What are the basic traits that a teacher should have to be able to help students attain necessary language skills and cultural knowledge in an L2? As language educators, we receive this question all the time. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not an easy one because research involving curriculum analyses, both in the United States and in Europe, has revealed a significant amount of variation in the number of domains and competencies covered in L2 teacher education programs (Richards, 2008). While some programs have predominantly focused on language and L2 acquisition research and theory, others have taken a more linguistics and methods-orientated direction. In general, though, most experts in the field would agree on a number of fundamental competencies.

Competent L2 teachers know who their learners are (1), what language is (2), how it is learned (3), and how it should be taught (4). Furthermore, they have a solid background about the foundations of L2 curriculum (5), the selection and development of instructional materials (6), and the design of a learning environment (7) that is sensitive to socio-cultural differences (8). They also know how to use the L2 as a tool for L2 learners to gain access to academic content knowledge (9). While they are also able to situate the whole language learning and teaching experience within broader learning theories (10), and competently assess and evaluate L2 development and proficiency (11), they are well aware of their professional roles and responsibilities as advocates for successful L2 education in its entirety at all levels, including institutional, national, and international. Indeed, these competencies have been categorized under the five domains of (I) Language Learning, (II) Learners, (III) Instruction, (IV) Assessment and Evaluation, and (V) Professionalism and Advocacy. Before any further ado, let’s take a look at what each competency entails.

Domain I: Language learning

This domain includes background knowledge and skills in (1) linguistics, (2) general learning theories, and (3) first and second language acquisition theories. First, L2 teachers need to be highly proficient in the language that they teach. Competent L2 teachers understand the nature of language and basic concepts of language systems such as phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon, semantics, discourse, and pragmatics. They are also familiar with socio-linguistic, psycho-linguistic, and neuro-linguistic factors in L2 learning. Furthermore, they know the functions and register of the L2, including the conventions of written and spoken language, and the pedagogical implications of differences between basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984). In addition, they understand the interrelatedness of receptive (listening, reading), productive (speaking, writing), and complementary (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation) language skills.

Second, competent L2 teachers are familiar with the basic theories and concepts about first (L1) and L2 acquisition, including the language universals (Chomsky, 1965), and the role L1 plays in L2 development. While they understand differences between the processes of L1 and L2 acquisition, they have a solid background in second language acquisition (SLA) theories. For example, they know how to use different ways to maximize the comprehensible input (Krashen, 1987) opportunities for their students through authentic tasks and activities. More importantly, they know that the greatest bulk of an L2 is acquired through self-exposure and social interactions, not learned in strictly structured and inauthentic classroom settings. Finally, competent L2 teachers are able to situate SLA theories within the broader learning theories. For instance, they understand behaviorist (memorization) versus cognitivist (information processing) versus socio-constructivist (socio-cultural factors) views (Pavlenko – Lantolf, 2000) about L2 learning and development.

Domain II: Learners

Current SLA research has revealed that socio-psychological factors affect success in learning an L2. This domain covers teacher knowledge about (1) differences among language learners and (2) their levels of socio-cultural awareness. Individual differences, such as motivation, attitudes, anxiety, identity, learning styles, pedagogical beliefs, socialization patterns, and learning and communicative strategies affect success in learning an L2. For example, many scholars have found that high motivation has a positive effect on L2 learning (Dörnyei, 2005) while learners with high levels of anxiety do not seem be successful language learners (Horwitz, 2008). In fact, researchers have found that learners who strongly identify with the L2 community attain a more native-like accent than those who strongly identify with their native-speaking communities Dörnyei – Ushioda, 2009). Competent L2 teachers know about the role these factors might play in L2 attainment and plan the learning experience for their students accordingly.

Other learner-related factors concern the socio-cultural differences. L2 learners come from different families and geographical regions with different socio-economic and educational backgrounds, demonstrating a significant amount of cultural diversity. Culturally responsive L2 teachers understand the role of diversity – namely cultural products, perspectives, and practices – in L2 attainment. They know not only how to construct culturally-sensitive learning experiences to facilitate the most effective learning, but also what strategies to apply to create among students an awareness of and respect for cultural diversity. Indeed, culturally competent teachers effectively apply skills for communicating and collaborating effectively with the parents/guardians, the community members, and local resources to enhance their students’ learning. For example, such teachers not only genuinely value cultural diversity and incorporate it into the curriculum, but also organize extra-curricular activities in appreciation of diversity as an added value for advancement.

