Intelligent Design or Accident?

Probably both.

Mutations are `accidents`.

Mr Gill:
Ek Gull dusso.
Baba Adam pehla hoya si ya Lucy?????

All of Biblical foundation sounds hollow in evidence that we know for fact life existed much before Abrahem and Adam gospels.

I wonder what your stand is on that subject?

delhiwala:

You don`t need my answers to your questions because you have the answers. What a coincidene! You mentioned Lucy and you know what; I have nearly finished reading ``Lucy: The Beginning of Humankind`` by Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey. This is a worth reading book. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

The process of evolution in some form or another as the answer to how the universe was and is currently formed does seem likely..due to the vast preponderance of evidence relative to the word for word ``creation theory``

The question...is as much as science can ultimately offer the ``how`` in all of this..it has not been able nor seem likely to be able to shed one shred of evidence to the ``why`` Stephen Hawkings seems to agree with this latter point in his written works.

re#4: science(as i understand) never concerns itself to the Why part.

so assuming that science is supposed to come up with some prophetic/hallucinatory statements about the reason(s) of existence OR eg. why are we so shit scred by the thought of Death.. is pointless in the first place.

The issue is bigger than evolution vs. creationism (or intelligent design, as the creationists have now restated their views). The issue is one of the scientific method vs. conjecture. You can fly a plane based on scientific principles. You cant do that based on conjecture.

Just the past weekend I was watching Alien Planet on Discovery. It was a virtual voyage to a distant galaxy, Darwin 4. Light would take 6-7 years to travel from earth to it. Many werid reatures were described and the possibility for their existence was discussed. Some of the comments were:

Human life is very precious and we will appreciate it when we will realise how many complex steps took place. In gist, it was an accident.
We are jsut coming out of the cave like a caveman. It is just a beginning, another 200,000 - 300,000 years will be interesting.

With regard to the religious books, less said, the much better.If the inquiring minds had given up, we would still be thinking that earth is the center of the universe and sun revolves around us.
Every tom, dicka nd harry religious book says some rubbish about earths creation without any proof. I wonder has any one of these have said anything, atleast about the dinosaurs? Now we know they existed and what happened to them. Does any of these books even mention them. If think not because when these books were written no one even knew about these creatures.

Alien planet had a comment : todays earth would been very different had the meteorite not decimated the majority of the creatures they existed then.

I think the emergence of humans on planet earth via Hazrat Adam is a stochastic approach. I think there existed pre Adams in that Domain of universe which completed course of their existence and completed their cycles. And therefore this cyclic expedition has a very valid link to the preceding life. Maybe the blissful existence has contribution added to the dispersion factor to Human Race. Otherwise Prophethood comes under the conception of profanity.

-Dard-e-Dil kay wastay paida kiya Insaan ko
warna ata’a-t kay liye kuch kum na thi KaroBiya.n

(Iqbal)

What if it is an accident by design?

Mohammad Gill:

Darwin`s model of evolution, known as ``the survival of the fittest``, is inherently flawed and skewered. A gargantuan raft of scientific data illustrates the absence of any empirical scientific evidence in support of the alleged ``spontaneous generation of life`` in the first place, let alone the evolution of life forms from one species into another.

Anthropologically and historically, the fossil evidence to date indicates the spontaneous appearance, without the existence of any earlier related life forms, of a vast number of life forms around 600 million years ago known as the `Cambrian explosion`, followed by very long periods (tens of millions of years) of minor changes occurring within species (a process known as Stasis) and the absence of any examples of possible evolutionary links between species prior to, during, or after this period.

Biochemists identify the most serious flaw in Darwin`s Theory is that due to the `irreducible complexity` associated with the biochemistry at a molecular and cellular level. Darwin`s theory cannot be applied to the evolution of life at this fundamental level, which implies other factors must be operating in the evolutionary process.

Biologically efforts to correlate evolution with mutations in gene frequencies have not embraced success. Exhaustive analysis at the molecular level err to demonstrate the expected correspondence between changes in gene products and the sorts of organismal changes which constitute [what Lewontin called] the ``stuff of evolution.``

I feel that it does not matter, if the evolution is a Darwinian mechanism, such as natural selection, or an alternative evolutionary mechanism. Most do not suffice to explain macroevolution-the origin and history of major innovations such as phyletic lineages. They explain, at best, only microevolution, not macroevolution.

Why has there been such a proliferation of alternative definitions to natural selection? For example, Mohammad Gill, you mention so many variants in your thesis such as that of Imam Ghazali etc...We suggest that they arise because of the failure of the historical, Darwinian concept of natural selection to provide a compelling explanation of major events in the history of organic life, such as the spectacular rise of 50 or so phyla in the Cambrian explosion, and how these phyla changed over time in the history of complex, multisystem life.

It is high time that tainted scientific eyes look at anthropology, biochemistry or biology: all are indicative of the failings of ``the fascist survival of the fittest`` theoreum.

An investigative mind, religious or not, will go even to the depths of the ocean to empirically prove that science should not be worshipped as a religion.

Science too has its trappings. Darwin is a chief pedestal.

