. The Skeptics Guide to the New Age: Limitations of the Scientific Method: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/ sgna_5.html.
3. Huston Smith, Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the Worlds Religions (San Francisco: Harper, 1993).
4. The Skeptics Guide to the New Age.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Michael W. Friedlander, At the Fringes of Science (Westview Press: 1998); H. M. Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What You Should Know About Science (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1998); David J. Miller and Michel Hersen, Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences (John Wiley & Sons: 1992).
8. Nicholas Capaldi, The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (Prometheus Books: 1987); T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Wadsworth: 1995); S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Bedford Books, 1994).
9. Frederick Burkhart, Charles Darwins Letters: A Selection 1825-1859 (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1998).
10. For extensive essays on this subject, consult Said Nursi, The Words (Truestar: 1997) and The Flashes (Sozler: 1996).
11. Alphonse Williams, Healing and Faith, The Fountain 3:30 (April-June 2000): 8-14.