Domain III: Instruction

Under this domain, we have instructional competencies including (1) foundations of curriculum, (2) methods of language teaching, (3) learning environment, (4) instructional materials, and (5) language and content area integration. First, competent L2 teachers know the history and policy foundations of L2 education and use this knowledge to plan and implement effective L2 programs (Richards, 2001). They are able to select the most effective types of programs that are appropriate for the needs of a particular learner profile in a particular setting. For example, while most scholars agree that bilingual and immersion programs are the most effective, the most common English as a second language (ESL) programs in the U.S. are the pull-out ones, also known as the least effective programs that are primarily based on the development of BICS skills while neglecting the teaching of CALP via content-based curricula.

Second, competent L2 teachers are also able to choose and implement the most appropriate and current methods of language teaching. Such teachers know that we have come a long way since the grammar translation and audio-lingual method (Richards – Rodgers, 2001), however, we no longer adhere to one particular method because we live in the beyond-methods’ era (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Nonetheless, this does not imply a senseless, eclectic approach; rather it entails being flexible within a consistent theoretical and pedagogical framework often referred to as “principled eclecticism” (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Third, as the current ecological L2 learning theories would suggest (Brown, 2006), just as only a balanced amount of sun, water and care, in a nurturing environment, can lead to the healthy growth of a flower, instructional methods can lead to success in L2 learning only if the learning environment is meticulously designed.

Last but not least, an important part of what constitutes a nurturing environment is the availability of effective instructional resources. Competent L2 teachers are not only well-informed about the strengths and weakness of commercial and authentic materials but also possess the necessary skills to select, adapt, or develop their own materials based on the specific needs and goals of their students. Indeed, competent L2 teachers use the instructional materials that integrate the language and content area goals, supporting L2 learners’ BICS, CALP, and academic achievement (Cummins, 1984). For example, most English-medium universities overseas have English preparatory programs to prepare students to be able to receive, say, engineering or economics content in English; however, instead of conducting a needs analysis and basing their EFL instruction on the content of these majors, most of these programs select generic commercial materials that often times include linguistic input predominantly about shopping, holidays, food, and friendship.

Domain IV: Assessment and evaluation

This domain covers knowledge and skills about the assessment and evaluation of L2 learners’ language development. It includes background in L2 testing skills related to the placement, diagnostic, achievement, and proficiency of L2 learners. Competent L2 teachers know the commonly used national and international standard assessment tools, such as TOEFL. Such teachers also know the basic concepts and practices related to test design, development, and interpretation. In addition to understanding the validity and reliability of testing methods and tools, they understand potential relationships among the national standards, instruction, and L2 testing. More importantly, in their classrooms, they effectively apply knowledge of formal/informal, direct/indirect, and dynamic and authentic assessment. Most importantly, however, competent teachers are familiar with the construct of the “backwash effect” – the effect testing might have on student learning (Hughes, 2003). Successful learning will not take place if teaching and testing goals and/or methods are incongruent. For example, if writing skills are tested by multiple choice tests, students will invest their time and effort in developing their skills to respond to such questions, not in working on actual writing skills that they will need in real-life tasks.

Domain V: Professionalism and Advocacy

As part of the last domain, L2 teachers are required to possess certain professional qualifications and individual characteristics to be able to support L2 learners’ linguistic, cultural, and academic development. This domain lies at the heart of the profession. Competent L2 teachers demonstrate knowledge of the history of L2 teaching, keep up-to-date with new trends and current educational research, and follow domestic and international issues related to language planning and policy, as well as other advances in L2 education. Moreover, considering language learners spend only a limited amount of time with language teachers, it is very important that L2 teachers collaborate with the mainstream teachers and build partnerships with outside resources and parents to support the linguistic, cultural, and content areas of development. Also noteworthy is that such teachers claim responsibility for L2 learners and are able to apply effective strategies to advocate educational and social equity for their students, both at the institutional and broader community levels (Crawford, 2004). For instance, such teachers serve as a resource to promote a school environment that values cultural and linguistic diversity, and they advocate for equitable access to resources for language learners by becoming members of organizations (e. g.: TESOL) that support L2 learning and teaching.

Furthermore, in order for teachers to apply these professional competencies in actual classroom practices, they need to posses certain individual characteristics and dispositions that complement their professional qualifications. Unlike learning other subjects, language learning requires a great deal of patience and perseverance. Hence, L2 teachers need to be caring, compassionate, understanding, self-sacrificing, and patient. They need to establish a good rapport and empathy with their students, offering them timely motivational support. Only by doing so can they understand their students’ socio-psychological well-being and invest additional personal time and effort in students’ learning.

Last but not least, L2 teachers need to remain positive and enthusiastic about their students’ progress, because the process of L2 development is a bumpy road with lots of ups and downs. To help their students, teachers need to be able to identify their students’ struggles correctly and provide them with developmentally appropriate support. In addition, they need to be fair and treat all of their students equally. In doing so, they need to know their students very well and think outside the box, supplying innovative in-class and self-study strategies. Finally, in order for L2 teachers to be able to competently demonstrate these personal traits, they need to have effective communication skills. While such teachers are very good and empathetic listeners, they also need to be able to communicate their thoughts and feelings effectively, and with mutual respect and appreciation, to support their students’ learning.