Most of us need such pedestals.

Not out of necessity.

But out of desire.

Thanks for this (as usual) thought-provoking article!

I would be curious to see a summarized list of the 20 or so “cosmic constants”. Is it available somewhere?

Note:
[…It suffers from extreme extrapolation.]
This particular line got me thinking into a completely different direction. As human beings, we are so limited by our size and other physical attributes (let us not even try to get into that of mental prowess and imagination) yet most of us manage to get through life more or less just fine. In the old days, when the “flat earth” was considered a given, it still did not prevent most people from leading normal lives- with all its mixed flavors of happiness/sorrows, virtues/evils, and so forth. If the domain remains narrow enough, one can go on just fine with a much simplified model of life. Sometimes, a discussion whose premise seems to be trying to expand for another set of people (who may be highly resistant to such expansion) the very domain they are “comfortable” with appears futile and I am not sure that many times it can meet the cost/benefit criteria. However, that’s just me!

Another good one Gill sahib. Thanks for the effort.

Re: # 10 ozarkhalid

It does not seem that you have a hidden agenda to promote the creationists thesis. If that is the case, and you are honestly decrying the hold that dogma (in ALL its forms, pseudo-scientific or otherwise) has on the human mind, then I quite agree with your sentiments ...

Re: # 11 BeeJay

Quite true, such lofty flight of ideas may be like casting pearls before swine. No matter what the nature of the ultimate reality of the universe, the inescapable reality most of us have to focus on asserts itself on the first of each month when rent comes due.

...SR

Religeous beliefs and theories based on scientific facts and observations can not be compared head to head.Scientific theories are always open to criticism as they answer some questios and at the same time give birth to some more questions which the next generations try to answer and hence it is a continuous process.Did Darwin ever claim that he has solved the mystery for ever with 100% precision?
On the other hand,the genesis is belief and closed chapter..no arguements but to be accepted as it is.Does Quran say the same thing about it? if yes,then how can one expect muslims to go against that?

Let me try to comment in some orderly manner as follows:

tahmed32’s comment, “You can fly a plane based on scientific principles. You can’t do that based on conjecture,” is very appropriate. There is so much evidence all around us in support of science that we cannot shut our eyes and obliterate it. Thousands of things that we take for granted in daily life provoke us to ponder.

Consider the ordinary X-ray film, for example, that is used in daily diagnosis of fractures, pulmonary infection of lungs, etc. Years and years of hard work went into its development. Same goes for the MRI. The gadgets that are regularly used in the medical field without which a proper diagnosis cannot be performed, were not always there. They were not wished into existence by the creationists. If you take time to consider the treatment of raw water at a water treatment plant which produces potable water for human consumption, you’ll find ample evidence to believe in science.

Post number 10 by Ozerkhalid shows that he has read relevant material about evolution, which is really good. He needs time to digest the information. The scientist who formulated the concept of punctuated evolution (statsis) is a believer of the theory of natural selection. Please continue reading some more.

Although I had stated in the article, “The theory of evolution has not yet reached that stage where it stands or falls by its own merit. It suffers from extreme extrapolation,” the intent was not to undermine or stymie Darwin’s theory of natural selection. There is nothing wrong with it. Extreme extrapolation referred to the transition from microevolution to macroevolution. There is sufficient empirical evidence to convince the ‘specialists’ that the concept of common ancestral descent is correct. However, it has not been presented to the non-specialist readers in a very convincing manner. A non-specialist reader gets lost in the maze of unfamiliar nomenclature and terminology describing the various fossils.

Ozer mentioned about going to the depths of ocean in pursuit of empirical evidence; believe me the scientists have done precisely that and some more. Just consider a group of white Americans and Europeans, who are so very sensitive to heat, digging and peering into the old rock strata in the gullies of Ethiopia and Kenya in the sweltering summer months, hunting for the old bones and fossils, reconstructing the numerous pieces of a skull together, dating the various ‘finds’ by the complex methods of radio-chrometery – for what? They are collecting evidence in support of theory of evolution. If there were nothing to it, they wouldn’t waste their lives in the wilderness. Science is not mere speculating; it is hard work. I have cut and pasted in the following a list of 26 cosmic constants that BeeJay wanted.

Thanks for SR’s and drlokraj’s comments. Wishing all of you well,

Mohammad Gill

Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
More than two dozen parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and to unevenly
if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production
4. electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans and uneven stellar luminosities
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
7. ratio of numbers of protons to electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation
9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
10. mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
11. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous
if slower: stars would not be luminous enough
12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star dusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span
if smaller: the sun`s orbit would be too radically disturbed
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
17. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
18. 12Carbon (12C) to 16Oxygen (16O) energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon ground state energy level for 4Helium (4He)
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
20. decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be)
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
21. mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes
22. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
23. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life`s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
24. supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
25. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production
if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet
26. ratio of exotic to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars could form.

God Says after reading the article:

``Israfeel, blow that horn. Jibreel... it`s time.``

Mr Gill,

Re: the constants. Absolutely beautiful! Thanks for that.

Umer M