Saban Cepik is Assistant Professor/Department Chair, ELT, Zirve University.

References

• Brown, D. H. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th Edition). New York: Pearson ESL.
• Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
• Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
• Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English Learners: Language Diversity in the Classroom. (5th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Dörnyei, Z. – Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Horwitz, E.K. (2008). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language learning and teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn – Bacon, Inc.
• Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Krashen, S.D. (1987). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59-81.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Thompson-Heinle.
• Pavlenko, A., – Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Recent advances (pp. 1545-177). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39: 158-177.
• Richards, J., – Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Under the influence of these developments, it is highly likely that there will be collective transformations in convictions, ideas, and , scientific thought. When we look back at the recent past, we see that so many things have changed. Just yesterday, commonly accepted “immutable” facts, such as Galileo’s understanding of the cosmos or Newton’s universal gravitation, have been exchanged for relativity and become defunct theories. The view of taking matter as the basis for everything has been doubted for a long time. Today we see that researchers in different fields, particularly quantum physics, are concerned with the non-material world just as much as the material world. It seems that in the near future not just matter or atoms, but anti-matter will become a common subject of research for circles of science; metaphysics will be mentioned wherever physics is considered.

Science tries to explain the realities of our perceptions in the light of results obtained through experience. It does not give credit to knowledge which is not perceived and verified by the senses until their reality is proven through scientific methodology. For example, nobody doubts the reality of those things that we can see, regardless of their nature. Likewise, we can say the same for things we hear, touch or experience with other things perceptible through our sense organs. As for magnetic or electronic fields that we cannot perceive with our sense organs, we detect them with compasses or other tools. Science is able to perceive this much with the means it presently has, but is as yet unable to go further beyond “electrical,” “magnetic,” and “gravitational” fields. As relevant tools and devices that can prove the existence and nature of other fields are invented, scientific research will then be able to start exploring beyond these fields. In this respect, claiming that science encompasses everything and that it has reached its ultimate limits is surely a great mistake and is blind to what the history of science has shown us. As a matter of fact, if we look into the discoveries and inventions science has produced, we realize that what we know is almost nothing in comparison to what we do not know.

Not only does claiming that we know everything contradict reality, it is also a regressive behavior which lacks any zeal for further progress and is about being content with the present achievements. In every era, those who deem the achievements reached by contemporary science as the ultimate limits of progress, have blocked the way to further scientific discoveries and reduced the intellectual life to misery. Therefore, we see it as an obligation to reconsider what we have learned so far with a critical perspective, our previous knowledge needs to be reevaluated in the light of new discoveries, both in terms of correcting our mistakes and finding a way out of today’s dead ends. This includes a thorough study of the outer space and the earth, their relation to one another, night and day flowing in regular cycles, the special conditions of living or non-living beings in their own world, as well as human and animal organisms’ motion, function and purposes. Likewise soil, water, their composition, and their relationship with living beings, all must absolutely be reevaluated and analyzed with modern methods. Only in this way will it be possible to correct those theories that have not been proven according to scientific research methods, and those mistaken rules which are based on wrong judgments.

The dignity of science requires research to be conducted with an appropriate methodology. Those who busy scientific centers with unproven theories both deceive the masses and violate the dignity of science. Scientific methodology in its plainest form consists of: first, scientists determine their subject and clearly define what they want to learn; then they revise the results of previous research related to that subject; and then they determine the results to be derived from the data that they have collected. In order to test the reliability of the previously obtained results properly, a set of new tests is applied. If the new tests do not prove the suggested theory, scientists go back to the drawing board for further research. They collect new data, and by combining it with previous findings, they give new shape to their theory. Thus, they record the experimentally proven findings and then they consider whether the particular fact that they would like to define as an established principle can be generalized or not. If it can be generalized, then they evaluate the relationship with similar phenomena and see the whole of the picture. This method of research, also adopted by modern methodology, is an objective one for scientific evaluation. Therefore, it is absolutely not scientific to claim that something is definitely true or is established without using such scientific methodology, and to object or deny what contradicts that assumption. Suppositions and estimations asserted as established ideas are nothing but suggested theories and the universal principles that are derived from these suggestions are nothing but deception. Scientific conclusions cannot be drawn from such suppositions and estimations, nor can such suppositions be used to reject knowledge affirmed by testimony and reliable reports or proven through proper methodologies.

A: Genuine knowledge (ilm) is a source of infinite light covered with truth, which leads enlightened people toward the righteous path. Modern science is built and developed upon existing information gained through experimentation and correcting previous errors. In general, science represents theories and hypotheses that we devise and pursue in order to acquire knowledge. From this point of view, knowledge and science are not the same and must not be considered as synonyms. For example, sometimes ilm is mistranslated as science, because the translators do not take into consideration the genuine meanings of the words. This mistake can be excused when it is made by the general population, who might not be aware of the difference; however, we expect scientists and professionals to use these terms correctly, according to their core meanings, so that their different meanings become obvious and clear.

Knowledge is born and developed between our hearts and minds. On the contrary, science is totally material, belongs to this world and all physical beings, and depends fully upon Earth’s natural rules. Science is born through theories, and its continued development always engenders doubt. Initially, science was built on rationalism and developed through positivism. It sprouts in the world of the five senses, and continues its life with reference to the theoretical mind. Most of the time, science rejects things that cannot be seen or heard. In fact, its eyes are blind to the concealed meaning of existence, and its ears cannot hear it. Modern science accepts only those objects and events that can be perceived by the five senses.

Scientific developments in the classical Islamic world have had a tremendous influence upon the achievements of modern science. Several Western scholars and writers, among them Maurice Bucaille, Jacques Cousteau, Alex Carrel, Thomas Carlyle, and Roger Garaudy agree with this fact, and state that the West totally owes all its achievements to the East. Andalusia, a Muslim state in Spain, was a perfect example of this process. In some cases, Western scientists considered the roots of the knowledge derived from the East to be abstract theories, and so they did not consider what they had given to humanity and upon what basics and pillars they had been built.

The West has mixed its materialistic ideas in the development of these ideas and sciences, and by restricting their analysis only to subjectivity, they alienated the roots from their origins. As a result, religion in the West was confined to the church and people could learn about their religion only when they came to the church to participate in religious ceremonies. Thus religion could not enter fully into the people’s lives. In fact, after Constantine, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, proclaimed Christianity to be the empire’s official religion in 315, the government strictly controlled its all relations with life. This approach toward religion was a bad luck for Christianity. The first 3 centuries of Christianity was the best time for this religion, despite the severe pressure that it faced, for it was a time of blossoming and purity. After became the official religion, Christians no longer faced oppression. However, the religion fell under the control of the government and was corrupted. According to the state, religion belonged in the church, and while people occasionally would come to the church to practice their religion, they could not make it an intimate part of their life. As a result, Christianity was divorced from everyday life, society had to accept that there was life without religion, and that there was religion without life. Given this reality, scientific research and implications had nothing to do with Christianity, and that religion became a moral institution whose only responsibility and activities were the ceremonies connected to birth and death.

The West’s scientific roots lie in the classical Greek and Roman civilizations. This knowledge was incorporated into the Islamic civilization, whose scholars and scientists developed it, made original contributions to it, and passed it on to the West. Unfortunately, Western scientists developed modern science as an independent enterprise completely separate from religion. Thus, its scientific development was built of unbelief and differs dramatically from the understanding of science and knowledge in the East.

On the other hand, knowledge and science flourished for centuries in the Islamic world. Some of its luminaries are Jabir, Ibn al-Haytham, al-Khawarizmi, al-Zahrawi, Ibn Sina, and al-Farabi. Ancient Greek scholars claimed that the smallest particle of being is an atom. However, theologian Ibrahim al-Nazzam (d. 835/845) said that substance could be divided into pieces an infinite number of times, and spoke as a modern scientist who would say the same thing today. If we look at this from the theory of particles, it would be clear that al-Nazzam’s statements are true.

Muslim scholars never rejected or separated their inventions and discoveries from religion. Rather, knowledge and science reinforced their belief and understanding of religion. Even though they argued about various scientific matters, their attitude toward religion never differed from one another. For example, a Muslim physician-scholar like al-Razi had mystically spiritual intellect. Muslim scholars explored the universe in the name of The Creator, and every single discovery and invention brought a new passion, a new enthusiasm, and a spirit of new devotion. That is why they always traveled in the horizons of is there any more? and they lived in a state of continual passion of searching for the truth.

It is true that Muslim scholars understanding of knowledge developed their understanding of religion and created metaphysical tension in their lives. Several Qur’anic verses, such as: Behold! In the creation of the heavens and Earth, and the alternation of night and day, are Signs for men of understanding(3:190), always attracted Muslim scholars. Using such verses to inspire them, they devised their theories with a feeling of prayer toward God and built their knowledge upon a foundation of such an understanding and approach. Muslim scientists explored the heavens and Earth in the light of such verses, and learned and researched the relationship between the universe and Earth, such as the connection between a flower and the sun, the association of the smallest animals and living things to the sunlight, and so on. As a result of this approach, and by reciting the Qur’n while studying the universe (the Book of Existence), Muslim scholars strengthened their faith in and closeness to God.

However, due to today’s materialistic theories, Western scientists will never be free of the fear, anxiety, and unexpected surprises that might arise in their fields even though they reach the heavens and continue to solve the mysteries of the universe. On the contrary, Muslims believe that they can build castles even in the center of black holes, for: God’s Existence, Divine Beauty, and Power are behind everything. Perhaps black holes are no more than dark hallways toward brightness and light. As we enter the grave and come out of it toward Paradise, these undesired and unwanted black holes just might be bridges between the heavens and this world.

Western society, confined within the limits of discoveries and scientific inventions, cannot see the true beauty of the material world. But Muslim scholars and scientists, while learning and exploring life by means of Divine guidance and assistance, could read the wisdom and hidden purposes behind the things and events occurring in the material world and see God’s Divine Power behind everything in the universe. For example, consider the Islamic point of view toward the human face and appearance. Muslims never attributed such things to nature, which is unconscious and blind, but rather saw in that wonderfully beautiful human complexion the reflection of The Most Merciful and The Most Compassionate God. By seeking to increase their limited understanding, they made the limited unlimited and decorated simple mirrors with the most beautiful crafts and designs. From this point of view, Muslim scientists had the chance to see hidden wisdom and knowledge side by side, and could observe and witness clearly the things and events that were taking place in the material world.

The following Qur’anic verse describes such people: He grants wisdom to whomever He wills, and the one to whom wisdom is granted receives a benefit overflowing. However, none will grasp the Message but men of understanding (2:269). Such people with intellect can see the concealed wisdom. People who look to the universe without the glasses of wisdom and concealed truth see and observe things as unreasonable and useless.

Islam understands ilm to be that knowledge that was built and developed upon these fundamental basis. As a matter of fact, Islam considers the purpose of knowledge as bound to knowledge about God, His Divine Power, and His All-Mighty Wisdom. The result of knowing God is love for God, and the result of this love is spiritual happiness. Given this reality, Muslim scholars and scientists do not feel anxiety and hopelessness, for as they pursue their studies, they discover new existences, feel closer to God, and varying degrees of spiritual peace. For those who study the universe from such perspectives, knowledge is the way to reach material and spiritual happiness; for those who follow the path of materialism, knowledge can become the way to see the undesired consequences of existence and the final end of the universe. Such knowledge will cause them to be in a state of constant unhappiness.

For those who do not know The Most Merciful and The Most Compassionate Lord of the universe, the sun will burn out in 5 billion years. Such knowledge will spread fear into their hearts, for they will think that œafter the sun burns out, the horrible end of the worlds will begin and we will dissolve into atomic pieces and face non-existence. They will suffer from being a part of this universe. In short, following a materialistic approach to science results in hopelessness, fear, and disappointment. At this point, knowledge (in the Islamic context of this world and the Hereafter) gives confidence, and science (in the materialistic context of being limited to what the five senses can perceive) gives hopelessness. Thus, the two contradict each other. Those who follow the path of knowledge, by His help and guidance, always will walk in enlightenment and will never be disappointed or have doubts about the future.

In order for such things to happen, all of the aspects of knowledge (ilm) and science must be taken into consideration. That is why many modern scholars and scientists are trying to change and direct existing materialistic theories and approaches toward the Islamic understanding of knowledge and science. A number of them are convinced that the contemporary Western approaches are based upon unbelief and that they cannot be changed. If materialistic science makes no effort to find God, and if it does not strive to become a mirror showing His Divine Beauty, humanity’s future may be unexpectedly dramatic.

For the postmodernist, modernism masked itself in a world of rationality and objectivity, thereby, placing all other perspectives in the confines of irrationality and subjectivity. According to Warf (1995, p.186), most modernist approaches leave little room for human consciousness or historical contingency. Social theory, in turn, has helped to widen the space for the inclusion of these missing elements. Consequently, with the addition of human consciousness and a historical contingency perspective, a new variety of new philosophies came into being.

Over the last two decades postmodernism, as one of these new philosophies, has become, as Harvey (1989, p.39) states, a concept to be wrestled with such a battleground of conflicting and political forces that can not be ignored. The origins of the philosophy is usually attributed to Lyotard and Jameson, who championed the belief that all modernist meta-narratives are based on trans-historical, universal truths. However, Warf (1993, p.163) contends that the endeavor to offer one worldview should not be included in the postmodern perspective. Rather than thinking in terms of an absolute, and one clear and coherent “center”, postmodernism urges taking into account disorder, incoherence, and chaos when attempting to determine why certain events occur. Applicable to basic societal organizing principles, postmodernism urges a great sensitivity to the “differences” that exist among phenomena in all sorts of ways both obvious and subtle (Cloke, Philo and Sadler, 1991, p.171). The main focus here is on attentiveness to the many differences that distinguish one phenomenon, event, or process from one another based on a request for not obliterating these vital differences in the force of theories (Cloke, Philo and Sadler, 1991, p. 171).

Warf (1990, p.588) takes stringent issue with postmodernists’ inability to articulate a viable substitute for modernism. In addition, Warf (1990, p.588) asserts that postmodernism is not a new “paradigm”; it is opposed to all paradigms. He believes postmodernism emphasizes differences, not similarities; uncertainty, not certainty; ephemerality, not permanence; the contradictions, substance rather than silent discourses. Furthermore, postmodernism offers novel perspectives on questions of social structure, meaning, epistemology, language and progress.

The postmodernism picture of reality is very different from that of modernism. Postmodernism rejects the concepts of a rationally structured universe of modernism, while supporting the idea that reality is much more complex than modernists would have individuals believe. Moreover, postmodernism claims that no language can describe the complexity of reality, and no theory can capture the complexities and messiness of societies (Warf, 1990, p.590). In Warf’s (1990, p. 591) own words that infused with realist theories of science, postmodernism negates the positivist assumption (that so often reappears in Marxism) that explanation consists of showing specific events to be outcomes of wider processes. Generalized theories of places inevitably oversimplify the inherent complexity of particular areas, and mask their diversity and uniqueness in an attempt to force conformity to preexisting conceptual categories (Warf, 1990, p.590).

From this perspective, postmodernist’s claim that positivist science (the paradigmatic expression of modernism) has traditionally been reductionist in nature, in that it attempts to explain complex systems. This reduction may be achieved either by constructing relatively simple analogous models, or by seeking comprehension of the properties of the smallest components of which the system is composed. However, this view erases variance and oversimplifies the complexity of society and social systems. Moreover, the modernist’s claim of objectivity in the research process is a false one since knowledge is socially constructed and people view the world through personal life experiences. Thus, the real task of all researchers is to admit their subjectivity, incompleteness, and partialness of perspectives.

In conclusion, postmodernism is a new and energetic voice in philosophy that takes into account a multiplicity of voices and contradictory ideas. In forming narratives, postmodern theorists emphasize problems of language and representation, which can include among other things, narratives, texts, symbolic forms, hermeneutics, and the assumption of social and analysis (Barnes and Duncan, 1992). More importantly, at the root of postmodernism is the search for differences rather than similarities. Hence, the concept of the world having inherent order is summarily dismissed.

References

• Barnes, T., and Duncan, J. 1992. In writing worlds: Discourse, text, and metaphor in the representation of landscape (pp. 1-12). New York: New York
• Routledge, Cloke, P., Philo, C., and Sadler, D. 1991. The differences of postmodern geography. In Approaching human geography: An introduction to contemporary theoretical debates (pp. 170-201). New York: Guilford
• Harvey, D. 1989. The condition of postmodernity. Chapter 3. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Warf, B. 1995. Separated at birth? Regional science and social theory. International Regional Science Review 18,2: 185-194.
• Warf, B. 1992. Postmodernism and the localities debate: Ontological questions and epistemological implications. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 84:161-168.
• Warf, B. 1990. Can the region survive postmodernism? Urban Geography 11:586-93.

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

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

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

The secular theories of language

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

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

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

Animal cries

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

‘Primitive’ groups

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

The speech of infants

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

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

The bow-wow theory

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

The ding-dong theory

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

The pooh-pooh theory

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

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

The gesture theory

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

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

Language as a divine gift

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES

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

The field of medicine, as one of the oldest fields of scientific inquiry, has been particularly rich in examples of changing theories. Aristotle (384-322 BC) thought that the brain was a device used for cooling the blood. By contrast his teacher Plato (427-347 BC) had thought that it was the ‘originating power of the perceptions…’ Yet today scientists accept Plato’s older theory. In the 1800s the state of the art brain science was phrenology, attributing certain aspects of human character to bumps and ridges on the skull. This is frowned upon today as mumbo-jumbo. However, it must be remembered that at the time it was considered as a hard and fast observational science. It was not until 1861 that Paul Broca refuted this ‘science’ by attributing language to a certain region of the brain, since referred to as Broca’s area. Even so, phrenology continued to have its adherents and practitioners until the early 20th century. Many of the current theories of thought, emotion, psychology and psychiatry are based on observations only slightly more reliable than those made by the phrenologists. The tools used are more expensive (e.g. CT, M RI and PET scanners) but the basic approach is comparable to that of the phrenologists.

Currently a revolution is taking place in biomedical science. ‘This revolution centres upon (aptly named) free radicals’. The most famous of these is nitric oxide (NO).

Nitric oxide is a noxious chemical spewed out by car exhausts and power stations. For years it was considered to be one of the most poisonous gases known to man. However, in the 1980s scientists discovered that many cells of the body also produce nitric oxide. Hundreds of research papers have been produced in recent years investigating this short-lived compound. It is currently a more popular research topic than AIDS, Alzheimer’s and arthritis. NO has revolutionised scientists understanding of blood pressure and the whole manner by which cells communicate.

It is thought that when released by the body in minute amounts it is capable of carrying biochemical signals from cell to cell resulting in a whole array of bodily events. In circulation NO helps to control the bore of the blood vessels and hence blood pressure. In the nervous system it is thought to be implicated in memory. In the immune system it purges both foreign bodies and tumour cells. The medical profession have realized NO’s importance in many conditions not just high blood pressure but also stroke, septic shock, clotting disorders and even impotence.

The mode of action of NO is its most controversial aspect in terms of traditional understanding of cell biology. To start with NO is what chemists call a free radical. This means that it carries an unpaired electron and is therefore highly reactive, unlike any other molecules in the body’s well- documented and well-balanced signaling system. NO liberated from cells is converted within a split second to nitrogen dioxide NO2 by combining with oxygen. Most of the both’s other communication molecules are complex by comparison, molecules such as amino acids, catachol amines and small peptides. These conventional message transducers deliver signals by latching on to specific receptor molecules. A classic example is the catachol amine adrenaline latching onto beta receptors. This is usually described by a lock and key analogy. The mechanism of NO goes against this completely by penetrating cells directly. Once inside cells it stimulates the production of a small nucleotide called cyclic guanosine monophosphate or cGMP. This cGMP induces a host of functions ranging from muscle relaxation to slowing down blood clotting.

The importance of NO was first discovered in the regulation of blood pressure. NO was found to cause blood vessels to dilate by relaxing the muscles in the vessel walls. Blood vessels are made up of layers of muscular, elastic and fibrous tissue, and have a lining called the endothelium. The endothelium releases NO which drifts into the surrounding layer of muscle. There it triggers the events that make the muscle relax at the diameter of the vessel then widens. This process is controlled by the mechanical effect of the blood flow. When blood rushes over the cells of the endothelium it causes them to distort slightly. This distortion results in the release of NO. From this it can be seen which in turn sends messages to the vessel walls via a whole arm of receptors and transmitter muscles. The balance between the central nervous control and local control is not well understood. For years doctors have used drugs that affect the nervous control to lower blood pressure with apparent success, for example beta receptor blockers. However the result of the various NO experiments indicate that the nervous system is comparatively insignificant in the regulation of blood pressure. The mysteries of beta-receptors and there complexities are far from solved, yet these are supposed to provide the scientific bases of high blood pressure tablets, such as beta blockers. ‘There must be a continued balance between these two powerful forces. – the local vasoconstrictor control and the central vasoconstrictor control.’ says Sir John Vane, of the William Harvey Institute, London.

The theories of circulatory control have been revolutionized by one man. Salvador Moncado, who first documented the role of NO in blood pressure and clotting: ‘We worked for hundreds of years thinking that the arterial system is a system of resistance vessels, when conductance is probably the better concept to use – which is the inverse of resistance. ‘This has resulted in a conceptual reversal of all research in the field of high blood pressure. The novel theory has cast doubt on the mechanisms of all the blood pressure lowering drugs that have been used, and yet these drugs do appear to work. This has parallels with the use of the drug aspirin, which has been used for decades for various ailments, but theories of its mode of action were only documented in the late 1970s. What came first – human theories or the practical results? A current controversy is whether we should consider high blood pressure to be the result of too much adrenaline or too little NO.

Doctors have unknowingly utilized the NO system for years. Since 1867 amyl nitrite and nitro-glycerine have been used to relieve the horrendous heart pains experienced by sufferers of angina pectoris. Doctors knew that these nitrogen containing drugs dilated blood vessels and reduced blood pressure. But the exact biochemical Involvement in scientific research should always convince us that humankind has a very limited understanding of the universe and that most of the work done by us only involves giving names to existing phenomena.

Examples of this are not only confined to biology. A recent discovery has rocked the world of cosmology, with much more importance to Muslims. The data that have come back to earth from the Bubble telescope suggest that the universe is only 8 billion years old. Scientists consider these to be the most reliable data involving the most elaborate experiments performed by humans on this subject. Yet Big Bang theory calculations tell us that the universe is no younger that 16 billion years. The best real data tell us 8 billion years: the calculations from theory tell us 16 billion. The inadequacy of theories could not be more dramatically demonstrated.

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.

But does religion, as the atheists claim, really conflict with science? We can tackle the question in the context of biology. Out of all sciences biology would appear to have the nearest contact with religion because it concerns ‘life’.

Man is, of all living creatures, the most complex and perfect organism. It is man who discovered science and knowledge and it is he who advances it. The first thing that even the earliest man must have been curious about is his own existence as a living creature. There is a something – which we do not know the nature of which distinguishes all living creatures from other existing entities like minerals, rocks, water etc. But all living creatures – men, animals, plants – have this something in common.

It seems reasonable to believe that all living beings are therefore subject to the same law. The Ruler who enforces this law, manifests His power among the living creatures distinctively through His different attributes or names. He who has introduced Himself to us by His personal name, Allah, also reveals His many other names. Among these, Hayy probably has a certain priority; it means the ‘life-giver’. Then, names like Rezzaq – the provider of needs – Musavvir who depicts, shapes and forms – Hafiz the protector, keeper – Mucemmil who creates perfectly and designs beautifully, and so on.

Many non-believers have tried to offer a rational, ‘scientific’ explanation for the original transition form inorganic matter to organic life form. But science is also subject to relativity. Philosophers, scientists – from ancient Greece to today’s biology theorists – have written hundreds of books and contrived many theories about how life began, but that is all they have ever been able to do – offer theories and speculations. They have taken a roundabout route because, up to now no-one has come up with an explanation contrary to the reality of the Qur’an.

The act of creation and giving life belongs only to God. It has not been and will not be explained otherwise. Qur’an, the last holy book, unlike the other holy books, has preserved and protected its originality. One evidence of its superiority to all philosophies and theories is that not one of the accepted hypotheses conflicts with the realities of the Qur’an.

It is encouraging that today many scientists believe that religion has the main role in explaining creation. The biology theorists in particular are trying to build new explanations for the origin of life in accordance with religion.

Despite the great developments in fields like genetic engineering, molecular biology, DNA and immunology, scientists have still not been able to close the immense gap between organic and inorganic matter. ‘Life’ remains the biggest miracle in the universe. False theories like Darwinism and other evolution theories that refuse to accept the miracle of creation are collapsing one after another.

Heinsberg’s theory of ‘indeterminism’ in quantum mechanics, smashed materialism completely, in particular the stubborn notion of ‘cause’ and ‘result’. Later the American philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn, put forward the argument that there are not, and cannot be, any final scientific theories. This is true as, throughout history, we have witnessed that almost all theories have lost their ‘truth’ and been replaced by new theories.

A paradigm, as Kuhn calls it, or a way of seeing, dominates every branch of science for a certain period and then gives way to a new one. According to Kuhn, there is no perfect paradigm in any branch of science. For example a group of researchers begin to work in a certain field within their own paradigm, using their own special methods. In time, an explanation in this field becomes accepted by most or all scientists. Then, the researchers who believe strongly in this paradigm try to develop it as far as they can. Then begins a period of solving problems and riddles, in which the researchers proceed to new discoveries within the boundaries of the paradigm. Kuhn says that this is a stage in which scientific progress is made without cuts. After a while, however, the researchers come face to face with new data which conflict with their paradigm, precisely because all paradigms have certain boundaries. For this reason, there is no paradigm into which you can fit the whole of scientific knowledge at any one time. Arguments amongst the scientists about the data that do not fit the paradigm continue until someone comes up with a new paradigm that can cope with the new data.

So far, all theories, put forward as paradigms, have only explained part of the reality or facts. These paradigms have not all been completely wrong, but they have never been completely right either. For example, certain natural phenomena can still be explained with the physics of Aristotle, while most of the time we use Newton’s laws or, in some situations, Einstein’s theory of relativity. And as regards biology, there are some cases where even Darwin was right.

However, man cannot close his eyes to the reality of creation, as a whole and like an ostrich bury his head in the sand.

The famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, has a different view on the matter. He measures the health of a theory by checking whether it has too many gaps or missing links, or not. On this ground he states emphatically that ‘Darwinism is not a scientific theory’.

What we can derive from Popper’s ideas or Kuhn’s theory of paradigms is that reality cannot be fully explained by scientific knowledge. Science can only shine a light on some few of the hidden facts of the universe.

Nicholas Maxwell thinks that science will not advance only by increasing the number of experiments for each theory. To explain the purity and the beauty of nature, scientists have to offer theories as pure and as perfect as nature itself. Is it possible to come up with a theory like this? Does man have to push the reality of creation aside – which brings an explanation of everything – to get lost in the mazes of the theories?

The Qur’an explains the origin of life, the ecological balance in nature, the development of the embryo and many other facts so perfectly, that any biologist who reads it must place his head on the ground to worship God.

We expect all scientists to read and respect the Qur’an, because, up to now, no one has proved the knowledge it contains to be wrong. The Qur’an is the word of God and cannot he wrong.